Tarimcneil.files.wordpress.com



The Legal Concept and Practice of Capital Punishment in the People’s Republic of ChinabyTari McNeilA thesis submitted in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofMaster of ScienceDepartment of Criminal JusticeCollege of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human ServicesUniversity of CincinnatiFaculty Advisor: Edward Latessa, Ph.D.March 28, 2016Keywords: capital punishment, criminal procedure law, People’s Republic of China, death row,criminal justice system, execution methodsThe Legal Concept and Practice of Capital Punishment in the People’s Republic of ChinaIn Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the MASTER OF SCIENCEinCRIMINAL JUSTICEbyTari McNeilUNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATIMarch 28, 2016Under the guidance and approval of Dr. Edward Latessa Ph.D., this thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.APPROVED:____________________________________________________________________Dr. Edward LatessaDateAcknowledgmentsThis thesis would not have been possible without the express written approval of Dr. Latessa, who authorized me to pursue a topic of my own choosing. Thanks Dr. Latessa! I also need to extend my appreciation to those who supported me, and even those who didn’t, throughout my life, and especially during the writing of this thesis. Everyone has value, and hopefully that message comes through in this thesis. Table of ContentsAbstract …………………………………………………………...…………………………ivChapter One ……………………………………………………….……………………..…..1Introduction ………………………………………………….…………………...…..1Purpose of the Study …………………………..……….…………………….1Research Questions ……………………………..………….…………….…..2Educational Significance of Study ………………..…………….…………....2Chapter Summaries …………………….…………..…………………….…..3Chapter Two …………………………………………………….………………………..….4Social, Economic, and Political Context of the People’s Republic of China ……......4Social Context ………………………………………………………..……....4Establishment of the People’s Republic of China ………….…….…..4Geography …………………………………………………………....4People and Society ……………………………………………...........4Economic Context …………………………………………………………....6Transition from a Closed-Economy to a Market-Based Economy…...6Global Prominence …………………………………………….……..6Workforce ………………………………………………………..…...7Political Context …….…………………………………………………..……8Government ………..…………………………………………………8Political Parties ……..………………………………………………...8Leadership ………..…………………………………………………..9Chapter Three ………………………………………………………………………………10Criminal Justice System of the People’s Republic of China …………………….…10Establishment and Administrative Organization ………………………...…10Criminal Procedure Law ……………………………………………………15Chapter Four ……………………………………………………………………………..…17Legal Concept of Capital Punishment in the People’s Republic of China …………17Definition of Legal Concept of Capital Punishment …………………….…17Criminal Offenses Eligible for Capital Punishment Consideration…………19Chapter Five …………………………………………………………………………..….…25Practice of Capital Punishment in the People’s Republic of China ……………...…25Administrative Review of Capital Punishment Sentences ……………….…25Exempt Populations ………………………………………………..………..26Death Row ………………………………………………………………......27Execution Process and Methods …………………………………………….27Organ Donation by Executed Adult Criminal Offenders …………………...30Demographic Information on Executed Adult Criminal Offenders ………...32Chapter Six …………………………………………………………………………..…..…34Discussion ……………………………………………………………………...…...34Domestic Perspective ……………………………………………………….34International Perspective …………………………………………………....37Chapter Seven ………………………………………………………………………………39Summary and Recommendations for Future Research ………………………….…39Summary ……………………………………………………………………39Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………….…41References …………………………………………………………………………………..43Abstract Capital punishment is the harshest criminal sanction available in any country’s criminal justice system. The People’s Republic of China (hereinafter China) is widely believed by many to be the world’s current leader in the amount of adult criminal offenders legally executed by court-mandated execution (Amnesty International, 2015). The legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China is best understood with a comprehensive knowledge of the evolution of the social, economic, and political context in China, and the resultant influence on the current legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. The present study provides a review and analysis of literature and other information sources, regarding the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. Information is also provided on the evolution of the social, economic, and political context of China. A variety of scholarly and other information sources have been utilized in this study: peer reviewed articles, published reports from independent government and organization sources, published commercial books, and published textbooks. This study has found that the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China continues to evolve, and that prudent researchers should continue to monitor and evaluate the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China for documented changes. Chapter OneIntroductionAlthough the exact amount is considered a state secret, it is widely believed that China currently leads the world in the amount of adult criminal offenders legally executed by court-mandated execution (Amnesty International, 2015). Amnesty International (2015) stated that in 2014 that China had executed more of its adult criminal offenders than had all of the rest of the world combined. The use of capital punishment as a court-mandated criminal sentencing option by China has been utilized throughout its existence as a country (Lu & Miethe, 2007). As the social, economic, and political context of China has evolved and changed, so has the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). An informed understanding of the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China will also inform the reader about the evolution of the social, economic, and political context