| Summary: | 碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 95 === ABSTRACT
The death penalty has intimidating power, thus it functions by prohibiting crimes from being committed. However, the legal function of the death penalty has its limitations, it should not be treated as an elixir. Once the death penalty is executed, the dead cannot come back to life and be given a second chance, therefore the matter should be taken seriously.
The nature of the death penalty is to attain a person’s right to freedom, thus it’s considered to be a violation of human rights. An examination needs to be taken according to the essence of the Constitution and the character of human rights, in order to determine whether the death penalty is canonical to the Constitution. In addition, since judges and juries are after all human beings, miscarriage of justice do happen. If an innocent person is executed and the case is closed, the truth will be buried forever. Along with the real criminal out there, justice is not delivered and the objective of the penalty is not met. Therefore a reevaluation of the topic is needed. Consequently, the doubts concerning the death penalty not only include problems in the criminal code, issues regarding criminal legislation, political matters, trial procedures, subjective views towards death and world views towards death are also included. Since numerous issues are implicated, this topic is believed to be a “historical yet continued aching dilemma”.
Under the influence of historical culture and revenge mindset, to terminate the death penalty immediately is not possible and practical in China and Taiwan. Although the discussion about termination of the death penalty has continued for a long time, there has never been a set conclusion regarding the matter.
Starting from 2006, under protests from Human Rights organizations, the abolition of the death penalty has become the key administration policy for the Minister of Justice. Since the abolition of the death penalty cannot be initiated immediately, the death penalty termination plan is to be proceeded gradually throughout the years. By redressing the public’s mindset of “revenge” through education, a “no death penalty” consensus is being formed. Additionally, this gradual process will ensure both human rights are guaranteed and public safety is asserted.
This paper’s main research target is to come up with a strategy to accommodate the gradual abolition of the death penalty process including legislation of limiting and decreasing criminal charges (comparative legislation), accommodating policies of the death penalty alternatives, management of prison criminals, compensation of victims and their immediate families, public opinion polls, education propaganda and legislation persuasion. Furthermore, information relating to the death penalty such as concept of the death penalty, function review, comparative inspection, and controversy in the death penalty abolition are also included in this research. In this way, a complete picture and core problems of the death penalty policy can be observed; and hopefully, the result of this research will provide some help and assistance in the gradual termination of the death penalty process.
Key Words : retention of execution, abolition of execution, human rights, human dignity, cruel and unusual punishment, proportionality, alternative of death penalty, probation of execution, erroneous conviction in capital cases, miscarriage of justice, review, pardon, Protection of Victims of Criminal Acts
|
|---|
