On Tuesday, the Taipei Times ran an article, "Explaining the process of capital punishment," penned by Deputy Minister of Justice Wu Chen-huan (吳陳鐶) deflecting criticism that the executions on March 4 were illegal. I welcome the ministry's response to our concerns, but would like to point out a number of problems with his argument.
First, Wu defends the Amnesty Act (赦免法). It is important to respond to this, because this is the heart of why the executions were illegal. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) grants all death row inmates the right to seek a pardon or commutation, and since the ICCPR was incorporated into domestic law in 2009, proceeding with executions in the absence of this right violates the law.
Huang Juei-ming’s (黃瑞明) stance is clear (“Germany’s path toward abolishing executions,” March 13, page 8) in that he supports the death penalty. However, we see no argument in his article that would support its legitimacy.
Since resuming executions last year, has public security improved in Taiwan? Have the perpetrators in the Taichung shooting incident or in the attack on Sean Lien (連勝文) been deterred by the death penalty?
Instead, Huang assumes the role of an historian. By selectively distorting historical details, he attempts to deal a blow to the legitimacy of the movement to abolish capital punishment.
