TAEDP Press Release, March 10, 2010
2010/03/11
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty
Press Release, March 10, 2010
On February 23, Legislator Wu Yu-sheng said in a question session in the legislature that he was not opposed to abolishing the death penalty, but that the 44 prisoners currently on death row should be executed. On March 8, the nominee for prosecutor-general Huang Shi-ming told the legislature he supports scrapping capital punishment, but that a legal basis must be drawn up to allow for postponing executions. In absence of this, death row inmates should be executed soon after their sentence is finalized.
This morning, National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun, responding to a question from Legislator Wu, said finalized death penalty sentences should be carried out.
While the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) is pleased by an increase in support for abolition, it regrets statements made in favor of executing the 44 people currently on death row.
1. What are the justice minister’s rights?
Article 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that death sentences shall not be carried out without the approval of the “highest justice authority of the executive branch” — the minister of justice. Case files must be sent to the minister, who has the right to review each case, determine whether a retrial or extraordinary appeal may be called for, or order the prosecutor’s office to re-examine the case. These powers are part of the minister’s legal role of ensuring due and fair process. The Code of Criminal Procedure thus makes clear that the justice minister is much more than a rubber stamp on the way to the executioner. The minister’s role is to ensure that the utmost caution is exercised in death penalty cases.
Nowhere does the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulate that the justice minister must sign off on execution orders within a given period of time. On the contrary, the legislation purposely leaves this question to the discretion of the minister. (By contrast, prosecutors and prison authorities do not have the power to postpone executions, but must carry out the sentence within three days of receiving the minister’s order.)
In fact, the minister is not only not obligated to sign an execution order within any given period of time — if the minister declines to sign an execution order, he or she is also not required to explain or justify the decision, nor to submit it to judicial scrutiny. This illustrates the extent of the minister’s power to check the judiciary in death penalty cases and is in line with democratic checks and balances.
2. The government’s review of judicial procedures and compliance with human rights standards
The government has, under the past three justice ministers (ministers Wang Ching-feng, Shih Mao-lin and Chen Ding-nan), had a policy of gradually moving toward abolition. The decision not to sign any executions orders reflects the government’s determination to review the country’s criminal procedures and their compliance with human rights standards.
Late last year, legislation implementing the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) took effect in Taiwan. Article 6 of the ICCPR protects the right to life and stipulates that use of the death penalty should be restricted to only “the most serious crimes,” that those sentenced to death shall have the right to seek a pardon or commutation and that pregnant women or minors under the age of 18 shall not be executed. Taiwan still has much to review — within two years as stipulated by Article 8 of the law implementing the ICCPR and ICESCR — to comply with these standards.
3. The UN’s call for a moratorium
In 2007 and 2008, the UN General Assembly passed resolution Nos. 62/149 and 63/168 calling for a global moratorium on executions — a pivotal step on the road to universal abolition. Why are human rights organizations, the UN and the EU working so actively to achieve this goal? Today, most countries that retain the death penalty do so because it is easier and more convenient than abolishing it. They have yet to face the matter squarely and lack a public debate. As a result, there is a general lack of knowledge and information on the subject, and better informed, more mature policies — concerning, for example, alternatives to capital punishment — have no way of taking shape.
Taiwan is already on the right path. It should take advantage of the UN’s call for a global moratorium to provide the time and space needed for an in-depth examination and debate of the problems surrounding capital punishment.
4. Experiences in other countries
From November 1989 to March 1993, a period of three years and four months, Japan held a moratorium on executions due to the opposition of two justice ministers to the death penalty. From October 2005 to September 2006, the justice minister, a devout Buddhist, refused to sign any execution orders.
The South Korean government, meanwhile, has openly opposed the death penalty since 1998 and appointed justice ministers who would not order executions. South Korea has not carried out any executions since then. Yet the justice minister has not been accused of “breaking the law.”
5. The Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty
The Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty took place in Geneva, Switzerland, from Feb. 24-26. This time, the UN’s position on the death penalty was clearer. Not only was the opening ceremony held at the UN’s European headquarters, but UN officials attended and even spoke at the event, including the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak, and Roger Hood and William Schabas, who have coordinated UN Quinquennial Surveys of Capital Punishment. The closing ceremony was attended by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay, who received the congress’ declaration from a representative of the US NGO Kids Against the Death Penalty. In this way, the UN reaffirmed its support for universal abolition.
Professor Schabas said at the congress that he is optimistic. Based on his research, he believes there is a strong possibility that worldwide abolition will be achieved between 2015 and 2025. But the road to abolition will not be smooth. Countries like China will need to have a step-by-step roadmap for this goal to be achieved “on schedule.”
Although Taiwan is not a member of the UN, it should not isolate itself from the international community on matters of human rights. We hope that Taiwan will continue toward abolition and maintain a moratorium on executions, research the alternatives to the death penalty, and work on building public support for abolition. Abolishing the death penalty neither violates the rights of crime victims nor harms public safety.
This is the development we hope for. Otherwise, we fear Taiwan will not achieve abolition any time soon.
