This commentary critiques the arguments of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty. It points out that while the league claims 'capital punishment does not deter crime,' it avoids data showing that countries without the death penalty often have significantly higher crime rates than those that maintain it. Using the Akihabara massacre as an example, the article argues that resuming executions helps suppress copycat crimes. The core argument is that the Republic of China (R.O.C.) lacks the geographic and financial resources of EU nations to permanently isolate high-risk offenders; thus, calling for abolition under current conditions essentially prioritizes the perpetrator's rights over public safety.
Analysis of the arguments surrounding Cheng Chieh's execution and the death penalty abolition movement in Taiwan, questioning the logical consistency of abolition advocates' positions.
Reflects on the tenure of Luo Ying-shay as Minister of Justice of the Republic of China, particularly her firm stance in the Legislative Yuan and her commitment to the rule of law despite political pressure.
This article criticizes Taiwan's judges for frequently citing International Human Rights Covenants' capability for rehabilitation' to sentence child killers to life imprisonment rather than capital punishment, allowing serious offenders chances to return to society. Speaking to judges, the author notes that child killers (such as Wang Jing-yu, Tseng Wen-chin, and Kung Chung-an) have psychological characteristics fundamentally different from ordinary people—their crimes transcend money or emotional motives. The article strongly advocates that even if these criminals might have future rehabilitation potential, society has no need for such rehabilitation, urging judges to stop providing them opportunities for redemption.
Critiques the sensationalist media coverage following the murder of a four-year-old girl in Neihu. The author argues that the focus should not be on the death penalty at this time, but on social healing and preventing copycat crimes.
The author recounts overhearing a debate on the death penalty among university students at a restaurant and interjecting with a brutal hypothetical scenario (the brutal murder of their family). By challenging a pro-abolition student (Male A), the author argues that those without the experience of being a victim should not apply 'hypocritical kindness' to the trauma of others, as it may lead to more broken families. The piece concludes with a strong stance that abolitionists are 'fools,' viewing the death penalty as a necessary means of protecting other families and a call for justice rooted in raw empathy for victims.
This article critiques the statement made by Lin Hsin-yi, Executive Director of the Alliance for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, who called the government 'abominable' following the execution of death row inmates. The author argues that by constantly inflaming the death penalty debate, the Alliance itself is the 'greatest promoter' of these executions and should bear the primary karmic responsibility. While theoretically supporting the ideal of abolition, the author maintains that the government's actions are neutral—fulfilling legal requirements and the expectations of society and victims' families to protect the safety of the virtuous majority.
The article criticizes the tendency of Taiwanese courts to give light sentences and uses the case of an eight-year-old girl having her throat slit to lash out at the position of the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP). The author argues that 'bad people are not people' and their treatment should not be compared with that of good people; he also believes the TAEDP is using victims to gain benefits for themselves. The author refutes the 'death penalty is useless' and 'cannot heal the pain' arguments, emphasizing that the death penalty is a system, a 'self-choice' of the criminal, and can bring a minimum degree of psychological compensation to the victim's family. It concludes by describing the TAEDP's philosophy with 'Chunibyo' (8th-grade syndrome), believing it leads to criminals becoming more unscrupulous.
This article uses the "death penalty" issue as an example to discuss the problem of "black-and-white" extremism in social issues. The author, while not opposing the abolition of the death penalty, emphasizes that "the system itself must be respected." The article criticizes the Death Penalty Abolition Alliance for its crude and "overly superficial" handling of the issue, merely "negating" the death penalty without proposing alternative solutions acceptable to the public to achieve a balance between "perpetrators" and "victims." The article concludes that if a "seemingly" win-win strategy cannot be provided, or if one refuses to consider the opponent"s perspective, it will only intensify social polarization, creating a huge chasm.