One plus one is NOT two here, and unfortunately, this will become, ONE of the, BIGGEST hole in the justice systems! Off of the Front Page Sections, translated…
The incident of a police officer murdered on the trains, the district court of Chiayi handed out a “not guilty” verdict, and a few days ago, the High Courts in Taiwan also handed down a “not guilty” verdict for a man murdering his own mother. The similarity of these two cases was that penal code nineteen was applied to both, what’s different was that the suspect murdering the police officer had been diagnosed, the courts employed the first clause, to NOT pass down a punishment, a guilty verdict, and FORCED into hospital treatment (in custody) for five years. And the latter, the suspect wasn’t diagnosed, but because of his drug abuse, it’d caused him to lose his sense of judgment, there’s NO known psychological or physical condition that he was diagnosed with, and there’s no forced hospitalization, and this sent thrills to the public!
And so, the people stated: abusing drugs is charged, murder is charged, but, when you’re impaired after abusing the drugs and murdered someone, you will NOT be held accountable, because the substances had impaired your judgement, therefore, you’re, not guilty for murder. This made the press questioned the head of the justice department, that if the misinterpretations of the law is allowed, and the head of the justice department gave an ambiguous reply, and laypersons still can’t have a clarified answer!
To tell the truth, there are three addendums to the Penal Code 19 back on February 2nd, 2005 when it was amended: the first two addendums (focused on the individual who’d lost sense of judgment being found not guilty, and couldn’t tell that her/his behaviors was bad, getting a more lenient sentence) rule, it’s not applicable for those murder suspects who’d admitted to murder on their own, or those who’d, intentionally committed the murders. In other words, “turning oneself in” doesn’t exempt the suspect from a guilty charge, nor would it qualify the suspect for a reduced sentence. But, “turning oneself in” has such a broad spectrum of interpretation, and by the general terms, drug abuse constitutes as intentional or accidental, and someone who’d abused the illegal substances and then murdered someone wouldn’t qualify for a reduced sentence or get found not-guilty, that they should be ruled by the normal murders (Penal Code 271) or death by injury (Penal Code 276). If basing off of the narrowed interpretation, the individual needed to get found to have the intent to murder, used the illegal substances, then murdering someone, and that would qualify the person for the not-guilty verdict under the law. The High Court’s Collectivist Court was taking the narrow interpretations. While the citizens who aren’t trained in law, using the broader interpretations.
In the belief of ordinary citizens, drinking, drug abuse, or other forms of putting oneself at a lowered capacity for thought, there’s no rule of protection, that when murder or assault occurred under these circumstances, the murder or manslaughter charges would be applied, and if the drug users’ abusing the substances and committing murders, and get found not guilty and set free, wouldn’t this cause chaos in the society?
Or course, we can take from Germany’s example, and set up another amendment on definition of whether or not there’s the intent for murder. Or, the Highest Court’s criminal court taking the broader interpretations of the law: deciding what defines “under the influence”, and, how the murders had occurred under these, circumstances. This is NOT doable!
And there’s another issue, what constitutes as “diminished capacity for thought”? Does it have to drop to a ZERO for it to count? Or “lower than the average person”? Because, there’s also, that second “the need to reduce the sentence”. In other words, the individual who’d committed the murders doesn’t necessary need to have her/his mental capacity be completely limited.
The defendant in the case, after we’d reviewed through the facts of how he’d come to tell the police that his mother had been mistreating him, and this was enough to make us question, if his cognition had been, reduced to, next to nil when he’d committed the murder. The second qualification for “reduced sentence” should fit to the rulings in his first trial.
And so, because the law was, loosely defined, it’s, basically, open to interpretation, by those who are sitting on it, therefore, there’s still NO justice for the victims of these, crimes, and this is a problem that this government still can’t see, and guess what, in this society, there will be, psychos, running with their knives, and GUNS onto the streets, opening FIRE, and stabbing the innocents that they come across, just because. And when they get caught, they get to plea temporary INSANITY, and so, instead of getting the DEATH penalty, the individuals are, serving LIFE, and we’re still the one paying for their education, their meals, and their medical care, and this government is still, god damn, BRAINLESS!