03/03/02

Editorial: The death penalty must be killed

There are few questions more puzzling than that of whether Taiwan should retain the death penalty. Puzzling because Taiwanese by and large display an extraordinary amount of cynicism about the nation's judicial processes. Few believe that the courts are free from the influence of either politics or money; many believe that trying to seek redress through the courts is a waste of time and that one's local gangster boss is a more effective arbiter of disputes. Given this huge degree of dismissive cynicism, it is surprising therefore that the death penalty is still so popular here. Hardly anybody believes that the judicial system is infallible, but the majority of Taiwanese, according to occasional surveys, are still ready to allow that system to use a penalty that is irreversible.

Elsewhere in today's newspaper, Peter Hodgkinson, prominent campaigner for the abolition to the death penalty, draws our attention to some information that is widely understood and some that should be better known.

 For example, it is a matter of common knowledge that there is hardly any correlation between levels of violent crime and the retention or otherwise of the death penalty. Arguments about capital punishment's deterrent value are almost universally discredited.

 But here in Taiwan the deterrent argument seems to carry less force than the idea that keeping a "lifer" is an unnecessary expense which execution curtails.

 This chilling pragmatism should be seen against practice in the US -- almost the only Western democracy which retains the death penalty -- where, by the time the various appeals, which can last many years, have been exhausted, it costs far more to execute a criminal than it would to keep him in prison for life.

 It would be interesting to compare similar figures for Taiwan. But remember these figures themselves would be meaningless without a comparison of the appeals processes in the US and Taiwan. Execution might well be a bargain in Taiwan because convicts simply don't get the number of chances to appeal that the US provides. That can hardly be anything for Taiwan to be proud of.

 And of course the US system itself, with its huge appeals apparatus, is still notoriously patchy in delivering "justice." That the penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, blacks and the mentally retarded is a matter of record. Once again, statistics for Taiwan are lacking but we doubt they are superior to those of the US.

 And of course there is one area in which Taiwan has been vastly inferior to the US, namely in that the death penalty has been used for political reasons in the bad old days of KMT dictatorship. One might think that this would have discredited the practice for eternity. Apparently not.

 The government is tentatively suggesting getting rid of the death penalty in 2004. Until then, it is giving judges the right to decide themselves whether capital punishment should be applied. Hodgkinson says that if this is a transition method then it is good thing, although it leaves too much power in judges hands. We have to disagree, because what the Ministry of Justice's action appears to do is make it an arbitrary matter whether the death penalty is awarded or not. Some liberal judges will shun the penalty, conservative ones may impose it if they wish, this injects an arbitrariness into punishment that surely nobody can mistake for justice being served.

 Ironically the ministry's own squeamishness and its lack of conviction to mandate the penalty in all cases of a certain kind shows why the penalty has to go now. 2004 is too far away.

TAIWAN:Visiting analyst calls for end to death penalty

 Peter Hodgkinson, the director of the Center for Capital Punishment Studies at Westminster University in the UK, was invited by the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, the Judicial Reform Foundation and the Taipei Bar Association to visit Taiwan from Feb. 25 to Saturday to promote the idea of replacing the death penalty with a reviewable life sentence. During his stay, Hodgkinson shared his ideas on the death penalty with `Taipei Times' staff reporter Jimmy Chuang

 Taipei Times (TT): When did you begin to focus on this issue?

 Hodgkinson: In terms of formally having some involvement with this issue, I think maybe it was sometime back in 1992 when the Center for Capital Punishment Studies was established.

 TT: What inspired you to devote yourself to study this subject? What was your previous experience relating to death penalty?

 Hodgkinson: I was curious that, in the UK, we do not have the death penalty; but in Texas there is a death penalty. I was curious about the way they did it in England and what they did in Texas. Why is it that there is a death penalty? I just couldn't understand why. Then I began to get more interested in this issue at a theoretical level.

 I am a frequent contributor to the British and foreign press. Prior to joining the [Westminster] university in 1989, I had worked for the Inner London Probation Service for 15 years where I developed expertise on offenders serving life sentences and those with mental disorders. I'm also an adviser on the death penalty to the Council of Europe and a member of the British Foreign Secretary's Death Penalty Panel.

 TT: What does the Center for Capital Punishment Studies do?

 Hodgkinson: The Center for Capital Punishment Studies is under the School of Law at the university and was established in 1992. It is regularly consulted by the media and others researching the death penalty. The center also has a library specializing in death-penalty issues, which is open to all with a scholarly interest in the subject.

 TT: Do you think it's fair for the public to pay taxes to keep criminals alive in prison once the death penalty is replaced by a reviewable life sentence?

 Hodgkinson: I think we really cannot get rid of our responsibilities when things go wrong. When a person commits crimes that may result in the death penalty, it will be a sign that there is something wrong with the person's family, education and society. Simply executing a serial killer does not really solve the problems caused by what he did or the problems which made him do so.

 In the US, a death penalty case can cost taxpayers US$2.5 million to US$3.5 million from trial to execution. For a prisoner who has been detained for 40 years, it costs approximately US$400,000. So a reviewable life sentence is actually cheaper than the death penalty.

 But the real problem is way beyond that. Why do we spend so much money to execute somebody? And even when it is time to execute the criminal, does this person really regret what she or he has done? Does it work? It would not be a smart move to put somebody in an electric chair with so much money if this person never really regrets.

 TT: In your research, did you find that the state encourages criminals once there is no death penalty?

 Hodgkinson: I do not have evidence for this. But just restrict your thinking to the facts of murder and homicide. In regions without the death penalty, these kinds of cases are actually not as numerous as in regions with the death penalty.

 In the Philippines, there are 21 offences which can end up with the death penalty. However, as far as we can see, the crime rate there did not drop a bit because of these strict laws.

 TT: What problems are faced in replacing the death penalty with reviewable life sentences?

 Hodgkinson: First of all, the government must carry out a well-organized plan for replacing death penalty. It doesn't have to be a reviewable life sentence, but it has to be a sufficient penalty to "educate" the criminals.

 Second, how does the government persuade the public that our society is still a safe place once the death penalty is gone.

 Political issues can be an obstacle to the process of making the death penalty disappear. For instance, the way they did it in South Africa was to ask the grand justices to "announce" it through its Council of the Grand Justices. Once the grand justices said that death penalty was actually against human rights and the Constitution and should be replaced, politicians could simply support it and make it happen. They did not have to worry about their own political careers being objected to by those who were pro-death penalty because it was the grand justices' interpretation of the Constitution. It was the law and they were just following it.

 TT: Officials from the Ministry of Justice say that, rather than replace the death penalty, they will let judges make their own decisions and will trust their decision on whether a criminal should be sentenced to death. In other words, judges will not sentence somebody to death that easily, according to the ministry's new policy. Do you regard this as progress? What is your view toward Taiwan's efforts on this issue?

 Hodgkinson: If it's a transition method, I think it's a good thing. But on the whole, I think it is very dangerous to do so because judges will have too much power if this is the case.

 It's my understanding that the Ministry of Justice established the Association for Protection of Victims of Criminal Acts in 1999 to help victims re-organize every aspect of their life. It shows that the ministry is making progress on this issue and is on the right track. I think it's a good start.