Until Death Penalty is Abolished, Administer it with Caution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2012
Summary: A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
Full Text below:
A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
This was the atmosphere during the Supreme Court's first death penalty sentencing debate. Before five judges can sentence a person to death, they must do more than review the trial proceedings behind closed doors. They must throw open their doors and hear diverse views before arriving at their decision.
It is difficult to carry out a death sentence these days, even if one follows the letter of the law. It is difficult to imagine how easy it was during the 1980s. Martial law had just been lifted. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on nearly 80 convicts. The executions were carried out less than a week after sentencing.
That was an era during which the death penalty was carried out without hesitation. Occasionally protests erupted. A Taiwanese Aborigine named Tang Yin-sheng murdered his employer and two members of his family. Tang's ethic origin and society's sense of responsibility lead to controversy and to questions about the death penalty and his execution.
Some groups advocated the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou delayed signing the death warrants for Su Chien-ho and three other death row inmates. This established a foothold for opponents of the death penalty. They fought for and obtained multiple appeals before the administration of the death penalty. Execution dates were gradually pushed back. Former Justice Minister Shi Maolin quietly ceased carrying out executions. The EU abolished the death penalty, adding to the momentum. These changes gradually took effect.
Ma's successor Wang Ching-feng also refused to carry out death sentences. She eventually broke her silence and publicly proclaimed that she would not carry out any death sentences. The controversy over the abolition of the death penalty reached new highs.
This tells us that the move to abolish the death penalty was a top-down process, one that gradually gained some degree of public support. The move to abolish the death penalty still lacks strong public support. The support remains shaky. Calls to abolish the death penalty stress the criminals' right to life. But they fail to consider the victims' right to life. They fail to uphold justice. They fail to respect the feelings of the public.
These developments have left society wracked by controversy over whether to abolish the death penalty. Advocates of abolition relentlessly pressure the government. The government behaves opportunistically and panders to them. But on some cases they find themselves under pressured to carry out the executions. To execute, or not to execute? Time and again, the two sides face each other down.
The reality is that the majority of people in our country support the death penalty, provided it is carried out in accordance with due process. Therefore the abolition of the death penalty will require a more rational, more in-depth debate that solicits a wide range of opinions. The reasons pro and con must be debated, as well as the meaning of human dignity. The Supreme Court's death penalty debate has created a good platform for such a national dialogue.
During the first debate, we saw many people mired in the past. We saw the pain and tears of the victims' families. We saw the families' bitterness at the perverse turn of events. We saw prosecutors confront the possible abolition of the death penalty. We saw them agonize over whether to seek the death penalty. We saw defendants' lawyers show the defendants' human side as well.
There are judges who have a whole range of considerations about sentencing someone to life or death. If someone commited a murder many years ago, repeats the offense today, how should we judge it? If we don't sentenced him to death during the trial of the first instance, under what circumstances do we change the sentence during the second and third instances? How should we judge the defendant's family background, society's responsibility human dignity? What would be considered genuine remorse, adequate compensation, or a sincere apology?
Would allowing the families of the victims to determine whether the defendant should live or die demonstrate respect for the families, or would it amount to gambling? Is the government's policy of not seeking the death penalty binding on the families of the victims? How does one distinguish between the death penalty and life imprisonment? In the past, it was a life for a life. It all depended upon the will of a judge. Now this is all turned upside down. It must all be reexamined.
Of course, such a reexamination demonstrates our respect for life. Some say the purpose of the death sentence is to prevent people from taking "an eye for an eye." It is a social contract to leave the decision to a judge, The judge naturally may not flip flop randomly, and render judgments according to his whims. He must abide by some objective standard.
These standards, represent society's appraisal of various factors regarding the value of life. The appraisal of these factors must be the result of debate. They must treat all defendants equally as much as possible. They must always reflect the value of life.
The debate over the abolition of the Death Penalty has changed. Once death sentences were rendered without hesitation, and carried out. The move to abolish the death penalty has sprouted and grown. Today it has come to fruition. The Death Penalty is not an easy issue to contemplate. We should begin by ensuring careful judgments in capital cases. Perhaps one day, the death penalty can be abolished. But that must be a collective decision. Only such a decision, can avoid flip flopping resulting from special circumstances.
