Parties differ on handling of death penalty issue

Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers yesterday clashed over the death penalty a day after the Constitutional Court heard oral arguments about its constitutionality.

The Constitutional Court is reviewing a case to abolish capital punishment brought by 37 inmates on death row.

The KMT legislative caucus yesterday held a news conference at the Legislative Yuan, with caucus secretary-general Hung Mongkai (洪孟楷) leading lawmakers in chanting: “The death penalty is constitutional, it should not be abolished.”

During the debate at the Constitutional Court, one justice asked why judges are expected to bend to popular opinion, Hung said.

KMT Legislator Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) said the justice’s comment suggests that their mind is already made up, which is improper in a case that is still being deliberated.

Use of the death penalty falls under the legislature’s purview and is a matter that should be decided by public opinion, he said, adding: “If the justices have the gumption, they are free to jump off the bench and try to get elected as a lawmaker.”

Lo’s campaign platform included his opposition to abolishing the death penalty, and election results proved that the public agrees with his stance, he said.

KMT Legislator Yang Chiungying (楊瓊瓔) said the former council of grand justices consistently upheld the death penalty and its rulings are binding, citing Constitutional Interpretations No. 194, No. 263 and No. 276.

KMT Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲) said that if the court made the wrong judgement, it would cause irreparable damage to society and faith in morality and justice, adding that the court should respect the majority opinion and the legislature’s prerogative.

Asked to comment, DPP legislative caucus secretary-general Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) told a routine news briefing that her party emphasizes respect for the spirit of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court’s proceedings.

The DPP legislative caucus has no doubt in the justices’ ability to navigate this highly divisive issue, and make an appropriate judgement based on the law and social consensus, she said.