bhchao Posted January 1, 2005 at 08:46 AM Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 at 08:46 AM There seems to be a growing movement in Taiwan's parliament to abolish the death penalty on the island. If this movement succeeds, Taiwan will be the first in Asia to abolish the death penalty. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Other democratic countries like South Korea and Japan also have the death penalty, but the issue has been given consideration in those countries as well, although the momentum is not as strong as in Taiwan. The number of executions in Taiwan have fallen rapidly since 1998. In that year there were 32 executions in Taiwan. There were 7 in 2003. The movement in Taiwan's parliament to abolish capital punishment is likely to gain heavy opposition from the public. According to a recent poll, up to 80% of Taiwan's residents oppose abolishing the death penalty. In order to gain gradual acceptance from the public, the DPP has made abolishing capital punishment a long-term goal. This would be a tough act to follow through because Asian societies have traditionally favored capital punishment. Among developed nations, only the US, Japan, and South Korea retain the death penalty. This issue is out of the question in China given its long history with capital punishment. I think one of the few times that the death penalty was abolished there was during the reign of 唐玄宗 in the Tang dynasty. What do you think of the movement to abolish capital punishment in Taiwan? Do you believe in tit-for-tat retribution for serious offenders, or do you think abolishing it on the island will set a good or bad precedent for other Asian countries to follow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberian Posted January 1, 2005 at 11:35 AM Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 at 11:35 AM I find it absurd that serious offenders gets to live. Someone breaks into your house, stabs you to death, rapes-then-kill your wife, and kills your child(ren). Then sets your hosue on fire to get rid of any evidence. Someone, you miraculous survived the stabbing, and manage to crawl out of the burning house and lives to tell the story in court. The death penalty has been abolished. Now the offender is laughing his butt off knowing that he made your life a living-nightnare, and he lives on. Not only that, you, as the victim have to pay part of your tax as everyone else to keep him alive until he dies in the life setence. The offender is now in a cozy warm prison, 3 meals a day, has a workout room, can play basketball, and maybe, just maybe have Internet access! While a teenager out on the street is homeless, shivering in the cold, and starving. This homeless teenager has not commited any crime. Ever bought a membership to a workout gym? If so, you would know how expensive it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yonglan Posted January 1, 2005 at 12:48 PM Report Share Posted January 1, 2005 at 12:48 PM Ever bought a membership to a workout gym? If so, you would know how expensive it is. What? I only oppose the death penalty because I can't imagine the human race coming up with a system of justice that is foolproof. Look at all the poor guys that keep getting exonerated for their bogus rape convictions now that the evidence can be tested for DNA. And many more won't get this chance. If you're dead, there is no second chance. If we could have a perfect justice system, I'd be in favor of icing a lot more than murders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted January 2, 2005 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 01:05 AM It makes me very happy to learn that the Taiwanese are moving towards the abolishment of the death penalty. That would set a good, and needed, example in Asia. In my opinion, the death penalty is a barbaric form of punishment that must be eliminated from civilised society. I am very happy to live in a part of the world where the most a state is allowed to do to its citizens is to deprive them of their liberty. Even in democratic societies there are bound to be occasional abuses or errors in the application of justice. Making the right to life sacrosanct means that miscarriages of justice can be later redressed. Anyway, unlike yonglan, I would still oppose the death penalty even if we could have a perfect justice system. I am convinced that the state should never have the capacity to impose any kind of torture on its citizens. That only leads to more violence and to the brutalisation of society. Yes, criminals can commit heinous crimes, but a democratic state must never stoop to the level of criminals. Before anyone asks me what I would do if a five-year old daughter of mine were brutally killed by a maniac, my answer to this question is very simple: I would kill the bastard if I could. That, however, would be the feeling of a desperate man. A fair justice system should be above such vengeful emotions. Sadly, when a murder is committed, the victim cannot be brought back to life, so no matter what we do to the murderer, restitution is simply impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen Posted January 2, 2005 at 01:37 AM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 01:37 AM I think there are crimes that are done out of emotions that occur in the average sane human such as theft or purposeful murder and then there are crimes committed that are