Taiwan’s Constitutional Court held a crucial debate on whether the death penalty violates constitutional guarantees of human rights. This session is a part of a larger review prompted by 37 death row inmates who are challenging the constitutionality of capital punishment.
The petitioners’ legal representatives presented their arguments from multiple perspectives, including the psychological progression of crime victims' families, the principle of non-retaliation, and the availability of alternative punishments. Li Hsuan-yi (李宣毅), whose grandmother was a robbery homicide victim in 1996, described his transformation from wanting to seek revenge to studying criminology and exploring the root causes of criminal behavior. He emphasized the need to address these root causes rather than perpetuating a cycle of violence.
Another petitioner’s lawyer, Li Nien-tsu (李念祖), argued against the death penalty on constitutional grounds, stating that revenge is an arbitrary action driven by emotion rather than rational standards. He made his statement by pointing out that "killing is not a Taiwanese value."
On the other side, the Justice Ministry defended the death penalty, asserting that it does not inherently violate the right to life or dignity, nor does it constitute torture if carried out without cruelty. The ministry’s Prosecutorial Affairs Director Guo Yong-fa (郭永發) says that the death penalty aligns with both retributive justice, prevention and societal expectations, balancing the condemnation of extreme violations against individual rights.
The debate concluded in the morning with plans for further discussion by the justices in the afternoon. A decision on the constitutionality of the death penalty is expected between July and September. The decision will mark a significant milestone in Taiwan’s legal history, potentially leading to a reevaluation of the role of capital punishment in the country.