Time: 2024-09-20 19:54 News Quote: Interview Writing Editor: LIU,YU-CHIU
In response to the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 8 of the 113th Anniversary of the Constitution issued today (20th), which found that the death penalty is “conditionally constitutional.” Scholars believe that this judgment did not challenge the majority of public opinion in support of the death penalty, and that social unrest was small and had no impact on the government. It will have a good political effect, and it will be like helping the government defuse a bomb. Whether to carry out the death penalty will be the focus of the next stage. However, some scholars believe that the “most serious type” that can be sentenced to death is unclear. This sentence is just a “relay station” for the preservation and abolition of the death penalty, and there are still concerns about controversy.
WANG,HSIN-FU and other 37 death row inmates believed that the death penalty infringed on the people’s right to life guaranteed by the constitution and asked the justices to interpret the constitution. The Constitutional Court ruled on the 20th that the death penalty for homicide and other crimes was constitutional. However, it also set many hurdles for the death penalty, which must meet the most serious circumstances. , and requires mandatory defense, oral and verbal debates, and unanimous decision by the collegiate judges of courts at all levels, etc. before the death penalty can be imposed; and those with mental disorders or other mental defects that affect self-defense cannot be sentenced to death.
The death penalty is “conditionally constitutional” and is a smart decision that conforms to the general public opinion.
Regarding the “conditional constitutionality” of the death penalty, Yuan-Hao Liao, associate professor of the Department of Law of National Chengchi University, said that this judgment meets the general needs of public opinion, and most of the “conditional constitutionality” set up have been implemented in practice and will not change with the situation. There have been too many changes as a result of the interpretation of the Constitution, and this time the justices adopted an approach that favors the American faction. Yuan-Hao Liao said: “(Original sound) This time the Constitutional Court actually adopted a more American approach. It generally recognized that the death penalty can be used, but set many thresholds and conditions to make execution and trial more rigorous and strict. However, it did not exclude this option and still retained it. So the judge’s decision is very smart. 』
Wang, Po-Chi, an associate professor at the Department of Criminal Justice and Research at Ming Chuan University, also holds the same view. He believes that the judgment that some death sentences are constitutional and that some death row inmates can file extraordinary appeals is “artistic”, but at least it does not run counter to the 83% of public opinion that supports the death penalty. It is also close to the views of 96% of the victims’ families. He is opposed to the justice’s restriction of the death penalty. application of the death penalty, but still retains the death penalty as a last resort, and does not insist on directly declaring the death penalty unconstitutional to express its affirmation.
The next step for conditional constitutionality: Execution of the death penalty in accordance with the law becomes the focus?
Yuan-Hao Liao further pointed out that although the justice did not challenge the views of the majority of society this time, the conditions for death sentences set were not very different from those in practice, which highlighted that everyone hopes to retain the death penalty, but strict procedures must be followed and the principle of proportionality must be ensured. , this is also the consensus of the courts and justices. Yuan-Hao Liao also suggested that society should supervise the government more in the next stage, because after the declaration of the partial constitutionality of the death penalty, there is no excuse not to carry out the death penalty. The justice has helped the government to remove the trap and defuse the bomb, so it should Implemented in accordance with the law. Yuan-Hao Liao said: “(Original sound) The previous excuses are gone. In the past, you said that we all were petitioning for the interpretation of the constitution, so we would not implement it. Now that the results of the interpretation of the constitution have come out, you can appeal to the extraordinary. There is no reason.” Please execute it. The chief judge also knew that and made this judgment. I think this judgment is purely political. I think it has helped the government defuse a bomb. It seems to have a good political effect on the government and social unrest. It’s also smaller, that’s clear. 』
Scholars worry: “The most serious type of crime” is unknown, and problems may arise one after another
However, CHEN,CHIH-LUNG, a retired professor at the School of Law of National Taiwan University, is worried that this verdict is an “ambivalent and dilemma” verdict. It only clearly identifies those who committed kidnapping and ransom and committed murder, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Only the death penalty is unconstitutional, but the rest of the article discusses the establishment of crime and does not touch on the relationship between “crime” and “punishment.” He believes that the justice can only determine the “most serious type of crime” before he can impose a death sentence. However, the “type of criminal circumstances of an individual case” is not clear enough. Instead, the emphasis is on the need for mandatory defense and verbal debate, and the collegial panel judges of all levels of courts must reach a unanimous decision before they can impose a death sentence. Regarding matters such as the death penalty, problems may arise one after another in the future. Lawyers will vigorously argue whether the type of crime in a particular case is the “most extreme”, without resolving the controversy over whether the death penalty itself is unconstitutional. CHEN,CHIH-LUNG: “(Original sound) It will cause a big problem. Many cases are not the most serious crimes, so they cannot be sentenced to death, but must be sentenced to life imprisonment. Life imprisonment will cause danger to society. What is the alternative? He has no alternative.” To encounter these problems, he did not have all the supporting measures. 』
Wang, Po-Chi also said that “the death penalty is constitutional under certain conditions,” but the conditions are unclear and there is a lack of detailed sentencing standards. He looks forward to amending the law in the future to formulate a package to ensure that the crime is commensurate with the punishment. He said: “(Original sound) For example, whether he made a mistake or did it intentionally today, or even the number of people who killed people have different sentencing standards. If he made a mistake today or did he do it intentionally, will it lead to his being presumed to be in prison for life in the future? Is the sentence eligible for parole after 10 years in prison? Either he can be paroled after 20 years, or he can be imprisoned for life without parole. He should have a more detailed grading system in the relevant supporting packages later. 』
Chueh-An Yen, a law professor at National Taiwan University who advocates that the death penalty is unconstitutional, said that he believes that the Constitutional Court’s decision is not ideal and has many controversial aspects. However, overall, there are still many efforts in the general direction of abolishing the death penalty. Chueh-An Yen said that in this judgment, the justices mainly focused on controlling the exercise of judicial power, which in fact created a lot of procedural and substantive obstacles to the pronouncement and execution of the death penalty. On the one hand, the judgment seemed to affirm the constitutionality of the death penalty, but in fact But it avoids a thorough discussion of the death penalty. Chueh-An Yen believes that if the execution and method of the death penalty violate the due legal process guaranteed by the Constitution and infringe on human dignity, it may still constitute unconstitutional torture. This points out “some” direction of argument that the death penalty may be unconstitutional, but he believes that the justice missed the point A historical opportunity, quite a pity.
The death penalty and constitutional interpretation are just relay stations. Social communication and support cannot be stopped.
The existence or abolition of the death penalty has been discussed in Taiwan for decades. With the results of this constitutional interpretation, has the debate over the death penalty in Taiwan been settled? Wang, Po-Chi had reservations. Wang, Po-Chi said that this constitutional interpretation is just a relay station for the preservation and abolition of the death penalty, and it will never end because of the strict restrictions on the requirements for the death penalty. However, there is a lack of clear and detailed sentencing standards. In the future, it may still be followed by other major social cases. When it happens, the question of whether it’s a death sentence will once again be debated.
Wang, Po-Chi said that with the verdict that “partial death penalty is constitutional”, if Taiwan wants to gradually move towards abolishing the death penalty in the future, the government must strengthen communication with society and try to convince the 83% of people who support the death penalty. He believes that complete supporting measures It is never advisable to implement abolition rashly before it is completed, otherwise it will be difficult to convince the public, and subsequent supporting facilities must have a buffer period.