III) Progress on the Gradual Abolition of the Death Penalty

(III) Progress on the Gradual Abolition of the Death Penalty

According to Article 2 of the Act to Implement the Two Covenants stating “Human rights protection provisions in the two Covenants have domestic legal status,” and Article 6, Paragraph 6 of the ICCPR also stating “Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant,”abolishing the death penalty is in line with global trends. In the concluding observations and recommendations of the first and second national report on the Two Covenants, international experts also strongly called for the government to completely abolish the death penalty. Therefore, the issue of protecting the right to life and whether the death penalty should be abolished is an important task that Taiwan’s legal system must take seriously and communicate with various sectors of society about.

To gradually achieve the policy goal of abolishing the death penalty, the government continued to operate the Implementation Group on Gradual Abolishment of Death Penalty to organize meetings to communicate and exchange views with individuals or groups in Taiwan with different positions, as well as discussed relevant supplementary measures in hopes of dispelling doubts from the public and gradually building a consensus of public opinion in order to achieve the long-term policy goal. The government also referenced Article 6 of the ICCPR and the General Comment No. 36 that the United Nations Human Rights Committee proposed regarding the right to life stated in Article 6 of the Covenant (hereafter referred to as General Comment No. 36) to propose three concrete actions under this plan in the protection of the right to life.

1. Prosecutors shall seek sentencing with caution

Article 1 of the current Important Notes Regarding Prosecutors in Seeking Sentencing states that “Prosecutors investigating a crime may consider the matters stipulated in Article 57 of the Criminal Code in cases that should be prosecuted to make an appropriate request for sentencing when making an indictment or argument. For severe crimes that seriously endanger social security, prosecutors may urge the court to impose severe sentences to curb such crimes.” Additionally, Article 101, Paragraph 2 of Important Notes Regarding Prosecution Offices’ Handling of Criminal Procedures states that “Indictments should not only record matters stipulated in Article 264, Paragraph 2 of this law, but for severe crimes that seriously endanger social security for which the prosecutor believes a specific sentence is necessary, also include the items stipulated in Article 57 of the Criminal Code of the

Republic of China and specific reasons for calling for that sentence. When a case is tried in the court, the public prosecutor shall not only present facts and legal evidence to prove and debate the case, but also present specific evidence and express opinions on the sentencing. If the defendant meets the requirements of Article 74 of the Criminal Code, the prosecutor may indicate the period and conditions for probation, keeping in mind the current criminal policies of Taiwan and the defendant’s subjective situation. For defendants that are habitual criminals, the prosecutor should ask the court to issue security measures. The prosecutor shall prompt the court to pay attention to defendants with factors that may mitigate or aggravate sentencing such as a confession or habitual criminality, as well as penalties like confiscation or deprivation of civil rights.” Considering that the current legal system still imposes extremely heavy sentences on cases of serious crimes, there is a need to include the aforementioned Article 6 of the ICCPR and the General Comment No.36 regarding limiting the death penalty in the aforementioned regulation stipulating that prosecutors shall ask for specific sentencing, prompting prosecutors will seek sentencing with caution. These articles were also included in the curriculum of on-the-job training for prosecutors to improve prosecutors’ understanding of the general comment so that it can be implemented in specific cases.

No. Action Competent Authority Timetable Key Performance Indicator

107 Amend Article 1 of the Notes Regarding

Prosecutors in

Seeking Sentencing as well as Article 101, Paragraph 2 of the Important Notes

Regarding

Prosecution Offices’

Handling of

Criminal Procedures to stipulate that prosecutors must consider the position of Article 6 of the

ICCPR and the Ministry of Justice 2022-2023 1. Complete amendments and issuance of Article 1 of the Notes Regarding Prosecutors in Seeking Sentencing as well as Article 101, Paragraph 2 of the Important Notes Regarding Prosecution Offices’ Handling of Criminal Procedures. 2. Incorporate courses such as Sentencing for Serious Crimes and the Requirements of International Conventions in the

No. Action Competent Authority Timetable Key Performance Indicator

General Comment No.36 regarding the death penalty during the indictment or court case and seek sentencing with caution. annual on-the-job training for prosecutors so that prosecutors’ seeking sentences meet the requirements of international conventions.

2. Research and analyze public attitudes and opinions on the death penalty and its alternatives

In 2007, Taiwan commissioned a polling agency to conduct the Public Opinion Survey on the Issue of Death Penalty in Taiwan. It has now been more than 13 years, and so, to understand the public’s latest attitude and opinions regarding the death penalty and its alternatives, the government shall commission another academic or neutral institution to conduct a public opinion surveys as a reference for developing alternatives to the death penalty.

No. Action Competent Authority Timetable Key Performance Indicator

108 Commission an academic or neutral institution to conduct the

“Public Opinion

Survey on the

Death Penalty and

Relevant Values in

Taiwan” to analyze and understand the public’s attitude and opinions regarding the death penalty and its alternatives, with hopes of Ministry of Justice 2022-2024 1. Commission an academic or neutral institution to conduct at least 1 sizable public opinions survey in the form of a questionnaire and conduct interviews and opinions surveys of citizens over the age of 18.

2. Consult the opinions of

NGOs with different positions in designing the public opinion survey questionnaire and the survey method.

No. Action Competent Authority Timetable Key Performance Indicator

abolishing the death penalty and developing relevant alternatives.

3. Formulate an alternative plan to the death penalty

In 2007, Taiwan commissioned scholars to propose a Research on the Abolition of the Death Penalty and Alternative Plans, but the alternative plan was proposed before society reached a consensus on abolishing the death penalty, so the government did not rashly begin the legislative process. It has been more than 13 years since the research was conducted, and there has been changes to the legal systems of various countries regarding the death penalty as well as people’s thinking. Moreover, public attitudes on whether to abolish the death penalty and develop alternatives may also vary with time, space and social environment, making it necessary to commission scholars to conduct the latest research as a reference for formulating feasible policies for alternatives to the death penalty.

No. Action Competent Authority Timetable Key Performance Indicator

109 Formulate an alternative to the death penalty. Ministry of Justice 2022-2024 1. Commission experts and scholars to conduct a project research plan on Alternative Plans for the Abolishment of the Death Penaltyto propose suggestions for feasible alternative plans in the legal system.

2. Strengthen communication with the public. Organize at least 5 symposiums with experts, scholars, NGOs, or student associations,