# data[].attributes.body
Death penalty is abolished in 112 different countries — Taiwan is not one of them.

Despite the progression of Taiwan into a more human righteous country, death penalty remains a crucial part in Taiwan’s legal system as a way to punish those who committed serious crimes such as murder. This issue was brought upon after a petition held by 37 inmates who were on death row, and organisations like Amnesty International Taiwan can’t help but support their cause.

# data[].attributes.body
Is Taiwan hindering Asia's human rights development with a piecemeal approach to constitutional change?

On 20th September 2024 Taiwan's constitutional court ruled the death penalty was to remain constitutional, for only the most serious crimes, after considering a petition brought by 37 people on death row.

In 2006 (HRW, 2024) Taiwan abolished a mandatory death penalty for all crimes, retaining it for 50 crimes. Despite this change, all executions since 2002 have been for murder. Taiwan’s most recent execution was in 2020. A man was found guilty of killing six people in an arson attack: after winning praise from the European Union (EU) for a donation of six million face masks during the pandemic. This execution brought criticism from the EU who called for an end to the death penalty.

Amnesty International Taiwan found the recent change, to abolish the death penalty for those with mental disabilities irrespective of its relation to the crime, a small step for human rights. Taiwan’s constitutional evolution seems to fall behind its own rulings. With no one executed for crimes other than murder it raises the question why this was not constitutionally enacted in 2002. Amnesty International Taiwan, along with other non-governmental organisations such as World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, support the full abolition of the death penalty.

Taiwan’s reputation as Asia’s most liberal democracy places itself in a position where it should lead by example. Taiwan rarely carries out the death penalty, and violent crimes is nationally low; yet its perceived local popularity may be a contributing factor in why the constitution is slow to catch up.

With rights groups claiming that thousands of executions are carried out in neighbouring China, it may be time Taiwan puts human rights first, politics second, and steps up as a regional leader on human rights by spearheading real constitutional change.

# data[].attributes.body
Main controversy:

Taiwan’s court rules that death penalty still exists but only for the most serious crime

Key info:

1. People with mental disabilities are exempt from this rule

Not able to stand trial or execution due to their condition

2. Progression against the death penalty (8 April)

A way of upholding their reputation as Asia’s most liberal democracy

the Constitutional Court of Taiwan believes that the death penalty is important for serious offences

Amnesty International Taiwan and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty argued that it is a violation of human rights

RFC perspective

Death penalty is a serious punishment for serious crimes such as murder. The Director of Amnesty International Taiwan states that “Today’s decision is a small step for human rights in Taiwan” and she believes that this step “marks a start in Taiwan’s journey towards abolition”

# data[].attributes.body
The death penalty continues to be a highly divisive topic in today’s world. Although Taiwan has had a reputation for its liberal politics, the nation has been repeatedly criticised for upholding the death penalty. Its recent Court decision recognised the flaws within the death penalty and has excluded 8 people with mental disabilities from death row. However, they should further reflect on the articles within the international human rights law such as the “right to life” and the “right to not be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishement” and should abolish the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.body
NEWSBITE

Main controversy: Taiwan maintains a death penalty despite the development of international human rights law across the world.

Background:

Case filed by Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP), on behalf of 37 people on death row

EU has criticized Taiwan for executions in the past

Amnesty International Taiwan and World Coalition Against the Death Penalty both intervened to support the abolishment of the death penalty

Issues:

For human rights under the HRA, the death penalty violates:

Art 8 - Personal freedom

Art 6 - Fair Trial

Art 2 - Right to Life

Art 3 - Right Against Torture

Taiwan's constitution also guarantees the following in spite of the death penalty:

Art 8 - Procedural guarantees in arrest and conviction

Art 15 - Right to existence

There have therefore been longstanding concerns owing to Taiwanese law being at odds with international legal standards and its own constitution.

The Constitutional Court of Taiwan ruled:

The death penalty cannot be carried out on those with a mental disability

The death penalty is constitutional only for the most serious crimes with the most rigorous legal scrutiny

Taiwanese authorities have two years to amend the law

RFC Perspective:

While this is a win for abolishers of the death penalty worldwide, in practice all it does for the current death row inmates is that it gives them a chance to appeal if their case was decided without a unanimous sentencing by a panel of judges.

Otherwise, the main change seems to be the blanket prohibition of the death penalty for people with psychosocial disabilities (mental health conditions).

In Taiwan, the death penalty remains broadly popular according to opinion polls - it is interesting to consider how this judgment may be received by the public

# data[].attributes.headline
Group 4: Is Death the best penalty? – A case study of Taiwan.

# data[].attributes.subject
Group 4: Is Death the best penalty? – A case study of Taiwan.

# data[].attributes.body
The death penalty, oftentimes referred to as capital punishment, has been a very controversial issue which has evolved in history. Death penalty is simply killing someone as punishment for the crime they committed. There are a lot of opinions about whether this practice is right or wrong. One opinion is that people who commit crimes should be made to pay, not given eternal rest. And there comes the gigantic issue of human rights - the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which is inherent to every human being (Amnesty International, 2024).

Majority of the  countres of the world, over 70% are against the death penalty, with 112 out of 195  abolishing the death penalty, while 144 are in practice (Death Penalty Information Center DPIC, 2024). Why is Taiwan yet to join this list? Although the last execution in Taiwan was since 2020, the country is yet to define and finalize its Death Penalty laws. Most importantly is the way the law affect persons with mental disabilities, whose sense of judgement isn't as stable as sociotypical (otherwise termed normal) people. The most recent update from the Taiwanese government is that the death penalty is still existent in the constitution but would only be used for the most serious offenders.

Death penalty shouldn’t be entrenched in any part of a civil nation’s constitution. All criminals should be made to serve punishment and as much as possible repent of their crimes while they are living and not dead. The world keeps looking on to Taiwan as it effects its laws or policies to abolish the death penalty within the next two years.

# data[].attributes.body
Taiwan’s Constitutional Court has reached the decision to consider the competence of people with mental disabilities “to stand trial or execution”, which enables the exclusion of  8 people out of 45 people on death row from execution.

Although this has been a progress in human rights in Taiwan, it fails to fulfill the standards of international human rights law.

Multiple international organizations who are in full support of abolishing the death penalty criticizes this decision.