Chen Hong-Da's Perspective: When Supreme Court Final Judgments Become Worthless—The Non-Execution of Death Sentences Tests the Last Line of a Rule-of-Law State

This is not an article discussing the abolition of the death penalty, but one examining whether the state remains loyal to its laws. The greatest crisis facing a rule-of-law state is not the absence of laws, but the government indefinitely abandoning its own legal framework.

A recently retired senior prosecutor from the Supreme Prosecutors Office shared with me his heaviest memory from a 40-year career after reading my recent op-ed titled "The Non-Execution of Death Sentences is a Human Rights Violation."

He recalled investigating, in 1993 (Republic of China Year 82) at the Banqiao District Prosecutors Office (now New Taipei District Prosecutors Office), a case involving the sexual assault and murder of a female student from a national university's Department of Public Finance. The case was ultimately sentenced to death by the Supreme Court and the judgment became final. Yet, over 20 years later, the sentence remains unexecuted. "What crime have the victim's family committed?" he asked. The separation of life and death proved too much for the victim's father. Unable to endure the prolonged wait for justice, he passed away in sorrow, leaving behind unresolved grief.

He did not comment on the death penalty's existence or abolition, nor did he blame anyone. He simply left with six words: "What crime have the victim's family committed?"

This question is not directed solely at the offender, but at the state itself.

Today, a significant number of death penalty cases, having undergone final judgment through all three trial levels, remain in a state of non-execution. What is now being tested is not only the unavoidable responsibility of the Minister of Justice, but also whether the state still adheres to the constitutional rule-of-law order.

Judicial rulings based on law and administrative enforcement based on law constitute the most fundamental logic of a democratic rule-of-law state. Courts are responsible for making final legal determinations; the executive branch is responsible for faithfully executing judgments. The judiciary proclaims the law; the executive completes it. Each holds a distinct constitutional role and irreplaceable responsibility.

Individual death penalty cases are merely the tip of the iceberg—the real issue is the rule of law itself.

Recent societal debates on the death penalty have largely remained trapped in value-based oppositions of retention versus abolition, support versus opposition, overlooking a more fundamental constitutional question: When final court judgments, made in accordance with law, cannot be realized due to prolonged inaction by executive leaders, what is eroded is not merely the penal system, but the finality of judicial authority and the people's most basic trust in the rule of law.

The rule of law has never been meant to constrain the people—it is meant to constrain the state. The true test of law is not whether the people obey it, but whether the state remains faithful to it.

A democratic state can certainly debate whether to abolish the death penalty, revise criminal policy through legislative amendments, or re-examine the system's constitutionality through constitutional procedures. However, as long as laws remain in effect, executive leaders cannot substitute their personal values for the law, nor can they indefinitely alter the legal effect of final court judgments through prolonged inaction.

Legislative reform is the legislature's duty; constitutional review belongs to the judiciary; faithful enforcement of the law is the executive's non-negotiable constitutional obligation.

Constitutional Court Judgment No. 8 of 2024 (113-constitutional-judgment-8) raises the procedural threshold for the state's exercise of its most severe punitive power—it does not diminish the binding force of final court judgments. The stricter the procedural safeguards, the more the state must adhere to the law. Procedural justice must not be misconstrued as allowing judgments to remain unexecuted indefinitely.

Likewise, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) strongly protects the right to life and encourages states to progressively restrict and ultimately abolish the death penalty. However, human rights protection does not negate the principles of a rule-of-law state, nor does it authorize the executive branch to alter the legal effect of final judgments through inaction. Human rights protection and administrative adherence to law are not mutually exclusive—they are core values that a democratic rule-of-law state must uphold simultaneously.

A truly mature democracy does not allow the executive to selectively enforce laws based on personal ideology. A truly mature rule of law means that even if the executive holds different views on a law, it must faithfully enforce it as long as it remains valid.

Recent judicial reforms have continuously emphasized procedural safeguards, fundamental rights protection, and judicial transparency—important advancements in legal civilization. Yet, judicial reform cannot consist solely of procedural justice without judgment enforcement, nor only rights protection without state responsibility. Without actual enforcement of judgments, even the most complete procedures will struggle to build public trust in the judiciary.

Human rights have never been a one-way concept.

The fundamental rights of offenders must be protected; equally, the expectations of victims and their families for judicial justice deserve the state's respect. The Ministry of Justice cannot turn a blind eye. Criminal justice is not revenge, but neither should numerous final death sentences remain suspended in endless, agonizing waiting.

For victims' families, what passes is not merely time—it is their final trust in state authority. A court judgment is not merely a ruling on a single case; it is a legal promise made by the state to its people.

Promises may be heavy—but they must not be broken.

Laws may be amended—but they must not be nullified.

Values may be debated—but they must not override the Constitution.

People believe in the judiciary not because judgments are flawless, but because they believe that final judgments made by three-tier courts in accordance with law will ultimately be faithfully implemented by the state. Justice may be delayed, but it must never be absent.

The state's integrity lies not in declaring adherence to the rule of law, but in faithfully implementing court judgments. The power of the rule of law lies not in how beautifully laws are written, but in whether the state remains faithful to them.

Aristotle's most famous line in Politics: "The rule of law is preferable to the rule of any individual." The greatest crisis facing a rule-of-law state is not the absence of laws, but when law enforcement agencies begin to abandon the state's laws; not the absence of final court judgments, but when judgments are gradually delayed and discarded by executive power; not that people no longer believe in the judiciary, but that public resentment has boiled over to the point where there is no longer any reason to believe.

The endpoint of justice is not the finalization of a judgment, but the state's faithful execution of it. A court may conclude a case; only when the state faithfully executes the judgment is a rule-of-law state truly realized.

*The author is a Chief Prosecutor at the Supreme Prosecutors Office.