FMT:
Rights groups condemn latest Taiwan execution
TAIPEI: Rights activists on Friday condemned Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s government for executing a convicted murderer, saying the continued use of capital punishment undermined the island’s progressive reputation.
Death row inmate Weng Jen-hsien, found guilty last year of setting a fire that killed his parents and four relatives in 2016, was executed by a firing squad on Wednesday, the justice ministry said.
Weng, 53, was the second man to be executed since Tsai came to power in 2016 despite a pledge to eventually abolish the death penalty.
The ministry described Weng’s crime as “brutal and ruthless”.
But it added: “Our policy is to gradually abolish the death penalty.”
International and local rights groups urged Taiwan to immediately announce a moratorium on executions and set a timeline for complete abolition.
“The government said its policy is to gradually abolish the death penalty but it took opposite action to carry out its second execution,” Taiwan Association for Human Rights secretary-general Shih Yi-Hsiang said.
“This is certainly a regression in human rights. Carrying out executions will not solve any problem,” he told AFP.
It's a humongous smear on Tsai Ing-wen's human rights record, given that her government has already bravely legalised same-sex marriage.
 |
This is the second execution since President Tsai came to power in 2016 (Pixabay pic) |
TAIPEI: Rights activists on Friday condemned Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s government for executing a convicted murderer, saying the continued use of capital punishment undermined the island’s progressive reputation.
Death row inmate Weng Jen-hsien, found guilty last year of setting a fire that killed his parents and four relatives in 2016, was executed by a firing squad on Wednesday, the justice ministry said.
Weng, 53, was the second man to be executed since Tsai came to power in 2016 despite a pledge to eventually abolish the death penalty.
The ministry described Weng’s crime as “brutal and ruthless”.
But it added: “Our policy is to gradually abolish the death penalty.”
 |
Dei Podah |
International and local rights groups urged Taiwan to immediately announce a moratorium on executions and set a timeline for complete abolition.
“The government said its policy is to gradually abolish the death penalty but it took opposite action to carry out its second execution,” Taiwan Association for Human Rights secretary-general Shih Yi-Hsiang said.
“This is certainly a regression in human rights. Carrying out executions will not solve any problem,” he told AFP.
Chiu E-Ling, director of Amnesty International Taiwan, accused the government of making a “cynical attempt to bury bad news” by carrying out the execution on the same day it announced the donation of 10 million face masks to countries hit hardest by the coronavirus.
President Tsai Ing-wen is from the Democratic Progressive Party, but the capital punishments carried out under her Administration have been anything but 'progressive'.
Personally I am somewhat shocked as I had believed in Taiwan's erstwhile promise to come into the modern civilised world where States do not sanction nor conduct 'legalised murders' of human beings.
https://www.cinemaescapist.com/2019/10/world-between-us-taiwan-hbo-tv-review/
ReplyDeleteabove is 2019 best series in douban, touch on many issue including death penalty.
to me personally, as long as the victim is not my family n friend, i am willing to be progressive n civilised.
So a murderer can kill, torture, slice, dice, chop, burn, etc. And under the so called democatic progressive bs, this murdered should only be caught, jailed, and fed?
ReplyDeleteSo what happens to the traumatized family, frens, dreams, hope, etc of the victim? Its their luck? They have to deal with it? Their human rights to live in safety, harmony, peace? How do u compensate that?
Most of the time, human rights activists can be really stupid. Wonder if they are always high on drugs.
a civilised society does not seek vengeance - as Gandhi said "an eye for an eye and soon the whole world will be blind"
Deletebut society ensures criminals and/or dangerous people are confined to prevent them from recommitting crimes, and as punitive measures (short of capital punishment) to deter others from committing crimes, and rehabilitated if such possibilities exist
society's values are established by leaders, not by the victims' families who would be too distraught, emotional and vengeful to think rationally and constructively - too close and suffering from 'conflict of interests' to provide any useful proposals other than revenge killing
the sentence for jailing a murderer for life will depend on the nature of the crime, the prisoner and the society. A horrific crime such as sexual murder of a kid or young person (as happened horrifically in India to 23-year old Joyti Singh Pandey who died in Singapore Mt Elizabeth Hospital after she was medevac-ed there) merits a life sentence in its very meaning, to wit, jailed for the entirety of the prisoner's natural life. No parole allowed forever, nor should the sentence be limited to 20 years.
But murder not of coldblooded intent should deserves a sentence of a definite period, say, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years - let judges, criminologists and sociologists work that out
A civilised society does not allow sanctioned murder by excuse of state laws which in reality is nothing more legalised/revengeful murder in turn
Jailing a criminal maybe a justice towards society as it is a form of removing harm from infesting the society itself.
DeleteBut it does not give justice to the murdered victims. Sure the victims are also a part of society, however, they are specifically targeted. Therefore 2 types of justice must be enforced. Justice towards society and justice towards specific victims.
Judges sentence punishments based on the law of the land which are mostly formed by lawmakers/mps/etc.
The most fair is to let the victims choose to prosecute along with the state or not.
If yes then the max punishment of death penalty must be provided.
If they choose not to, only then the state may use a max punishment of life imprisonment.
as I mentioned earlier, society's values are established by leaders, and not by the victims' families who would be too distraught, emotional and vengeful to think rationally and constructively - too close to the tragedy and thus suffering from 'conflict of interests' to provide any useful proposals other than revenge killing. It requires a very cool and mature person to NOT want to kill back (execute the criminal), and I have seen or read of such a person in Australia who urge the non-execution of a murderer/bomber. Of course he didn't propose to free the murderer but just not to execute for the sake of revenge
DeleteSociety's role is NOT to provide its legal system as a platform for revenge; it is to protect society by jailing criminals and punishing them (short of execution) with confinement so as to ensure society would be protected and also as a deterrent effect to would-be murderers/criminals.
You may think that justice for the victim's family is only by executing the criminal but that's only a form of revenge-killing to satisfy the rage in the victim's family, a murder in return (an eye for an eye etc), Yes, that is not justice but revenge. Justice is best served when the criminal pays for his crime by losing his freedom through serving time in jail, a punishment short of executing (murdering) him or her, where he/she can reflect for a long long time (perhaps forever) for his/her wrong act