Death row inmates' pre-execution detention cannot offset prison sentences; Ministry of Justice hopes for swift passage of amendment

(CNA) The Legislative Yuan's Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee today reviewed amendments to the Prison Act. Regarding the period of detention for death row inmates awaiting execution, which cannot be offset against prison sentences, legislators expressed differing views. Minister of Justice Cheng Ming-chien stated that the amendment has been fully discussed with scholars and experts, aligns with the Constitutional Court's interpretation, and hopes for swift passage.

The Prison Act stipulates that for inmates sentenced to death and awaiting execution, the prosecutor shall issue a warrant for the execution of the death sentence, which shall then be handed over to the prison for detention.

The Legislative Yuan's Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee today jointly reviewed the Executive Yuan's proposed amendments to Articles 148 and 156 of the Prison Act, among other proposals. Cheng Ming-chien and others were present to provide explanations and were subject to questioning. Today's agenda only involved question-and-answer sessions.

The Ministry of Justice's written report indicated that in response to the Constitutional Court's Judgment No. 8 of 2024, which declared certain provisions of the Criminal Code unconstitutional, and the lack of provisions in the Prison Act for individuals with mental disorders or other intellectual disabilities who have not reached a state of insanity but whose capacity to receive punishment is deficient, thus lacking grounds for executing the death penalty, amendment procedures have been initiated.

The Executive Yuan's amendment version mentioned that to clarify the legal nature of the detention period for death row inmates awaiting execution, an amendment bill is proposed to explicitly state that the detention period for death row inmates awaiting execution cannot be offset against prison sentences, detention, fines, or security measures that restrict personal freedom.

The legislative explanation for the amendment states that this detention is a transitional phase before the execution of the death penalty. Although it has the incidental effect of restricting personal freedom, its purpose differs from that of pretrial detention, trial, and the execution of sentences before a judgment becomes final. It also differs in nature from the execution of prison sentences, detention, fines, or security measures that restrict personal freedom after a judgment becomes final, and therefore should not be included in the calculation of the prison sentence period for parole eligibility.

KMT legislator Weng Hsiao-ling questioned the legal nature of the detention period, whether it constitutes punishment, and whether it is reasonable for the detention period to last 10 or 20 years under current circumstances.

Cheng Ming-chien replied that the detention period is not pretrial detention, not punishment, and not a security measure; it is a transitional phase before the execution of the death penalty.

Weng Hsiao-ling further asked if the relevant provisions of the Criminal Compensation Act could apply to this detention period if the inmate's death sentence was overturned and they were subsequently acquitted. Cheng Ming-chien stated that if the conditions are met, it would naturally be handled according to the law.

DPP legislator Chang Ya-ling cited a joint statement from civil society groups, questioning whether the current amendment violates the proportionality and equality principles required by the Constitution and whether there has been sufficient communication with civil society groups.

Cheng Ming-chien stated that this amendment has been fully discussed in the Criminal Law amendment group and with experts and scholars, has undergone review by the Executive Yuan, aligns with the Constitutional Court's interpretation, and hopes for swift passage.

DPP legislator Chuang Jui-hsiung expressed a slightly different view on the amendment, stating that regardless of the name, confining someone to prison, while those in pretrial detention can have their time offset against prison sentences, is strange, especially since this is essentially deprivation of personal freedom. (Editor: Su Lung-chi) 1150708

Stand with the truth, your every donation is a force to protect press freedom

Download CNA's "First Hand News" APP for real-time updates

The text, images, and audio on this website may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or used without authorization.