The Constitutional Court will debate whether the death penalty is unconstitutional today (23rd). The petitioners include 37 death row inmates. The issues in this case include whether, in addition to depriving the right to life, the death penalty interferes with other constitutional rights, such as freedom from torture, human dignity, etc.; whether the purpose of the death penalty is constitutional, and if the death penalty is unconstitutional, what alternative criminal sanctions or supporting measures are there? The Ministry of Justice’s position is that the death penalty is constitutional; attorneys for death row inmates call on the government to let the people understand that the death penalty violates human dignity, to implement the right to life under the Civil Service Covenant, and to protect freedom from torture. The government must not act based on public opinion. Reasons for retaining the death penalty.
The Constitutional Court is scheduled to hold oral arguments at the Judicial Building from 10 am to 4 pm today. The petitioners in this case include 37 death row inmates Chen Yilong, Huang Chunqi, Zhang Renbao, Zhang Jiayao, Zheng Wusong, Liu Huakun, Lian Zuoming, Xiao Xincai, Yang Shufan, Lu Wensheng, Shi Zhiyuan, Liu Rongsan, Wang Boying, Wang Hongwei, Chen Wenkui, Shen Honglin, Chen Xiqing, Liao Mingui, Tang Linyi, Shen Qiwu, Xiao Renjun, Liao Jialin, Xu Weizhan, Guo Junwei, Wang Xinfu, Qiu Heshun, Lian Guowen, Li Derong, Lin Wangren, You Qichen, Su Zhixiao, Huang Fukang, Lin Yuru, Qiu Hehe, Peng Jianyuan, Huang Linkai, Shen Wenbin.
Qiu Heshun was accused of involvement in the murders of boy Lu Zheng and insurance salesman Ke Hongyulan in 1988. Due to doubts such as torture requirements, lack of key evidence, and the inability to overturn Qiu Heshun’s alibi, this case was considered to be an unjust case by private rescue groups. The police officers who had violated the law were sentenced in 1998, and Qiu Heshun was sentenced to death in 2011. Chen Yilong and Huang Chunqi were involved in the 1995 kidnapping and murder case of wealthy businessman Huang Chunshu in Xizhi. Hou Youyi, then captain of the Taipei City Criminal Brigade, investigated the case . Chen Yilong and Huang Chunqi were sentenced to death in 2000; another co-defendant, Xu Ziqiang, was acquitted after the ninth trial in 2016.
Wang Xinfu was accused by the prosecutor of committing “serial murders” in 1990. He did not appear in the case and fled to China for more than 10 years. He returned to Taiwan in 2006 and was arrested. In 2011, he was sentenced to death. The Alliance for the Abolition of Death claimed that because the case lasted for a long time, relevant witnesses could not be summoned to the court, and it was based only on confessions without cross-examination and evidence full of doubts. Supervisory Committee members Wang Meiyu and Gao Yongcheng said on March 20 this year that the co-defendant’s testimony in Wang Xinfu’s case was inconsistent, without cross-examination, the key witness was tortured, and the re-identification of the polygraph test showed no false positives. They called on the Ministry of Justice to study and propose Extraordinary appeals and retrials.
Lin Yuru is the only woman among the 37 people on death row. In 2009, she was only 27 years old. She murdered her mother, poisoned her mother-in-law and her husband because she wanted to fraudulently collect insurance money due to accumulated gambling debts. She was often regarded as the “shocky wife” by the outside world Description, sentenced to death in 2013. Among the 15 justices of the Constitutional Court, Justice Cai Jiongdun once tried the case of death row inmate Wang Hongwei, Justice Cai Caizhen once participated in the case of death row inmate Wang Baiying, and Justice You Boxiang once served as the defender of death row inmate Qiu Heshun. All three of them recused themselves. The total number of justices who tried this case was 12 people. The issues in this case include: In addition to depriving the right to life, does the death penalty interfere with other constitutional rights, such as the right to freedom from torture, human dignity, etc.?
In addition, is the purpose pursued by the death penalty system constitutional? If the death penalty is considered unconstitutional, what other criminal sanctions are sufficient to replace the death penalty? Or what supporting measures should be taken? The Constitutional Court pointed out that if the death penalty system is deemed to be constitutional, should the types of crimes and objects to which it applies be restricted? As for the supporting procedures for the death penalty, as far as our country’s law is concerned, what supporting procedures should be included during the trial process and after the judgment is announced to meet the requirements of the Constitution for due process, such as mandatory defense in the third instance, oral and verbal debates, and unanimous decision-making by deliberations. , extraordinary relief and other procedural guarantees after the judgment is determined.
According to the Central News Agency, lawyers for death row inmates argued that public opinion will be affected by various subjective factors and cannot be ascertained as credible, and that public opinion polls are not recognized by the constitution as a legitimate reason to restrict fundamental rights; while international experts are reviewing China’s national reports on the two conventions The concluding opinions and recommendations of the National People’s Congress have repeatedly requested that it is the government’s responsibility to let the people understand that the death penalty violates human dignity, to implement the right to life in the Civil Service Covenant, and to protect freedom from torture. The government must not use public opinion as a reason to retain the death penalty. On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice maintains that the death penalty is constitutional.
The Ministry of Justice believes that the abolition of the death penalty should be reached by a consensus reached by the legislative body representing public opinion, rather than decided directly through judicial decisions. More than 80% of the public in my country oppose the abolition of the death penalty, and the death penalty should not be abolished through constitutional review. In addition, most countries currently abolish the death penalty through legislation or constitutional amendment procedures, and very few have directly declared the death penalty unconstitutional through the Constitutional Court. The Ministry of Justice further emphasized that the death penalty system has been declared constitutional several times in previous constitutional interpretations such as Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 194, No. 263, and No. 476.
The Ministry of Justice explained that in view of the fact that the current constitutional order and social legal values have not changed, and the majority of public opinion still opposes the abolition of the death penalty, the Constitutional Court should uphold its previous view of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the death penalty is highly controversial in our country. Without a consensus in society, suddenly declaring the death penalty system unconstitutional may trigger domestic social opposition and conflicts, and may even infringe upon legislative decisions and cross the line of separation of powers. The Constitutional Court should include the assessment of the consequences of interpretation into It is considered that the formation of criminal policies should not be dominated by constitutional judgments to avoid causing conflicts between constitutional agencies and domestic social unrest.
Justice You Boxiang once served as the defender of death row inmate Qiu Heshun, so he requested to recuse himself.Picture/reproduced from Taipei Lawyers Association Facebook