Press Release, March 10, 2010
On February 23, Legislator Wu Yu-sheng said in a question session in the legislature that he was not opposed to abolishing the death penalty, but that the 44 prisoners currently on death row should be executed. On March 8, the nominee for prosecutor-general Huang Shi-ming told the legislature he supports scrapping capital punishment, but that a legal basis must be drawn up to allow for postponing executions. In absence of this, death row inmates should be executed soon after their sentence is finalized.
This morning, National Police Agency Director-General Wang Cho-chiun, responding to a question from Legislator Wu, said finalized death penalty sentences should be carried out.
While the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) is pleased by an increase in support for abolition, it regrets statements made in favor of executing the 44 people currently on death row.
1. What are the justice minister’s rights?
Article 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that death sentences shall not be carried out without the approval of the “highest justice authority of the executive branch” — the minister of justice. Case files must be sent to the minister, who has the right to review each case, determine whether a retrial or extraordinary appeal may be called for, or order the prosecutor’s office to re-examine the case. These powers are part of the minister’s legal role of ensuring due and fair process. The Code of Criminal Procedure thus makes clear that the justice minister is much more than a rubber stamp on the way to the executioner. The minister’s role is to ensure that the utmost caution is exercised in death penalty cases.
Nowhere does the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulate that the justice minister must sign off on execution orders within a given period of time. On the contrary, the legislation purposely leaves this question to the discretion of the minister. (By contrast, prosecutors and prison authorities do not have the power to postpone executions, but must carry out the sentence within three days of receiving the minister’s order.)
In fact, the minister is not only not obligated to sign an execution order within any given period of time — if the minister declines to sign an execution order, he or she is also not required to explain or justify the decision, nor to submit it to judicial scrutiny. This illustrates the extent of the minister’s power to check the judiciary in death penalty cases and is in line with democratic checks and balances.
2. The government’s review of judicial procedures and compliance with human rights standards
The government has, under the past three justice ministers (ministers Wang Ching-feng, Shih Mao-lin and Chen Ding-nan), had a policy of gradually moving toward abolition. The decision not to sign any executions orders reflects the government’s determination to review the country’s criminal procedures and their compliance with human rights standards.
Late last year, legislation implementing the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) took effect in Taiwan. Article 6 of the ICCPR protects the right to life and stipulates that use of the death penalty should be restricted to only “the most serious crimes,” that those sentenced to death shall have the right to seek a pardon or commutation and that pregnant women or minors under the age of 18 shall not be executed. Taiwan still has much to review — within two years as stipulated by Article 8 of the law implementing the ICCPR and ICESCR — to comply with these standards.
3. The UN’s call for a moratorium
In 2007 and 2008, the UN General Assembly passed resolution Nos. 62/149 and 63/168 calling for a global moratorium on executions — a pivotal step on the road to universal abolition. Why are human rights organizations, the UN and the EU working so actively to achieve this goal? Today, most countries that retain the death penalty do so because it is easier and more convenient than abolishing it. They have yet to face the matter squarely and lack a public debate. As a result, there is a general lack of knowledge and information on the subject, and better informed, more mature policies — concerning, for example, alternatives to capital punishment — have no way of taking shape.
Taiwan is already on the right path. It should take advantage of the UN’s call for a global moratorium to provide the time and space needed for an in-depth examination and debate of the problems surrounding capital punishment.
4. Experiences in other countries
From November 1989 to March 1993, a period of three years and four months, Japan held a moratorium on executions due to the opposition of two justice ministers to the death penalty. From October 2005 to September 2006, the justice minister, a devout Buddhist, refused to sign any execution orders.
The South Korean government, meanwhile, has openly opposed the death penalty since 1998 and appointed justice ministers who would not order executions. South Korea has not carried out any executions since then. Yet the justice minister has not been accused of “breaking the law.”
5. The Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty
The Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty took place in Geneva, Switzerland, from Feb. 24-26. This time, the UN’s position on the death penalty was clearer. Not only was the opening ceremony held at the UN’s European headquarters, but UN officials attended and even spoke at the event, including the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, special rapporteur on torture Manfred Nowak, and Roger Hood and William Schabas, who have coordinated UN Quinquennial Surveys of Capital Punishment. The closing ceremony was attended by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay, who received the congress’ declaration from a representative of the US NGO Kids Against the Death Penalty. In this way, the UN reaffirmed its support for universal abolition.
Professor Schabas said at the congress that he is optimistic. Based on his research, he believes there is a strong possibility that worldwide abolition will be achieved between 2015 and 2025. But the road to abolition will not be smooth. Countries like China will need to have a step-by-step roadmap for this goal to be achieved “on schedule.”
Although Taiwan is not a member of the UN, it should not isolate itself from the international community on matters of human rights. We hope that Taiwan will continue toward abolition and maintain a moratorium on executions, research the alternatives to the death penalty, and work on building public support for abolition. Abolishing the death penalty neither violates the rights of crime victims nor harms public safety.
This is the development we hope for. Otherwise, we fear Taiwan will not achieve abolition any time soon.