- Thread starter
- Staff
- #1
Dadparvar
Staff member
- Nov 11, 2016
- 10,588
- 0
- 6
Taiwan’s Constitutional Court ruled on Friday that the death penalty remains partially constitutional for serious offenses, including murder. However, the court ordered the government to amend criminal procedures within two years to better protect the right to life.
The case challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for intentional homicide and killings linked to other crimes like robbery, kidnapping or rape. The applicant argued that capital punishment violates the right to life under Article 15 of Taiwan’s Constitution and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Referring to General Comment No. 36 from the UN Human Rights Committee, the court held that capital punishment could be applied to the most serious crimes without breaching ICCPR obligations. The court affirmed that the death penalty may be constitutionally imposed for crimes involving intentional killing but instructed judges to consider factors like intent, motive, means, extent of participation and the victim’s ability to defend themselves before sentencing.
The court also required the government to amend several criminal procedural rules, including repealing Article 388, which denies defendants mandatory defense rights during a trial of third instance in Taiwan’s top court. It further mandated that public defenders be appointed before criminal investigations to protect the defendant’s right to life. Although the court stopped short of banning the death penalty for defendants with mental or intellectual disabilities, it prohibited imposing such sentences until relevant laws meet constitutional standards.
E-Ling Chiu, Director of Amnesty International Taiwan, welcomed the court’s acknowledgment of flaws in the death penalty but expressed disappointment that it was not abolished. Chiu stated:
Conversely, the Kuomintang party criticized the ruling as overstepping legislative powers and disregarding public support for the death penalty. They noted that only one murder conviction had resulted in a death sentence in the last five years, suggesting that the justice system already adequately protects defendants’ rights. The party argued that by tightening standards, the court effectively abolished the death penalty without legislative consent.
The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, adopted by the UN in 1989, promotes abolishing the death penalty as a human rights advancement. Despite international efforts, Amnesty International found that “in 2023 the lowest number of countries on record carried out the highest number of known executions in close to a decade,” with 144 countries now considered abolitionist in law or practice.
The post Taiwan constitutional court upholds death penalty for serious crimes but mandates procedural reforms appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.
The case challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for intentional homicide and killings linked to other crimes like robbery, kidnapping or rape. The applicant argued that capital punishment violates the right to life under Article 15 of Taiwan’s Constitution and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Referring to General Comment No. 36 from the UN Human Rights Committee, the court held that capital punishment could be applied to the most serious crimes without breaching ICCPR obligations. The court affirmed that the death penalty may be constitutionally imposed for crimes involving intentional killing but instructed judges to consider factors like intent, motive, means, extent of participation and the victim’s ability to defend themselves before sentencing.
The court also required the government to amend several criminal procedural rules, including repealing Article 388, which denies defendants mandatory defense rights during a trial of third instance in Taiwan’s top court. It further mandated that public defenders be appointed before criminal investigations to protect the defendant’s right to life. Although the court stopped short of banning the death penalty for defendants with mental or intellectual disabilities, it prohibited imposing such sentences until relevant laws meet constitutional standards.
E-Ling Chiu, Director of Amnesty International Taiwan, welcomed the court’s acknowledgment of flaws in the death penalty but expressed disappointment that it was not abolished. Chiu stated:
The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty also voiced concerns for the current 37 death row prisoners, arguing that most were not convicted of “the most serious crimes” and that their guilty verdicts occurred under a flawed system now deemed unconstitutional.
Conversely, the Kuomintang party criticized the ruling as overstepping legislative powers and disregarding public support for the death penalty. They noted that only one murder conviction had resulted in a death sentence in the last five years, suggesting that the justice system already adequately protects defendants’ rights. The party argued that by tightening standards, the court effectively abolished the death penalty without legislative consent.
The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, adopted by the UN in 1989, promotes abolishing the death penalty as a human rights advancement. Despite international efforts, Amnesty International found that “in 2023 the lowest number of countries on record carried out the highest number of known executions in close to a decade,” with 144 countries now considered abolitionist in law or practice.
The post Taiwan constitutional court upholds death penalty for serious crimes but mandates procedural reforms appeared first on JURIST - News.
Continue reading...
Note: We don't have any responsibilities about this news. Its been posted here by Feed Reader and we had no controls and checking on it. And because News posted here will be deleted automatically after 21 days, threads are closed so that no one spend time to post and discuss here. You can always check the source and discuss in their site.