死刑的思辯：若難廢死 先求慎判
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.27 03:21 am
台南割喉案凶嫌一句「殺一個人不會判死刑」，攪翻政府一年多未執行死刑的紀錄，六名死囚因而被送上刑場。這說明了社會文化底蘊對接受死刑廢除，還有相當的距離，遇有殘酷罪犯挑釁，死刑囚籠便要少掉幾人。
就在這種氛圍下，最高法院首度召開死刑的量刑辯論，五名法官要判一個人死刑，不可再只審閱文書、關門決定，還須打開大門，聽取各方的意見，始作定奪。
看今日依法處死的艱難，很難想像在剛解嚴不久的一九八九年、一九九○年，最高法院曾經分別判決近七十、八十名死刑犯，而且判完不到一周就執行完畢。
那是個對死刑毫不遲疑的年代。偶有的騷動，是原住民湯英伸殺害老闆一家三口案，湯的出身與社會應負責任的論辯，稍稍探出了頭，質疑死刑的決定與執行。
推動廢除死刑的團體，從法務部長馬英九緩簽蘇建和三人死刑令開始搶下灘頭堡，接著爭取在死刑執行前增加多重審查程序，執行時日於是逐漸推遲；前法務部長施茂林中後期默默停止執行死刑，及歐盟廢死的聲勢，隱隱推波發酵。
王清峰接任，持續不執行死刑；直到她打破沉默公開表明不執行死刑，死刑與廢死之爭才突然攀上高峰。
這段過程告訴我們，廢死的動力，是由上而下成形，進而蔚成聲勢。廢死缺乏深厚的社會土壤包容，很容易鬆動。廢死的主張，強調重視罪犯的生命權，相對的，便難以兼顧被害者的生命權，與社會大眾對公道正義的感情。
因為這樣的發展，我們的社會總是在相互激盪的情緒下面對死刑存廢爭議。支持廢死團體不斷擠壓政府，政府投機迎合，卻又在特定案件壓力下重啟執行；廢死與否，就在一次又一次相互叫囂中更形對立。
現實是，我國的多數民眾支持經由法律程序判決被告死刑；故而，廢死與否，我們需要更多理性的思辯，深一層地面對死刑所及的各種人，各種事，各種價值，反覆思辯死刑存廢的理由、人性尊嚴的意義。最高法院的死刑辯論開啟了一個很好的思辯平台。
在首次辯論中，我們看到許多深埋在過往判決中的幽微。我們看到被害人家屬的苦與淚，乃至家族的辛酸、變故；看到檢察官面對廢死政策的掙扎，對是否求處死刑的徬徨；看到被告律師呈現被告凶惡犯行外，人性溫情的一面。
還有法官對於判生或判死的長串考量。多年前殺人，如今再犯，如何評價；一審不判死，二、三審什麼情形下可以改判？應如何看待被告的家庭背景、社會責任，人性尊嚴？怎麼樣才算被告誠摯的賠償、道歉？
以被害人家屬意見決定被告的生死，是尊重家屬，還是賭運氣；政府不求死刑的政策，可以拘束被害人家屬的心意嗎？死刑與無期徒刑的生死之隔，以何區分？過去要奪人一條命，全在法官心裡的一本帳，爾今全要翻出來，一條一條計較。
當然，如此計較，正是尊重生命的表現。如果說，死刑判決是避免民眾直接「以暴易暴」的社會契約，契約約定將決定權交給法官，法官當然不能隨機搖擺，憑著感覺下判決，而應該釐出一些客觀的標準。
這些標準，代表社會對於生命價值中各種因子比重的評比。這些因子比重，經過辯論淬鍊，不但必須盡可能拉齊不同被告之間的生死線，也時時在逼人省思生命的價值。
死刑存廢之議，從毫不遲疑地判決、執行，到廢死的萌芽、壯大，如今可說到了盤整、思辯的時刻；既然死刑存廢絕非容易的議題，何妨從慎判、精判死刑做起。或許有一天，死刑判決會消失，但那必須是社會共同的選擇，這種選擇，才不會再因特殊個案的挑激而有起伏。
Until Death Penalty is Abolished, Administer it with Caution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 27, 2012
Summary:
Full Text below:
A defendant in Tainan accused of slitting another person's throat boasted that "Killing only one person will not result in the death penalty." The government had not imposed the death penalty for over a year. The defendant's boast prompted the government to execute six inmates waiting on death row. This shows that society has a long way to go before it will abolish the death penalty. Provocations by brutal criminals will result in reductions in the death row population.
