Free Lectures" 27 minutes to send death penalty to break through, Lanbai lacks legal reasons

On October 30, the Legislative Yuan passed the third reading of amendments to some provisions of the Criminal Law of the Republic of China. Repeat drug driving offenders who cause death may be punished with the death penalty, and may also be fined up to 10 million yuan. (File photo)

The Kuomintang and the Kuomintang revised the drug-driving law for the third time on October 30, raising the maximum penalty to death for repeated offenses resulting in death within ten years. The Democratic Progressive Party caucus pointed out that Blue and White proposed a joint re-amendment motion at 12:33 noon, and voting would begin at 1 p.m. The new version of the criminal law, which is a matter of life and death, only took 27 minutes from proposal to vote. While the congressional majority was eager to bang the gavel, the legal justification for the death penalty provision was not given the same attention.

The Executive Yuan had a draft in June, and it was reviewed by a committee in July. There was still no consensus in the party group discussions on October 28. The previous discussion of increasing criminal liability cannot replace a clause-by-clause examination of the final version. The third reading version raises the standard of death caused by drug driving to a fixed-term imprisonment of more than seven years, and increases the death penalty, life imprisonment, or fixed-term imprisonment of more than ten years for repeated offenses within ten years. Crossing the death penalty threshold does not mean changing a few numbers.

Drug drivers knowingly take drugs but still drive on the road, causing serious danger to road safety, and there are reasons for severe punishment. However, the intention to drive dangerously and the intention to kill others have different meanings in criminal law. In 2024, the Constitutional Court reviewed the death penalty provisions for intentional homicide and required the most serious criminal circumstances and strict procedural protections. The newly added death penalty for drug driving resulting in death is not within the scope of the review of this judgment. Lawmakers should clarify the basis of the crime and the proportion of the sentence.

Kuomintang legislator Hong Mengkai accused the Democratic Progressive Party of "condoning drug driving" because most legislators of the Democratic Progressive Party did not participate in the vote. Li Kuncheng, a legislator from the Democratic Progressive Party, also proposed a revised version of the law that would make death by drug driving punishable by up to the death penalty. The conditions and content of each case are still different, and voting records should also be subject to inspection; however, equating disputes over voting procedures with drug-impaired driving just obscures the most important legal questions that need to be answered under the death penalty provisions.

A majority in Congress can pass a law by vote, but it cannot prove that a sentence is proportional by vote. As long as "protecting human life" is held high, those who call for review of the provisions will be denounced as cold-blooded, and difficult arguments will be saved every time the penalty is increased in the future. The applause is reserved for the proposers, but the consequences of hasty legislation are borne by the courts, defendants and victims’ families.

The death penalty is the most severe and irreversible punishment in the country. Blue and White cited life safety as the reason for amending the law, and they should spend enough time to review the provisions. Only a few votes are needed to send it to the third reading, and it can stand the test of the Constitution and the judiciary, relying on reasons. Twenty-seven minutes of political victory cannot replace the explanation that legislators owe the people.

☆One less drug means more health, the free e-newsletter reminds you to stay away from drugs☆

(The author is a retired person)