Xie Wenxiong killed his wife and sister-in-law on the street in Tucheng, New Taipei Province last year and was sentenced to life imprisonment in the first instance. The New Taipei Prosecutor's Office believes that the original judgment was too restrictive to explain the most serious criminal circumstances, and that various circumstances such as criminal means should be taken into consideration. It is not appropriate to set the threshold based on the number of people and will appeal.
In July last year, Xie Wenxiong drove his wife and sister-in-law who were riding a motorcycle together, chased two people on the street, and then got out of the car and stabbed two people to death on the street with a kitchen knife and an aluminum rod. The New Taipei District Court’s Civil Judge’s Court held a trial in August this year and found that the death penalty requirements for “the most serious crime” were not met. Xie Wenxiong was sentenced to life imprisonment and deprived of public rights for life.
Please read on...
The complete verdict was made public a few days ago. The collegial panel pointed out that according to the Constitutional Court's 113-year Constitutional Judgment No. 8, killing three or more people must meet the requirements of the death penalty, sparking discussion. The New Taipei District Court responded that the evidence provided by the prosecutor could not prove that Xie Wenxiong premeditated serial killings, etc., and there was no way to sentence him to death in accordance with the constitutional decree.
The New Taipei District Prosecutor's Office issued a press release this morning stating that the original judgment set strict thresholds for each criminal situation and examined them one by one, failing to fully evaluate the overall criminal circumstances.
Regarding premeditation, the prosecutor said that Xie Wenxiong had repeatedly warned of the murder since May last year, purchased kitchen knives and aluminum rods the day before the crime, and ambush the victim on his way home that day. The original judgment required prosecutors to prove that Xie Wenxiong had a "plan to kill serially" in the premeditation stage, which overly restricted the meaning of "deliberate serial killings based on premeditation".
The prosecutor pointed out that after Xie Wenxiong drove into two people, he deliberately killed his sister-in-law first and let his wife witness the murder of their close relatives before killing his wife. The original judgment excluded the above-mentioned criminal history from the evaluation, and the explanation of "clearly inhumane, degrading, and extremely sadistic cruel methods" was also excessively restrictive.
In response to the result of the crime, the prosecutor stated that the original verdict recognized that the killing of three or more people must be the most serious crime. However, the literal meaning of "multiple people" does not automatically exclude two people. Paragraph 1 of Article 51 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "if more than one person is sentenced to death, one of them shall be executed." Moreover, the legal interests of life are irreplaceable and irreversible. Whether killing two people is the most serious crime should be judged based on the perpetrator's criminal motives, means and other circumstances. It is not appropriate to set the threshold based on a fixed number of people.
As for the risk of re-offending, the prosecutor pointed out that Xie Wenxiong admitted during the trial that "I will trade one of my lives for four lives with you." In addition to his wife and sister-in-law, the target also included two parents-in-law. However, the original judgment only relied on the sentencing evaluation results during the period of custody, inferring that there was no high risk of re-offending, and the prosecutor believed that a retrial was necessary. In addition, the original judgment of the small passenger car used by Xie Wenxiong in the incident was not declared confiscated, and there was also no negotiation.
The New Taipei Prosecutor's Office emphasized that it respects the court's independent trial, but will file an appeal in accordance with the law based on its duty to safeguard the rights and interests of victims, life and legal interests, and social justice.
