Nationalist Government Era (2016.1.1～2016.12.31)
- Publication Date：
- Last updated：2021-01-08
- View count：181
|2016||04/29||In the case of Lai Su-ju and her defender Li Yi-guang "applied to view the detention-application document of ongoing investigation", they considered that paragraph 1, Article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred to in the Criminal Decision 2013 Chen-Kang-Tzi No. 616 issued by the Taiwan High Court might be unconstitutional, so they applied for interpretation of the Constitution. The Justices of Constitutional Court of Judicial Yuan issued the Interpretation Shih-Tzi No. 737 stating that the provision in Code of Criminal Procedure was not in line with the personal freedom and the right of instituting legal proceedings stipulated in Articles 8 and 16 of the Constitution. The relevant authority shall, within one year from the date of publication of the Interpretation, amend the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with the Interpretation. If the amendement is not completed within the time limit, the detention review procedure in the ongoing investigation by the court shall be conducted in accordance with the Interpretation.|
Cheng Jie killed four passengers and injured 22 others on the Taipei MRT train on May 21st, 2014. All trial courts found his criminal evidence to be sufficient and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court summoned Cheng Jie to the court to hold a verbal debate, and the final judgment also considered the evidence clear and sufficient. With his offense was in line with the most serious crimes referred to in Article 6 of ICCPR, the original ruling was upheld, and he was sentenced to four death sentences. On May 10th, 2016, Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay approved the execution of the death penalty, and Taiwan High Prosecutors Office executed Cheng Jie’s death penalty at 8:47 PM on that day at the execution ground of Taipei Detention Center.
This case was the first major serial killing case on the MRT train in Taiwan. What he did was unforgivable and caused huge panic to the public, affecting all aspects of society. The public asked the Ministry of Justice to enforce the death penalty in accordance with the law to demonstrate social justice. The Ministry of Justice checked with the Judicial Yuan, the Supreme Court, the Taiwan High Court, the Supreme Prosecutors Office and the correctional institutions on whether Cheng Jie requested for retrial, extraordinary appeal, interpretation by the Justices of Constitutional Court of Judicial Yuan, or was in the state of insanity or with psychological disorder or intellectual disability, and finally confirmed to the Office of the President that no pardon was applied or granted. Considering that Cheng Jie was in clear state of mind during his offense, and that he did not have any mental disorder or insanity, the crimes he committed were very serious and belonged to the most serious crimes stipulated in the ICCPR, the execution of death penalty was therefore approved. The human rights protection procedures for prisoners of the death sentence were very complete.
In order to strengthen the recovery of proceeds of unlawful activity, so that fairness and justice can be achieved, the Legislative Yuan amended the provisions of Articles 38, 38-1, 38-2, 38-3, 40 and 40-2 of the Criminal Code regarding the confiscation, and the amendment was implemented on July 1st, 2016.
In response to the major change in the confiscation system in Criminal Code, the Article 259-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also amended. According to the amendment, in addition to confiscating the objects used for the crimes or prepared for the crimes and the proceeds of crimes, it also included whatever was obtained from committing the crime. Properties closely related to crime would be confiscated, and it would not be limited to the property of the defendant.
|2016||11/30||In view of the emerging cross-border telecom fraud cases that greatly damage people’s property and the image of the country, in order to maintain the international image of our country and ensure our priority of criminal jurisdiction of such cross-border cases to meet the public's expectations and enhance our judicial image, the Legislative Yuan amended Article 5 of the Criminal Code to include the offenses of aggravated fraud specified in Articles 339-4 for the application of offenses commited outside the territories of the Republic of China.|