Discuss the verdict! The New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office's decision to kill three people counts as a "majority." The New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office appeals: Explanation of excessively restrictive judgment

Xie Wenxiong, a man, hacked his wife and sister-in-law to death on the street in Tucheng District, New Taipei City last year, shocking the society. In August, the People's Court of the New Taipei District Court sentenced Xie Nan to two life sentences for murder. The verdict was recently released. The collegial court believed that Xie Nan only killed two people, which did not meet the concept of killing "majority" in the Constitution. It believed that 3 people should be killed. The death penalty should be imposed only when there are more than 100 people killed, triggering social discussion; the New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office believed that the original judgment of Xie Nan was premeditated and not cruel, and it was an overly restrictive interpretation, and it was inappropriate to set the threshold based on a fixed number of people (i.e. killing 2 people). This was not consistent with the intention that life and legal interests should be highly protected.

The prosecutor believed that in the premeditation part, Xie Nan had repeatedly announced the murder since May last year, purchased kitchen knives and aluminum rods the day before the incident, and ambush the victim on his way home on the day of the incident. The original judgment required prosecutors to prove that the defendant had a "serial killing plan" at the premeditation stage, which overly restricted the meaning of "serial killings deliberately out of premeditation".

Please read on...

As for the criminal methods, the prosecutor pointed out that after Xie Nan drove into the car, he deliberately killed one person first, so that the other person could witness the murder of a close relative before killing him. The original judgment recognized that "cruel means" were limited to the execution of the elements of murder, and excluded the criminal process from the evaluation. The interpretation of "cruel means that are obviously inhumane, degrading, and extremely sadistic" was also excessively restrictive.

As for the result of the crime, the prosecutor believed that the original verdict stated that the number of people killed must be more than three to be considered the most serious crime. However, the literal meaning of "multiple people" does not automatically exclude two people. The criminal law stipulates that "if more than one person is sentenced to death, one of them will be executed." Moreover, the legal interests of life are irreplaceable and irreversible. Whether the killing of two people is the most serious crime should be determined based on the perpetrator's criminal motivation, purpose, means, degree of premeditation, infringement of legal interests and criminal consequences. It is not appropriate to set the threshold based on a fixed number of people. This interpretation of the original judgment essentially concluded that killing two people was not enough to constitute the most serious crime, and was not fully consistent with the intention that life and legal interests should be highly protected.

In addition, regarding the "Defendant's risk of re-offending and confiscation", the prosecutor pointed out that during the trial, Xie Nan admitted that he said "I will trade one of my lives for four of your lives." In addition to the two victims, the persons he referred to included his parents-in-law. The original judgment only relied on the results of the sentencing evaluation during Xie Nan's detention, and concluded that he lacked a high risk of re-offending. This part still needs to be re-examined. In addition, Xie Nan's personal passenger car that he used to ram into the victim at the time of the incident was not confiscated in the original judgment and was not negotiated.

The prosecutor expressed respect for the court's independent trial in accordance with the law, but based on its duty to safeguard the rights and interests of the victims, the legal interests of life and social justice, it will file an appeal in accordance with the law and request the court of second instance to consider the above-mentioned issues in detail.