of that country, and the resultant influence on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment of adult criminal offenders in China. Purpose of this StudyThe purpose of this study is to provide the reader with a better understanding of the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China, by examining the evolution of the social, economic, and political context of China, and the resultant influence of those societal changes on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. This study will accomplish its stated purpose by reviewing and analyzing a variety of scholarly and other information sources that have examined documented changes in the social, economic, and political context of China since its establishment as a country on October 1, 1949 (Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], 2016). There are many opportunities for future research on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China, and specific recommendations for future research are presented at the conclusion of this study. Research QuestionsThis study provides empirical evidence in support of answers to three separate and distinct research questions. These three research questions address three specific components of the evolution of China’s society since its establishment as a country, and are inextricably linked to the evolution of the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China (CIA, 2016). Specifically, this study provides empirical evidence in support of answers to these three research questions: What is the definition of the legal concept of capital punishment for adult criminal offenders in China?What is the actual practice of capital punishment for adult criminal offenders in China?What is the social, economic, and political context of China, and how has the evolution of all of these influenced the legal concept and practice of capital punishment of adult criminal offenders in China?Educational Significance of StudyAmnesty International (2015) stated that more than two thirds of countries throughout the world have abolished the use of capital punishment as a criminal sanction for adult criminal offenders, either as a matter of official policy or in actual practice. China is one of 58 countries in the world that has continued the use of capital punishment as a criminal sanction for adult criminal offenders (Amnesty International, 2015). This study presents empirical evidence that as the social, economic, and political context of China has evolved, that those societal changes have influenced the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China, and China’s continued quest for global prominence. Chapter SummariesThis study presents a critical review and analysis of the legal concept and practice ofcapital punishment in China. Chapter two provides an historical overview of the social, economic, and political context of China. Chapter three provides detailed information about the establishment of the criminal justice system in China. Chapter four presents the current definition of the legal concept of capital punishment, and a detailed list of the specific criminal offenses currently eligible for capital punishment consideration in China. Chapter five explains the actual practice of capital punishment by the government of China, including the administrative review of capital punishment sentences, exempt populations, death row, execution methods and processes, organ donation by executed adult criminal offenders, and demographic information on criminal offenders executed in China. Chapter six discusses the information presented in this study, and provides the domestic and international perspectives regarding the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. Chapter seven presents a summary of the information presented in this study regarding the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China, and also provides recommendations for future research on this issue.Chapter TwoSocial, Economic, and Political Context of the People’s Republic of ChinaSocial ContextEstablishment of the People’s Republic of China. Although Chinese civilization has existed for thousands of years, China was only recently established as a country (CIA, 2016; Keay, 2011). China was established by Communist rule on October 1, 1949, and is the formally recognized name for that country (CIA, 2016). Chairman Mao Zedong, who had already assumed leadership of the Chinese Communist Party in 1945, now also became the leader of the newly established People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949 (Chang & Halliday, 2006). Chairman Mao Zedong remained the leader of China until his death on September 9th, 1976 (Chang & Halliday, 2006). Geography. China is geographically located in Eastern Asia, and shares geographical boundaries with North Korea, Russia, India, and Vietnam (CIA, 2016). Beijing is the capital of China, and is geographically located in the northeastern part of the country (People’s Republic of China [PRC], 2014a). China is a country only slightly geographically smaller than the United States, and it encompasses approximately 3.7 million square miles (CIA, 2016; Nations Encyclopedia, 2016). The territorial landscape of China is varied, with the Himalayan Mountains, and many rivers, lakes, forests, and plateaus, located within its recognized geographical boundaries (Keay, 2011). The entire country of China is all contained within just one time zone (CIA, 2016).People and society. There are approximately 1.37 billion people currently living in China, and approximately half of those people (47.95%) are between the ages of 25-54 (CIA, 2016). Approximately one third of the population of China lives in either Shanghai (23.74 million people) or Beijing (20.38 million people) (CIA, 2016). The population of China is highly literate, with approximately 96.4% of its citizens who are at least 15 years old having the ability to read and write (CIA, 2016). The average Chinese citizen born in contemporary China can expect an average life expectancy of about 75.41 years (CIA, 2016). The World Health Organization (2015) stated