The Death Penalty in Taiwan: Why Abolition Advocates Use Deception
Cheng Chieh died by execution. Defense lawyers protested. The Abolition Coalition emerged again.
A friend asked on Facebook: “If Japanese Aum Shinrikyo’s sarin gas attack or ISIS suicide bombing suddenly occurred in Taiwan, and we captured the perpetrators, what would the Abolition Coalition say?”
Exactly—what response would the Coalition deliver?
The Troubling Pattern of Abolition Arguments
Following Cheng’s execution, abolition advocates and defense lawyers appeared everywhere—attacking capital punishment, President Ma Ying-jeou, Prosecutor-General Lo Ying-hsiung, societal attitudes, and government policy. They attacked everything except themselves.
This perspective terrifies me more than the execution itself.
The Defense Lawyer’s Selective Silence
Defense lawyers claimed insufficient time for non-ordinary appeal filing. Yet they never disclosed:
- Whether Cheng himself requested the appeal
- Why, with 19 days available post-conviction, no appeal occurred
Their accusation resembles morning towel-wringing after facial washing—did they expect the Justice Minister to regularly drag lawyers’ collars demanding appeal attempts?
The Misdirection About Wrongful Convictions
Unsurprisingly, advocates cite wrongful convictions as justification. Yet they fail to answer:
“Why didn’t they call themselves the ‘Anti-Wrongful-Conviction Coalition’?”
Certainly, justice demands identifying truth—a universal human value. But why do abolition advocates frame execution supporters as bloodthirsty beasts? Why manufacture this morality tale pitting evil death penalty advocates against noble abolitionists?
“If this isn’t arrogance, what constitutes arrogance?”
My friend’s question demands response: “Real-world horrors—Aum Shinrikyo slaughtering hundreds or ISIS murdering thousands in Taiwan—how would abolitionists respond?”
“Never advocate positions you don’t fully understand.”
Capital Punishment: Tool or Evil?
Capital punishment exists as institutional mechanism only. As human creatures containing capacity for extreme violence, capital punishment serves necessary deterrent functions. Systems contain flaws, but extreme punishment answers extreme crimes.
Rather than common citizens, the Abolition Coalition itself commodifies executions—using capital punishment’s existence to advance their ideological agenda while expressing disdain for “non-enlightened” society.
“If this isn’t antisocial personality pathology, what qualifies?”
Invitation to Better Solutions
I welcome alternative superior punishment mechanisms for mass murderers—both religious (Aum) and ideological (ISIS) actors. Propose better answers.
To those claiming crime persists despite capital punishment: your logic fails. Punishment deters probability, not guarantee.
To those claiming death penalty’s continuation proves its ineffectiveness: that conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the evidence.
The real issue remains this: Abolition advocates present selective truth employing deaths to advance political goals while simultaneously condemning society for lacking their enlightenment.
That represents the pathology requiring examination—not capital punishment itself.