China’s Death Penalty: The Political Ethics of Capital Punishment

By Hayah Amin

Introduction

The Death Penalty is one of the most contentious legal issues in our world today. According to Amnesty International, a globally respected organization that fights injustices in our world, the death penalty is “cruel, inhuman and degrading” and 140 countries have officially abolished this in humanitarian form of punishment. . However, China is one of the remaining countries that retains the death penalty and is known to have the highest number of people executed annually. According to Cornell Law School’s Death Penalty Database, China executed an estimated 2,400 people in 2015- and figures in earlier years are similar. If China continues to retain a policy that is currently being abolished by most countries, it is crucial to know if the usage of capital punishment is justifiable. By finding this information, the validity behind its retention can be analyzed  during a time when abolitionist ideas are dominating the discussion platform for this issue.  Due to China’s socio-political setting, retention of the death penalty is justified because it creates political stability and  it is constantly being reformed to be an effective and humane tool of governance for the people of China. The death penalty also seems to have the mark of public approval in Chinese society which further allows its justification.

Corruption and Political Stability

China’s socio-political setting justifies the practice of the death penalty because it creates confidence in the government by the people, which results in political stability.  To understand this,  it is crucial to comprehend  how the Chinese government is organized. According to William C. Jones, in his article, The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the members of the People’s Congress are not directly voted in by the public; they elect local representatives, and these representatives elect members of Congress. Congress is one of the most important organs of government as it holds the power to elect the president and enact legislation. Because China’s governmental system allocates a lot of power to Congress without allowing much public expression, there is scope for corruption within the government (Jones, 708-710). Therefore, if the public has confidence in their government –even with their limitations in participation– the chances of uprisings are significantly reduced. In understanding how implementing the death penalty results in confidence in the government, it is important to understand public concerns in Chinese society. In her article, Leniency and Severity- China’s Death Penalty,Margaret K. Lewis explores the debate over capital punishment through investigating its reforms and its socio-political impact on the country. Because her article’s purpose was to investigate a debate, Lewis explores the issue through multiple perspectives. In her article, she mentions that Chinese citizens, especially those coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are concerned about corruption in society. Lewis, an expert in Chinese and Taiwanese government and politics, reports that efforts made by the government to reduce corruption increases confidence in the government in China: “Maintaining the death penalty to strike against corruption is a clear expression to the public that Beijing is taking their concerns seriously.” If China’s government continues to enforce strict punishments for acts of corruption, an issue of major public concern for the people –especially those coming from lower socioeconomic classes– are likely to continue supporting the government, maintaining political stability within China.  Because the people of China don’t have direct control over the policies implemented in their country, it is crucial for the government to show the public their rights are being protected. By enforcing harsh punishments for acts of corruption, the government gains public support and confidence, resulting in political stability.

Corruption and Political Stability

China’s socio-political setting justifies the practice of the death penalty because it creates confidence in the government by the people, which results in political stability.  To understand this,  it is crucial to comprehend  how the Chinese government is organized. According to William C. Jones, in his article, The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the members of the People’s Congress are not directly voted in by the public; they elect local representatives, and these representatives elect members of Congress. Congress is one of the most important organs of government as it holds the power to elect the president and enact legislation. Because China’s governmental system allocates a lot of power to Congress without allowing much public expression, there is scope for corruption within the government (Jones, 708-710). Therefore, if the public has confidence in their government –even with their limitations in participation– the chances of uprisings are significantly reduced. In understanding how implementing the death penalty results in confidence in the government, it is important to understand public concerns in Chinese society. In her article, Leniency and Severity- China’s Death Penalty, Margaret K. Lewis explores the debate over capital punishment through investigating its reforms and its socio-political impact on the country. Because her article’s purpose was to investigate a debate, Lewis explores the issue through multiple perspectives. In her article, she mentions that Chinese citizens, especially those coming from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are concerned about corruption in society. Lewis, an expert in Chinese and Taiwanese government and politics, reports that efforts made by the government to reduce corruption increases confidence in the government in China: “Maintaining the death penalty to strike against corruption is a clear expression to the public that Beijing is taking their concerns seriously.” If China’s government continues to enforce strict punishments for acts of corruption, an issue of major public concern for the people –especially those coming from lower socioeconomic classes– are likely to continue supporting the government, maintaining political stability within China.  Because the people of China don’t have direct control over the policies implemented in their country, it is crucial for the government to show the public their rights are being protected. By enforcing harsh punishments for acts of corruption, the government gains public support and confidence, resulting in political stability.

Widespread Public and Government Support

Due to firm support in retaining the death penalty by the public and the government, the practice is justifiable in China. To understand why the Chinese public supports capital punishment so firmly, it is crucial to investigate its long standing history in China’s society. Duhaime.org, a law database created by Lloyd Duhaime, a respected Canadian lawyer, reports that the death penalty has been practised in China as early as 350 B.C.E when the Code of Li K’vei was published. Although the usage and methods of capital punishment have drastically changed over time, the death penalty has been part of Chinese society for thousands of years. As a result, it has grown to become an integral part of Chinese society and it has been recognized as an effective tool of governance.  To understand how public support justifies capital punishment, it is important to investigate the reasons why it is firmly supported and seen as an effective tool of governance. According to Lewis, the death penalty is seen as an effective way to reduce crime. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, China’s economy was dramatically improving and China’s socio-economic environment was changing, leaving Chinese citizens concerned for their safety*. The government responded by solidifying China’s Criminal Law and increasing the number of crimes that could result in the death penalty(most of them related to economic corruption) . This shows that China’s government responded to concerns over safety by reforming criminal law to enforce the death penalty for crimes relevant to their new society. China’s retention of their ancient policy and its implementation reflects firm belief in its ability to reduce crime and govern China effectively.