that stroke is currently the leading cause of death for Chinese citizens in China.China is a diverse society, and is represented by many different ethnic groups, religions, and languages. The government of China officially recognizes 56 different ethnic groups in China, and approximately 91.6% of Chinese citizens belong to the Han Chinese ethnic group (CIA, 2016). The government of China officially recognizes at least 10 different languages in China, and Mandarin Chinese is the official language of China (CIA, 2016). Although the government of China officially recognizes at least seven different religions, the government of China has officially declared that it is an atheist country (CIA, 2016).Daily life in China is much like that of many countries throughout the world, although there are still some distinct cultural and societal differences between China and many western countries. Similar to many citizens of western countries, many Chinese citizens also enjoy cellular phones, the internet, and television. China is the world’s leader in the number of cell phones, with 1.3 billion cell phones currently in use in that country (CIA, 2016). China is also the world leader in the amount of internet users, with an approximate 626.6 million internet users in that country (CIA, 2016). There are over 3,240 television broadcast stations throughout China, and all are either directly owned or controlled by either the Communist Party of China, or an approved government agency in China (CIA, 2016). One does not become a citizen in China by virtue of birth in that country, and current government regulations state that at least one parent must be a Chinese citizen (CIA, 2016). China does not recognize dual citizenship (CIA, 2016). Economic ContextTransition from a closed economy to a market-based economy. China’s transition from a closed economy to a market-based economy, began shortly after the death of Chairman Mao Zedong in September of 1976 (Lu & Miethe, 2007). After the death of its most powerful and prominent leader, China was now at a social, economic, and political crossroads, because Chairman Mao Zedong had been instrumental in the creation and development of China in its early formative years as a country (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, economic reforms were developed that helped transform China from a third world country focused on agricultural production, into a more modernized country (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Economic reforms were instituted throughout China by the de-collectivization of crop production, positive pricing adjustments to farmers for their crops from the Communist-led government, privatization of some government-owned businesses, and some additional reforms in the housing and employment markets (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, formal diplomatic relations were reestablished with the United States on January 1, 1979 (U.S. Department of State, n.d.). Kissinger (2012) stated he greatly respected Deng Xiaoping, and Xiaoping’s vision for the country and people of China. Xiaoping had begun the development of his vision for the social, economic, and political modernization of China while Chairman Mao Zedong was still living and still in power, which Kissinger considered a politically and personally risky visionary strategy (Kissinger, 2012). Global prominence. No longer considered a third world country, China is fast achieving global prominence in the world’s economy. For the first time in contemporary history, China dethroned the United States as the world leader in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2015 (CIA, 2016). China is the world leader in exported goods, receiving the equivalent of approximately 2.27 trillion dollars each year from exported goods (CIA, 2016). China leads the world in the amount of apples, corn, cotton, fish, pork, and tea exported to countries throughout the world (CIA, 2016). The United States is the largest importer of goods from China (CIA, 2016). Workforce. China is the world leader in the amount of its citizens in its nation’s workforce, with 804 million Chinese citizens currently in the workforce in that country (CIA, 2016). There are approximately 1 billion Chinese citizens of working age in China (CIA, 2016). Female Chinese citizens comprise approximately 44.54% of the workforce in China (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2013). The workforce in China is employed in one of three occupational categories: agriculture, industry, and service (CIA, 2016). The unemployment rate in China is 4.2% (CIA, 2016). The minimum age for work eligibility in China is 16 years old (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2013).The government of China has long enforced a government mandate which prohibited Chinese families in China from having more than one child per family (CIA, 2016). Chairman Mao Zedong had encouraged Chinese families to have large families, in his belief that more people meant a more powerful China (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). Faced with the practical and economic realities of supporting a citizen population increasing by approximately 15 million new infant citizens per year, quickly set in for the new leader of China, Deng Xiaoping, and his leadership team (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). As a result, the government of China issued a mandatory nationwide policy in the 1980s which prohibited Chinese families from having more than one child per family (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). Violators of that government mandate were fined (Fairbank & Goldman, 2006). Miethe and Lu (2011) stated that the State Family Planning Commission of China had assessed over $3,000,000.00 in fines between 1985 and 1993, from families who had violated the government mandate against families with more than one child in their family. The government of China officially declared in October 2015 that it would end that longstanding prohibition in March of 2016, and that Chinese families would then be allowed to have two children per