Acting Prosecutor General Files Extraordinary Appeal Over Antisocial Personality Disorder Sentencing Reduction

(Central News Agency, reporter Xie Junlin, Taipei, 8th) The Supreme Prosecutors Office announced today that Acting Prosecutor General Hsu Hsi-hsiang has filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court regarding the final conviction of Tsai Chih-hung for arson. Hsu believes the verdict, which used 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' as a consideration for mitigating criminal responsibility, violates the law.

According to a press release from the Supreme Prosecutors Office, Tsai was charged with arson of a residential building not currently in use. The Shilin District Court sentenced him to 5 years in prison. Upon appeal, the Taiwan High Court determined that Tsai's criminal responsibility was significantly reduced at the time of the act and applied the Criminal Code to reduce his sentence to 3 years and 6 months (the original verdict). The Supreme Court deemed the appeal improper and dismissed it, finalizing the sentence.

Hsu argues that the original verdict's recognition of Tsai's 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' as a 'mental disorder or other mental defect' under the Criminal Code constitutes a violation of law for failing to apply or misapplying legal principles.

According to the press release, 'Antisocial Personality Disorder,' from the perspective of psychiatry and psychology, is diverse. Its core concept is 'a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others that begins in childhood or adolescence.' Common manifestations include failure to conform to social norms, deceitfulness for personal profit or pleasure, and impulsivity. Therefore, it is not considered a 'mental illness' under the Mental Health Act.

The press release points out that the original verdict's determination that Tsai's 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' falls under the criminal responsibility matters of 'mental disorder or other mental defect' in the Criminal Code ignores that it is a personality trait, not a 'mental illness,' thus constituting a violation of law.

The Supreme Prosecutors Office stated that regarding this important legal question of whether 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' qualifies as a 'mental disorder or other mental defect' under the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court has held inconsistent views in various major cases, leading to vastly different sentencing outcomes for defendants.

For example, in the 'Kaohsiung Chengzhongcheng Building Arson Causing 46 Deaths' case and the 'Taoyuan Unfilial Son Kills Mother with 37 Knife Wounds and Decapitates Her' case, the court recognized that defendants with 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' could have their sentences reduced or exempted under the Criminal Code.

Conversely, in the 'Tainan Buddhist Hall Arson Causing 7 Deaths' case and the 'Taichung Paint Company Arson Causing 3 Deaths' case, the court ruled that 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' is not a mental illness and does not meet the criteria for exemption or sentence reduction. This led to findings that the defendants had 'significant malice,' a 'likelihood of recidivism,' or 'no possibility of rehabilitation.'

Regarding the reasons for this extraordinary appeal, the Supreme Prosecutors Office stated that although the original verdict is not unfavorable to the defendant, it involves a major legal controversy over how defendants with 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' should be sentenced. This issue is of fundamental importance and requires clarification to unify legal interpretations.

The Supreme Prosecutors Office questioned whether 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' can be considered a matter of criminal responsibility under Article 19 of the Criminal Code. If a verdict deems a defendant's 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' to fall under Article 19, can the court also consider all circumstances of the defendant under Article 57 of the same code in the same case?

Furthermore, can 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' be considered a 'special disability' under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provisions on the right to life and General Comment No. 36 adopted by the Human Rights Committee in 2018? Can it also be considered a 'mental disorder or other mental defect' under the 2024 Constitutional Interpretation No. 8, thereby constituting grounds for avoiding the death penalty?

After deliberation, Hsu concluded that 'Antisocial Personality Disorder' is not a matter for consideration in reducing or exempting criminal responsibility under Article 19 of the Criminal Code. He decided to file the extraordinary appeal to uphold the human dignity of victims, social justice, and the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary. (Editor: Li Hengshan) 1150608