Reformations

The death penalty can be justified in China because it is constantly being reformed to appear an effective and humane tool of governance for the people of China. To understand how reforms justify the use of capital punishment, it is important to investigate how and why policies have changed over China’s history. Stephen Noakes, in his article, Kill Fewer, Kill Carefully investigates China’s history of death penalties. He reports that during the 1950’s, the Chinese government had a series of movements to solidify China’s death penalty through formally establishing the death-eligible laws; acts that betrayed the new state, deterred the regime, and created disorder in society. This included the Law for the Punishment of Counterrevolutionaries 1991, Provisional Law on Guarding State Secrets, Provisional Law on Penalties for Undermining the State Monetary System, and the Law on Penalties for Corruption (1992). China implemented and used these policies to maintain order in their country until 1983. During 1983, Chinese citizens felt unsafe because crimes such as kidnapping, human trafficking, and rape were not capital crimes, yet they were occurring in Chinese society. The Chinese government responded by making a mandatory death penalty for those crimes. This depicts government evaluating a change, and resolving it using, what they consider, an effective tool. During this period of reformation, the Chinese government also restricted judicial oversight to ensure criminals were not given enough time to cause further harm in the country. Over the following years, China made a new set of reformations to their capital punishment; they banned the execution of juveniles, established a gunshot as the only method of execution, and adopted a policy where executions would only be carried out when a crime was detrimental to the society’s well being. In 1996, China’s Amendments to the Criminal Procedural Law focused on strengthening the defendant’s laws. This was one of China’s most significant movements because it required a defense counsel to be present at Capital cases. These changes also reflect the government’s evaluation of a changing society that requires more effective tools of governance. Therefore, they reformed their policies to suit their country and support their people. Here, many object that despite these amendments, innocent people were still being convicted of crimes and executed. A famous example of this includes the execution of  She Xianglin; an innocent man convicted of murdering his wife. Two weeks after his execution, it was found that his wife was still alive. According to Nia Jiang, in her book titled Wrongful Convictions in China: Comparative and Empirical perspectives, Xianglin was tortured until he confessed to a crime he didn’t commit- and did not have a defense counsel present during his trial. Cases in which people are innocently convicted of capital crimes or have received unfair trials have been recognized- not only by scholars, but by government. According to scholar Stephen Noakes, recent changes to the death penalty reflect “state pragmatism—a shift in the domestic political space toward a greater recognition of the importance of social accountability” (Noakes, 18). He also reports that the number  of death penalties served has decreased over time. This shows the Chinese government acknowledges the faults within their political system and works to reform them. This can also be seen through China’s final set of major reforms which occurred from 2004-2010 called “Kill Fewer, Kill Carefully.” According to Cornell Law School’s Death Penalty Database, these reforms required that the Supreme People’s Court had to review all immediate execution cases, make lethal injection the only method of executions, expand  the categories of people excused from the death penalty to include the mentally ill and pregnant women, and reduce the number of capital crimes. These series of reformations reflect the government implementing solutions to problems or changes in Chinese society. These reforms also depict the government realizing the ineffectiveness of a policy and amending it to make it an effective tool of governance. Because of the government’s efficiency in making reforms when needed, the usage of Capital punishment can be justified in China.

Conclusion

In a world where abolition towards capital punishment is the policy for the majority of countries, China retains its death penalty policy. The death penalty has been regarded as an effective tool for resolving issues by the Chinese people and government. Because this policy is implemented towards issues that endanger the wellbeing of Chinese society, they gain public support and confidence. The government can take action by implementing Capital punishment for a crime, or the government can reform a national policy- both have been implemented throughout its history. The death penalty has been a commonly used resolution because of its long-standing existence in Chinese society, the country’s confidence in its effectiveness, and its need during times of spikes in crime. Because the Chinese government is using publicly supported methods to take action against issues in Chinese society, the people feel the government is supporting them. This reduces the chances of uprisings and political instability.   Due to its efficacy in maintaining political stability in China, capital punishment is supported by the people and is seen to be an effective tool for governance even today.

Bibliography

Duhaime, Lloyd. “Crime and Punishment in Ancient China.” Duhaime.org - Learn Law, Duhaime, www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-367/Crime-and-Punishment-in-Ancient-China.aspx.

Cornell Law School . “The Death Penalty Database.” The Death Penalty Database, Cornell Law School , 10 Apr. 2014, www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=china.

“Amnesty International.” Death Penalty, Amnesty International, www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/.

Margaret K. Lewis, Leniency and Severity- China’s Death Penalty, Columbia Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2011.

Jones, William C. “The Constitution of the People's Republic of China.” Washington University Law Review, Volume 63 , no. Issue 4, 1985, pp. 707–711., openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2203&context=law_lawreview.

Jiang, Nia . Wrongful Convictions in China: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives. Springer, 2016.

Noakes, Stephen. “"Kill Fewer, Kill Carefully".” Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 61, no. 3, 28 May 2014, pp. 18–30., doi:10.2753/ppc1075-8216610302.

Duhaime, Lloyd. “China - A Legal History.” Duhaime.org - Learn Law, Duhaime, www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-363/China--A-Legal-History.aspx.