This was the atmosphere during the Supreme Court's first death penalty sentencing debate. Before five judges can sentence a person to death, they must do more than review the trial proceedings behind closed doors. They must throw open their doors and hear diverse views before arriving at their decision.
It is difficult to carry out a death sentence these days, even if one follows the letter of the law. It is difficult to imagine how easy it was during the 1980s. Martial law had just been lifted. The Supreme Court imposed the death penalty on nearly 80 convicts. The executions were carried out less than a week after sentencing.
That was an era during which the death penalty was carried out without hesitation. Occasionally protests erupted. A Taiwanese Aborigine named Tang Yin-sheng murdered his employer and two members of his family. Tang's ethic origin and society's sense of responsibility lead to controversy and to questions about the death penalty and his execution.
Some groups advocated the abolition of the death penalty. Justice Minister Ma Ying-jeou delayed signing the death warrants for Su Chien-ho and three other death row inmates. This established a foothold for opponents of the death penalty. They fought for and obtained multiple appeals before the administration of the death penalty. Execution dates were gradually pushed back. Former Justice Minister Shi Maolin quietly ceased carrying out executions. The EU abolished the death penalty, adding to the momentum. These changes gradually took effect.
Ma's successor Wang Ching-feng also refused to carry out death sentences. She eventually broke her silence and publicly proclaimed that she would not carry out any death sentences. The controversy over the abolition of the death penalty reached new highs.
This tells us that the move to abolish the death penalty was a top-down process, one that gradually gained some degree of public support. The move to abolish the death penalty still lacks strong public support. The support remains shaky. Calls to abolish the death penalty stress the criminals' right to life. But they fail to consider the victims' right to life. They fail to uphold justice. They fail to respect the feelings of the public.
These developments have left society wracked by controversy over whether to abolish the death penalty. Advocates of abolition relentlessly pressure the government. The government behaves opportunistically and panders to them. But on some cases they find themselves under pressured to carry out the executions. To execute, or not to execute? Time and again, the two sides face each other down.
The reality is that the majority of people in our country support the death penalty, provided it is carried out in accordance with due process. Therefore the abolition of the death penalty will require a more rational, more in-depth debate that solicits a wide range of opinions. The reasons pro and con must be debated, as well as the meaning of human dignity. The Supreme Court's death penalty debate has created a good platform for such a national dialogue.
During the first debate, we saw many people caught in the past. We saw the pain and tears of the victims' families. We saw their bitterness at the perverse turn of events. We saw prosecutors confront the abolition of the death penalty. We saw them agonize over whether to seek the death penalty. We saw defendants' lawyers show the defendants' human side as well.
Some judges have a multitude of reservations about sentencing someone to death. If someone commited a murder many years ago, and repeats his offense today, how should he be judged? If we did not sentence him to death during the first trial, under what conditions do we change the sentence during the subsequent appeals? Should we take into account the defendant's family background, society's responsibility, and human dignity? What would be considered genuine remorse, adequate compensation, and a sincere apology?
Would allowing the families of the victims to determine whether the defendant should live or die show respect for the families? Or would it amount to a game of Russian Roulette? Is the government's policy of not seeking the death penalty binding on the families of the victims? How does one choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment? In the past, it was a life for a life. Everything depended on the discretion of a judge. This has now been turned on its head. Everything must be reexamined.
Of course such a reexamination shows our respect for life. Some say the purpose of the death penalty is to prevent people from taking an eye for an eye. It is a social contract to leave the decision to a judge. Of course the judge must not flip-flop randomly. He must not hand down judgments based on his whims. He must abide by objective standards.
These standards represent society's conclusions about the value of life. These conclusions must be the result of debate. They must treat all defendants equally. They must always reflect the value of life.
The debate over the abolition of the death penalty has evolved. Once death sentences were rendered and carried out without hesitation. The movement to abolish the death penalty has taken root and grown. Today it has come to fruition. The death penalty is not an easy issue to deal with. We should begin by making careful judgments in capital cases. Perhaps one day the death penalty can be abolished. But that must be a collective decision. Only such a decision can avoid the flip flopping that results from ad hoc decision making.