family (CIA, 2016). This recent amendment to China’s government mandated family planning policy addressed the practical reality of its now aging workforce, and sought to lessen the potential negative effect on the Chinese economy when that segment of the Chinese workforce retired (CIA, 2016). Political ContextGovernment. Government authority in China is currently administered within distinct administrative divisions: 23 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, and 4 municipalities (CIA, 2016). China considers Taiwan as one of its 23 recognized provinces (CIA, 2016). Similar to the United States, the government is comprised of three distinct branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial (CIA, 2016). The Constitution of China was enacted into law in 1954, and was most recently amended in December 1982 (CIA, 2016; Muhlhahn, 2009). The legal system of China operates under civil law (CIA, 2016). Political parties. The Communist Party of China is the dominant political party in China, and is the governing authority for that country (CIA, 2016). China officially recognizes eight additional politically independent parties, but all are regulated by the ruling Communist Party of China (CIA, 2016). The current President of China, Xi Jinping, is also the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (PRC, 2012). The membership requirements of the Communist Party of China state that eligible Chinese citizens must be at least 18 years of age, accept the mandates and constitution of the Communist Party, work in designated Party organizations, and pay regular membership dues (PRC, 2012). There are approximately 87 million current members of the Communist Party of China (Congressional-Executive Commission on China [CECC], 2015). Leadership. The President and Vice-President of China are nominated and elected separately for their respective offices by the National People’s Congress, and only the National People’s Congress has the legal authority to remove either the President or Vice-President of China from office (PRC, 2013). The President and Vice-President of China are constitutionally authorized to serve no more than two consecutive terms (PRC, 2014c). The President of China is the political leader of China, both within the country itself, and in contacts with foreign nations (PRC, 2013). The executive authority of the President of China is subordinate to the mandates of the National People’s Congress (PRC, 2013). The National People’s Congress is the officially recognized highest ranking legal authority for China (PRC, 2014b). The National People’s Congress is comprised of deputies elected from the recognized administrative divisions and government entities of China, and each Congress is elected and serves for a five year term (PRC, 2014b). The National People’s Congress is the only governmental body legally authorized to amend China’s constitution, enact and modify laws, nominate, elect, or remove the President or Vice-President of China; and elect or remove the Chief Justice of the People’s Supreme Court from office (PRC, 2014b). Chapter ThreeCriminal Justice System of the People’s Republic of ChinaEstablishment and Administrative OrganizationThere are four distinct chapters in the formation and evolution of China’s criminal justice system (Muhlhahn, 2009). The first chapter spanned the years of 1949 through 1953, and included the early formative years of the newly established country and its criminal justice system (Muhlhahn, 2009). The second chapter spanned the years of 1954 through 1957, and was marked by efforts to more formerly structure and improve China’s criminal justice system (Muhlhahn, 2009). The third chapter spanned the years of 1958 to 1978, and included dramatic changes in China’s criminal justice system during that time, and the death of its leader, Chairman Mao Zedong (Muhlhahn, 2009). The fourth chapter spans the years of 1979 to the present, and has included enactment of China’s first Criminal Procedure Law, and increased modernization of China’s criminal justice system (Muhlhahn, 2009). The first chapter began with the establishment of China on October 1, 1949, by Chairman Mao Zedong, the ruling leader of the Communist Party of China at that time (Muhlhahn, 2009). The new ruling Communist Party immediately abolished all existing laws, and constructed a socialist legal system based upon the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the Soviet Union (Guo et al., 2009; Muhlhahn, 2009). China’s criminal justice system during this time was developed as a means to consolidate the ruling authority of the Communist Party of China, emphasize class struggle, and also legally sanction and control its citizens (Muhlhahn, 2009). Criminal offending during this time was viewed by the ruling Communist Party as a direct threat to the economic, social, and political order of the newly established country (Muhlhahn, 2009). Attorney-client privilege was non-existent during that time, and attorneys were required to report all information provided to them by their client to the prosecution (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The newly established legal structure, statutes, and criminal sanctions of China during that time were extremely harsh by any standard (Muhlhahn, 2009). Approximately 95% of the criminal offenses recognized by the government of China during this period were eligible for consideration of capital punishment, life imprisonment, or the lengthy imprisonment of criminal offenders (Muhlhahn, 2009). China’s criminal justice system during this period was often beset by internal conflicts created by the competing social and economic interests of the peasant and urban classes (Muhlhahn, 2009). Approximately 4 million arrests of criminal offenders were made during this period by the police, or other authorized government representatives, and without court oversight (Muhlhahn, 2009). Approximately one fourth of those arrested were sentenced to death, were often executed by the next day, and in public executions (Muhlhahn, 2009). The second chapter in the development of China’s criminal