英文摘要 |
Although the issue of death penalty has a great social controversy, “imposing death penalty strictly” is indeed a consensus. As everyone knows, since Supreme Court in Taiwan has asserted that the death penalty cannot be imposed unless it has been proved that there is lack of “possibility of rehabilitation”, the purpose of imposing death penalty strictly is considerably achieved. However, the importance of the proof of “possibility of rehabilitation” in death penalty cases has been unexpectedly over-amplified and misunderstood in recent years. According to the article 6, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been passed by Taiwan's Legislature Yuan in March 2009, “in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” This article analyzes four leading cases to explain why the meaning of “possibility of rehabilitation” would be over-amplified and misunderstood easily, and then clarifies what “the most serious crimes” means in death penalty cases. Finally, the author suggests that we should replace the obscure and vague appraisal of “reports of possibility of rehabilitation” to “presentencing investigation reports” in death penalty sentencing cases. |