死刑的思辯：若難廢死 先求慎判
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.12.27 03:21 am
台南割喉案凶嫌一句「殺一個人不會判死刑」，攪翻政府一年多未執行死刑的紀錄，六名死囚因而被送上刑場。這說明了社會文化底蘊對接受死刑廢除，還有相當的距離，遇有殘酷罪犯挑釁，死刑囚籠便要少掉幾人。
就在這種氛圍下，最高法院首度召開死刑的量刑辯論，五名法官要判一個人死刑，不可再只審閱文書、關門決定，還須打開大門，聽取各方的意見，始作定奪。
看今日依法處死的艱難，很難想像在剛解嚴不久的一九八九年、一九九○年，最高法院曾經分別判決近七十、八十名死刑犯，而且判完不到一周就執行完畢。
那是個對死刑毫不遲疑的年代。偶有的騷動，是原住民湯英伸殺害老闆一家三口案，湯的出身與社會應負責任的論辯，稍稍探出了頭，質疑死刑的決定與執行。
推動廢除死刑的團體，從法務部長馬英九緩簽蘇建和三人死刑令開始搶下灘頭堡，接著爭取在死刑執行前增加多重審查程序，執行時日於是逐漸推遲；前法務部長施茂林中後期默默停止執行死刑，及歐盟廢死的聲勢，隱隱推波發酵。
王清峰接任，持續不執行死刑；直到她打破沉默公開表明不執行死刑，死刑與廢死之爭才突然攀上高峰。
這段過程告訴我們，廢死的動力，是由上而下成形，進而蔚成聲勢。廢死缺乏深厚的社會土壤包容，很容易鬆動。廢死的主張，強調重視罪犯的生命權，相對的，便難以兼顧被害者的生命權，與社會大眾對公道正義的感情。
因為這樣的發展，我們的社會總是在相互激盪的情緒下面對死刑存廢爭議。支持廢死團體不斷擠壓政府，政府投機迎合，卻又在特定案件壓力下重啟執行；廢死與否，就在一次又一次相互叫囂中更形對立。
現實是，我國的多數民眾支持經由法律程序判決被告死刑；故而，廢死與否，我們需要更多理性的思辯，深一層地面對死刑所及的各種人，各種事，各種價值，反覆思辯死刑存廢的理由、人性尊嚴的意義。最高法院的死刑辯論開啟了一個很好的思辯平台。
在首次辯論中，我們看到許多深埋在過往判決中的幽微。我們看到被害人家屬的苦與淚，乃至家族的辛酸、變故；看到檢察官面對廢死政策的掙扎，對是否求處死刑的徬徨；看到被告律師呈現被告凶惡犯行外，人性溫情的一面。
還有法官對於判生或判死的長串考量。多年前殺人，如今再犯，如何評價；一審不判死，二、三審什麼情形下可以改判？應如何看待被告的家庭背景、社會責任，人性尊嚴？怎麼樣才算被告誠摯的賠償、道歉？
以被害人家屬意見決定被告的生死，是尊重家屬，還是賭運氣；政府不求死刑的政策，可以拘束被害人家屬的心意嗎？死刑與無期徒刑的生死之隔，以何區分？過去要奪人一條命，全在法官心裡的一本帳，爾今全要翻出來，一條一條計較。
當然，如此計較，正是尊重生命的表現。如果說，死刑判決是避免民眾直接「以暴易暴」的社會契約，契約約定將決定權交給法官，法官當然不能隨機搖擺，憑著感覺下判決，而應該釐出一些客觀的標準。
這些標準，代表社會對於生命價值中各種因子比重的評比。這些因子比重，經過辯論淬鍊，不但必須盡可能拉齊不同被告之間的生死線，也時時在逼人省思生命的價值。
死刑存廢之議，從毫不遲疑地判決、執行，到廢死的萌芽、壯大，如今可說到了盤整、思辯的時刻；既然死刑存廢絕非容易的議題，何妨從慎判、精判死刑做起。或許有一天，死刑判決會消失，但那必須是社會共同的選擇，這種選擇，才不會再因特殊個案的挑激而有起伏。
No comments:
Post a Comment