• By Richard C. Kagan and Nicholas Haggerty

Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon.

When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person.

Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon.

From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this time in a closet-sized room shared with a cellmate, as he declined into a state of near physical and mental incapacity. Since Chen was granted medical parole, his health has improved.

He hosts a weekly interview show, recently published his memoirs and has enjoyed a small resurgence of popularity with young people who follow his posting of surrealist memes on Instagram.

However, he is still deprived of basic human and civil rights. He is required to request leave and report on his daily activities.

Bearing over him is the unlikely, but still present peril of being sent back to prison.

Perhaps the greatest injustice to Chen is that his medical parole time does not count toward his sentence of nearly 20 years.

If this time is included, Chen has already had his rights deprived for almost 16 years, and he lacks the consolation of knowing when his sentence might end.

The financial crimes that Chen was convicted of can be divided into two categories:

First, Chen’s conviction for embezzlement of state funds has already been overturned by the High Court.

What remains is the second category — bribery and subsequent attempts by Chen’s family to shelter their ill-gotten gains abroad.

Individuals and institutions with interests before the government gave large sums of money to Chen’s wife, Wu Shu-chen (吳淑珍). However, no direct quid pro quo has ever been proven; the courts — not a jury — found one based on a theory of “substantial influence.”

The broader issue standing in the way of a pardon for Chen is the fragile peace in the Taiwan Strait. While Chen was president, his campaigns such as pushing for a referendum for Taiwan to join the UN were anathema to Beijing and Washington.

As such, a pardon might seem to be outweighed by the potential of needlessly provoking China.

However, the Omelas analogy is not precise. No serious analyst would claim that freeing Chen would threaten the peace and democracy that prevails in Taiwan.

The principle that a pardon would uphold is that Taiwan has chosen self-determination and mercy over the interests of imperial powers, political calculation and retribution.

Chen, the “son of Taiwan,” should have his freedom restored to be among everyday people in his homeland as a citizen with full rights.

Richard C. Kagan, professor emeritus at Hamline University, is the author of a biography of Chen Shui-bian. Nicholas Haggerty is former editor of The News Lens International Edition.