Q: With regard to the issue of abolishing capital punishment, the public seems to have an insurmountable psychological ­barrier: sympathy with the victim’s family. Can a sentence of death for the criminals really bring peace of mind to the families?

A: Although we place a high value on life, justice is even more important. The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that life is irreplaceable, and on the scales of justice, balanced justice can only be achieved if the life of the murderer is taken to offset the life of the victim.

Can the death penalty bring peace of mind to the families of the victims? The answer is yes. This is just human nature.

Those in Taiwan who advocate abolishing capital punishment often say that while victims’ families are outraged at the time of the trials, years later they often choose to forgive. If the killer has already been executed, it is too late. They say that executions make the life of the perpetrators’ families a misery as well, so it is best to eliminate the death penalty.

But in my opinion, the death penalty is the realization of balanced justice. The criminal and the victim should stand in proportionate relationship to each other, one to one, and the family of the victim has no right to say “I forgive” on behalf of the victim. The victim is already dead and cannot speak for him- or herself, and no one can guess what his or her intention would have been. By the same logic, the criminal should take all the moral responsibility for the pain caused to his or her own family. The state should not be criticized or blamed just for enforcing the criminal punishment.

Q: Groups that advocate eliminating the death penalty say that errors are often made in the judicial process, so what remedy would exist for wrongfully accused persons if they are executed?

A: Whether or not to keep the death penalty is a legislative question, while wrongful convictions are a judicial problem. We should not lose sight of this logical distinction. Taiwan’s judicial process allows for three levels of trials. Moreover, in June of 2010 the Ministry of Justice issued a circular to all prosecutors stating that “persons convicted of crimes should be asked if they disagree in any way with the verdict and sentencing, in order to uncover whether there may be reasons for an extraordinary appeal or retrial.” This shows that law enforcement agencies have already done in-house reflection on this issue and made the necessary progress.

If a person whose death sentence has been confirmed after a third trial feels that he or she deserves it, then that is that. If they prefer that the sentence be carried out as quickly as possible, then why should the death penalty be eliminated?

Looking at this from the legislative angle, if the death penalty were to be replaced with “life imprisonment without possibility of parole,” there are more disadvantages than advantages to that. First, in prison such people will become like bombs that can go off at any moment, because they’ve already been sentenced to stay in prison until they die, and know they will never get out. They lose any hope for their future life, and if they commit some other heinous crimes in jail, the worst that can happen is to get a parallel sentence of life in prison. In the worst case scenario, this could make it difficult to maintain order in prisons. Moreover, this violates the principle that criminal penalties should be an incentive for the convicted person to reform.

Secondly, the costs of feeding, supervising, and looking after the health of lifers are borne by the nation’s citizens. This not only adds to the government’s financial burdens, it has a negative effect on society as a whole. In that case of the random killing of a child in cold blood in Tai­nan in December of 2012, the criminal declared that he did it just so the state would provide him lifetime care, because he felt confident that he would never get the death penalty. Isn’t this evidence that the disadvantages of eliminating the death penalty outweigh the advantages?

Q: Parts of the international community have condemned Taiwan for recently executing several convicts. How do you look at this criticism?

A: Our diplomatic situation has always been difficult. But we can still express our views to the international community, and explain to everyone what efforts we have already made. For example, the Penal Code has been amended by the Legislative Yuan so that there are no longer any crimes for which the death penalty is mandatory; in all cases the judge now has the option to choose a lesser sentence.

Taiwan’s approach is to gradually eliminate the death penalty. It is a Utopian aspiration, meaning that until society reaches a state where we really do live in a Utopia, the best thing is to keep the death penalty on the books just in case, even if we use it as little as possible.