beyond the average persons capability such as killing and eating random blonde woman. I think the former ones are the ones, the punishment for which, should be thought on more carefully while the latter are probably best punished by death, if only for practical purposes i.e. those peoples humanity has been so lost that they will never be able to function within our society. But before killing them we should glean as much information from them about what makes someone become so inhuman so that we can prevent crimes such as theirs from happening in the future. The idea that there are murderers that "breaks into your house, stabs you to death, rapes-then-kill your wife, and kills your child(ren). Then sets your hosue on fire to get rid of any evidence" and then laugh about it after as if to say "yes! I did it and got away with it and now im just gonna enjoy my time in prison" is pretty simplistic. Punishing those types of crimes do nothing to deterr similar criminals since they are all insane beyond what you or i could ever understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepoppy Posted January 2, 2005 at 01:51 AM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 01:51 AM As Jose* describes himself, someone whose family are victims of serious crime, or the victim themself should they survive, will usually desire revenge. However, in European Society the role of our Justice system is surely to mete out punishment on behalf of Society as a whole and NOT on behalf of the individual. In determining punishments we consider that the Justice system is serving Society rather than the Individual or the victim, shi bu shi? We consider that the victim is not in a position to make the judgement, that is why judges are employed. Therefore the concept of the punishment being a reflection of the distress of the victim and their family is not adhered to in Europe (I won't say 'Western Society'). Here in England the example of one of the last people to be executed highlights the very weakness of capital punishment that Yonglan mentions. When the Police cornered the two criminals on a rooftop, oen of the men, (who had learning difficulties), shouted to his accomplice who was holding a gun, "Let him have it!". The whole case rested on the interpretation of this phrase; did it mean 'give him the gun' or 'shoot him!'? Many believe that the man was wrongly convicted and executed. Furthermore the fact that he had learning difficulties highlights the fact that it is often those who are most marginalized in society who receive this the most harsh of all sentences. Yet, this brings us back to the old 'Asian values' debate. Though I oppose capital punishment, perhaps it is appropriate to Taiwanese Society. I do find it bizarre that it is the United States, with its high Christian population, uses capital Punishment though...what number was that commandment again?... BCChao, what is the name of the DPP in pinyin or characters? I only know the names in Chinese., so I don' know which party you mean... *Jose, I cannot type an accented 'e'! ctr+alt+e has been replaced with a Euro symbol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhchao Posted January 2, 2005 at 05:36 AM Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 05:36 AM Bluepoppy, the written characters for the DPP is 民主進步黨 or 民進黨. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wushijiao Posted January 2, 2005 at 05:42 AM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 05:42 AM I don't have much of a problem with the death penalty in principle. I do have a problem with it in practice, however. In the US, there is ample eveidence of the giving out mistaken death penalties to innocent people which have then later been overturned on DNA evidence. My question is, to those familiar with Taiwan, what is the source of this anti-death penalty sentiment? Is it the idea that the State should not be allowed to kill, even criminals? Or is it a practical matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amdir_Flassion Posted January 2, 2005 at 11:08 AM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 11:08 AM I'm against the death penalty in principle. As Jose said, killing the convicted doesn't bring the victims back. And as many point out in their posts, those who are executed are usually come from disadvantaged backgrounds. The main motivation for the death penalty, I see, is to satisfy a desire for revenge, and that's it - just a desire! Overall, I see no point in killing one life for another. Good on Taiwan for moving to getting rid of the death penalty. I know that Hong Kong doesn't have it, but then again HK is not a country. However, bhchao, I think the Phillipines doesn't have the death penalty. I remember news from the Chinese community there calling for the death penalty to be returned after a spate of kidnappings and murders last year. Apart from punishment, the justice system should also focus on rehabilitation. That's what I think judicial systems across the world ought to concentrate more, and reform criminals to be acceptable people in society again. But one can argue, what if the rehabilitation doesn't work? The convicted person can go kill again, so why not just give him/her death? Remove a threat to society? I think this is one of the strongest arguments for the death penalty. What do u think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberian Posted January 