justice system began with efforts by the ruling Communist Party in China to formalize and improve the criminal justice system of China (Muhlhahn, 2009). Judicial duties and responsibilities were explicitly stated in guidelines published in 1954 (Muhlhahn, 2009). Courts in China were legally obligated to process civil and criminal cases presented to the court, legally sanction criminal offenders, and instruct the general population on the rules and guidelines of the court (Muhlhahn, 2009). Public trials were held for the legal and civil benefit of the defendants and general citizenry of China (Muhlhahn, 2009). Defendants often did not have legal representation in court proceedings during this time (Muhlhahn, 2009). The interests and mandates of the ruling Communist Party were considered paramount to those of defendants and citizens during this period (Muhlhahn, 2009). The third chapter in the development of China’s criminal justice system began with efforts by the ruling Communist party in China to further strengthen its legal and political hold on its citizens (Muhlhahn, 2009). Criminal offending during this period was still viewed by the ruling Communist Party as a direct threat to the social, economic, and political order of the country (Muhlhahn, 2009). During this period, legal reforms and education were stopped, and no new laws were enacted (Muhlhahn, 2009). The Communist Party of China retained administrative and legal control of its criminally errant members (Muhlhahn, 2009). Members of the Communist Party of China suspected of criminal offenses, were often tried and sentenced directly by the Communist Party without any oversight from China’s criminal justice system (Muhlhahn, 2009). After the death of Chairman Mao Zedong in 1976, Deng Xiaoping’s leadership was instrumental in the reestablishment and modernization of China’s criminal justice system (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The economic, social, and political perspectives and principles of Deng Xiaoping were markedly different than those of Chairman Mao Zedong (Lu & Miethe, 2007). There were three essential components of Deng Xiaoping’s blueprint for the social, economic, and political future for China: emphasis of a democratic “rule of law” rather than the “rule of man,” continued emphasis of class struggle as part of the legal process, and the role of the government and criminal justice system of China as a governmental overseer (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The fourth chapter of the development of China’s criminal justice system began on July 1, 1979, with the enactment of China’s first Criminal Procedure Law (Congressional-Executive Commission on China [CECC], 2006). China’s new Criminal Procedure Law provided a legal blueprint for China’s criminal justice system, and signaled the welcomed beginning of a new legal direction for China’s criminal justice system (McConville, 2011). Under the guidelines of the Criminal Procedure Law, criminal cases were processed in accordance with specific criminal laws and not according to a patchwork of stated government policies and regulations (Chen, 2010). Criminal defendants were now guaranteed the right of legal defense (Chen, 2010). Under the new Criminal Procedure Law, criminal accountability, legal equity, and public safety were considered essential components of China’s reformed and revitalized criminal justice system (Chen, 2010). Administrative review and processing of criminal cases in contemporary China is accomplished in one of two ways: simplified procedure, and full trial process (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Criminal cases pertaining to minor criminal offenses, and with clearly stated facts and evidence, are handled through a legal process known as simplified procedure. Other criminal cases with less clearly stated facts and evidence, or if convicted criminal offenders could potentially receive an imprisonment term of more than three years, must be handled through the full trial process (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The full trial process is known in China’s criminal justice system as the trial of first instance (Lu & Miethe, 2007). This stage of the legal process requires a chief judge, two deputy judges, the reading of the indictment, questioning of the accused criminal offender, introduction of evidence, opening and closing arguments, a statement by the defendant, and a publicized verdict (Lu & Miethe, 2007). There is no jury in criminal trials conducted in the Chinese criminal justice system (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Either the convicted offender or the prosecution may appeal the verdict, and must do so within 10 days of the published verdict (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Appellate review of the verdict includes a review of the official court files from the first trial, and determination of the applicable facts and laws subject to appellate review by the second court (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Appellate courts must conduct a new trial if the original verdict was appealed by the prosecution, and must complete that trial within six weeks (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The appellate court’s decision results in one of three conclusions: rejection of the appeal and the upholding of the original verdict, amendment of the original verdict, or the remand of the appeal back to the original court for a retrial of the defendant (Lu & Miethe, 2007).There are four distinct administrative levels of legal authority in the current criminal justice system of China: District Courts, Intermediate Courts, Superior Courts, and the Supreme People’s Court (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Lu & Miethe (2007) stated that all criminal trials involve one trial and one appellate review, with the exception of capital punishment cases which must also be reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court. There are distinct element elements in criminal cases tried by a court in China’s criminal justice system: an inquisitorial rather than