2, 2005 at 12:21 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 12:21 PM Many repeatedly mentioned that executing the offenders does not bring back the victims. Well, that is obvious. As opposed to not executing the offenders will bring the victims back? Either way, the victims are not coming back. Why does the people have to keep on paying part of their taxes to keep these offenders alive and having to feed them daily. I am tire of hearing about offenders getting lighter sentence or getting away from it because they are 'mentally ill'. Virtually all offenders claims this BS. This is means there is no such thing as a sane murder? If it is just a simple desire. Then that means people who have not experienced a loss of a loved one by murder would not support the death penalty. Yet, there are still people out there that still support the death penalty without having to experience the loss of a loved one murdered. I cannot bear the fact that there are brutal murders out there kept alive; fed, and clothed, and sheltered by the very people who pays the taxes to be secured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amperel Posted January 2, 2005 at 02:53 PM Report Share Posted January 2, 2005 at 02:53 PM I do find it bizarre that it is the United States, with its high Christian population, uses capital Punishment though Not at all. It is exactly because of its high Christian population - especially on the conservative side with its holier-than-thou black-and-white if-you-don't-believe-in-me-you-shall-go-to-hell theology - that makes it so much easier to just sit back and condemn someone else to death and think the problem is solved. Plus America I think is always very proud of her self-suffiency. There is a reason why people think it's a land of gold - you just have to work hard at it. But that entails self-governing - on one else but you are responsible for you. Oh and maybe God - famous rappers and athletes do always thank Him when they are on the podiums And there is a reason for the success of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" - I think it would be an excellent conceptual art piece if not for Mel's well publicized staraight-face religious conviction. People react to the tortures and the sufferings that normally deemed obscene but if offered the "right" reasons, we embrace it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhchao Posted January 3, 2005 at 05:11 AM Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 at 05:11 AM My question is, to those familiar with Taiwan, what is the source of this anti-death penalty sentiment? Is it the idea that the State should not be allowed to kill, even criminals? Or is it a practical matter? You might want to check this out from the Taiwan Ministry of Justice: http://www.moj.gov.tw/english/file/execution.pdf The first paragraph seems to point to that reason and that rehabilitation should be a part of punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wushijiao Posted January 3, 2005 at 05:32 AM Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 at 05:32 AM Hmm. Thanks for the link, but it doesn't seem to come up from the PRC. Rehabilitation should be the goal of a justice system. Asian societies have traditionally favored capital punishment That's true, but couldn't it be also agrued that Asian societies believe that every human being can be educated and reformed? Wouldn't this leave more room to convince people of the virtues of rehabilitation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jose Posted January 3, 2005 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 at 05:41 PM *Jose, I cannot type an accented 'e'! ctr+alt+e has been replaced with a Euro symbol I appreciate the effort to write my name with an é Anyway, leaving out the accent is fine too. In Spain, the name José (with the stress on the second syllable) is colloquially pronounced as Jose (with the stress on the first syllable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roddy Posted January 4, 2005 at 12:08 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 at 12:08 AM http://www.chinese-forums.com/deathpenalty.doc - this is the document mentioned above that couldn't be accessed. Roddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhchao Posted January 4, 2005 at 02:53 AM Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 at 02:53 AM Sometimes there are certain individuals who cannot be rehabilitated (those whose inhumanity is incomprehensible). There are also others who sincerely repent for their crimes in prison and acknowledged the wrongdoings they committed in the past. For those, rehabilitation is possible. I also did not have a problem with the death penalty in principle. However it is a million times worse in executing an innocent person than letting a guilty person go free. I have read stories of defendants in Taiwan being convicted and handed death sentences based on the testimonies of their accomplices alone. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/07/24/2003180217 The death penalty might make sense if the defendant is truly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and the crime committed was unspeakably heinous. But many times proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult to achieve. Look at all those death sentences in the US being overturned by DNA evidence confirming one's innocence. A while back former Illinois governor George Ryan, who supported the death penalty in principle, emptied death row of all its inmates because he felt that flaws in the US justice system needed to be redressed. If we could have a perfect justice system (as Yonglan pointed out), then that is a different story. That's when the real debate begins regarding the morality of the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodcutter Posted January 4, 2005 at 03:11 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 at 03:11 AM You won't ever get a perfect justice system, so why mention it. People who deserve the death penalty and do not receive it should at least be imprisoned indefinitely, which can also happen through a miscarriage of justice, and effectively ends your life. If you are a normal person, your chances of being killed by a released murderer are far higher than your chances of taking a bum rap. If you say that you will want to revenge your stabbed daughter, have no intention to control yourself if such a situation arises, and you do not advocate the death penalty, that is hypocritical. I'm not totally for the death penalty though, because it does seem to create a culture of extremity and violence, and do little to reduce the general crime rate. Taiwan will certainly get an image boost if they go ahead with the plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhchao Posted January 4, 2005 at 03:35 AM Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 at 03:35 AM People who deserve the death penalty and do not receive it should at least be imprisoned indefinitely, which can also happen through a miscarriage of justice, and effectively ends your life. Many people say that life imprisonment is worse than being put to death. Personally I would prefer nipping my life in the bud rather than spend my entire life in prison. Many view life imprisonment as a harsher punishment than death. ("Let them live the rest of their life in prison in misery") To look at it objectively, I think there are more advantages of life imprisonment than death other than the reason above. As other posters mentioned here, it gives the judicial system another chance to correct the sentence handed to the convicted should they be innocent after all. Another thing to note is that based on this document from the Judicial Ministry, http://www.chinese-forums.com/deathpenalty.doc opposition to the abolition of the death penalty in Taiwan declines to 40% when more stringent life imprisonment measures are included. I think Asian societies should incorporate rehabilitation into their justice systems and tackle the social and economic factors that cause many people to commit crimes, such as poverty and lack of education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpascoe Posted January 4, 2005 at 06:38 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 at 06:38 AM I am against the death penalty. Legal systems are flawed and always will be. Innocent people may die. This is not alright with me. Use of the death penalty does not decrease the incidence of violent crime and thus does not act as a deterrant. This has all been said. But my main feeling is simply that murder is wrong. That it is carried out by society (in the case of capital punishment) rather than an individual doesn't make it OK. Society includes me and I don't want that responsibility on my shoulders. I also don't want to pay for someone to kill these criminals in my stead. I think the death penalty is dehumanizing. My question is this: what exactly is the justice system for? Punishment? Rehabilitation? Protection of society? Where these three differ, which should take precedence? I ask because I'm not sure what I think about this. What do you guys think? Although I understand others might, I don't have a problem paying to lock someone up for life so they can't harm others. Yes, there are homeless on the streets, but these are separate problems. Raise taxes and pay for both? I don't know. Finally, if someone did something terrible to my mother, I would be furious and out for blood. I don't actually think this is hypocritical, even though I oppose the death penalty. It would still be murder and still be wrong. I'm just not sure I'd be able to stop myself. I would accept punishment even if it turned out to be my life. But I don't think the justice system should be used as an instrument for revenge, not even mine. Well, actually this is all speculation, I have no idea what I would do and hope I never have to find out! Jia you Taiwan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberian Posted January 4, 2005 at 07:14 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 at 07:14 AM Revenge means to punish in return for insult, injury, or any wrong-doing. Lets get this straight first. Just another word for more or less retaliation. X kills Y, because Y murdered X's loved one, Z, is revenge. X punches Y, because Y pushed X is revenge. X slaps Y, because Y stared at Z's chest is revenge. X hits Y's bumper, because Y cut him off is revenge. X demands money from Y, because Y broke X's music player is revenge. Etc., etc., etc. There are many ways of seeking revenge, not just death. Be it fining the offender, jailing for 1 day, life-sentenced, or death. They are all revenge. Many of you are classifying revenge as just taking the offender's life for his/her killing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.