adversarial approach, the presumption of the guilt of the criminal offender, emphasized importance of crime control, and required recognition of government and Communist Party control in successful accomplishment of these goals (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The Supreme People’s Court is the highest court-level authority in China (CIA, 2016). The Supreme People’s Court is comprised of a Chief Justice, and approximately 340 other justices who are assigned to designated courts throughout China (CIA, 2016). The Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court is nominated and elected for office by the National People’s Congress, and only the National People’s Congress is legally authorized to remove the Chief Justice from office (PRC, 2014b). The other justices of the Supreme People’s Court are nominated for office by the Chief Justice, but are appointed to office by the National People’s Congress (CIA, 2016). The Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court is officially authorized by the National People’s Congress to serve no more than two consecutive five year terms (CIA, 2016). There are other court-level authorities within China, but all are subordinate to the legal authority of the Supreme People’s Court, and to the official mandates of the National People’s Congress (CIA, 2016). The other court-level authorities for China are comprised of Autonomous Region People’s Courts, District and County People’s Courts, Higher People’s Courts, Intermediate People’s Courts, and Special People’s Courts designated for the specific legal populations of forestry, maritime, military, and transportation (CIA, 2016). Criminal Procedure Law Deng Xiaoping, who had assumed leadership of China after the death of Chairman Mao Zedong, encouraged the development of formalized laws for all legal categories (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Deng Xiaoping’s vision for the future of China emphasized the continued forceful state control in the oversight and regulation of both internal and external threats to the citizens and country of China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The Criminal Procedure Law of China was enacted into law on July 1, 1979, at the Second Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress (CECC, 2006). The Criminal Procedure Law of China classified criminal offenses into eight distinct categories, specifically defined criminal offenses and established and authorized the basic principles, investigation, jurisdiction, prosecution, sentencing, and appellate guidelines for the criminal justice system of China (CECC, 2006). There are four separate and distinct components in the Criminal Procedure Law of China: general provisions, investigation and prosecution guidelines, trial process, and execution of all criminal sentences (CECC, 2006). The first component, general provisions, established the basic principles of the Criminal Procedure Law, jurisdiction, and defendant and prosecutorial rights and requirements (CECC, 2006). The second component, investigation and prosecution guidelines, established guidelines for criminal case processing, investigation procedures, search and seizure requirements, expert testimony, and proper disposition of criminal cases (CECC, 2006). The third component, trial process, explained trial requirements, public and private prosecution of criminal cases, appellate procedures, bench trial procedures, and the legal review of capital punishment sentences imposed on specific criminal offenders (CECC, 2006). The fourth component, execution of sentences, provided detailed information on effective dates of sentences, execution procedures and methods, imprisonment guidelines, and parole guidelines (CECC, 2006). Chapter FourLegal Concept of Capital Punishment in the People’s Republic of ChinaDefinition of Legal Concept of Capital PunishmentUntil the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Law of China in 1979, few criminal statutes specifically addressed the legal concept of capital punishment in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Most of the criminal statutes in force during the early years of the newly established China addressed criminal offenses that were considered a threat to the social, economic, and political control of the country (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Specifically, criminal offenses eligible for capital punishment consideration included corruption related crimes, counterrevolutionary offenses against the established government, and economic crimes (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Criminal offenders charged with criminal offenses during this time were not automatically entitled to legal representation (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Capital punishment sentences were often carried out without any legal representation for the accused, without any court oversight, and without written documentation kept of these executions (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Political conflicts and famine alone in the 1960s may have resulted in the undocumented deaths millions of criminal offenders (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Bakken (2011) stated the legal concept of capital punishment was no less severe under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, than it had been under the leadership of Chairman Mao Zedong. Similarly to Chairman Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping believed that capital punishment was a necessary sanction against criminal offenders presumed guilty of crimes which threatened the social, economic, and political order of his leadership and of the country (Bakken, 2011). The 1979 Criminal Procedure Law of China was a conceptual bridge between the legal definition of criminal offenses as defined in the early formative years of China, and the social, economic, and political changes that had occurred in China since that time. Criminal offenses were categorized into eight categories, and twenty-eight criminal offenses were eligible for capital punishment consideration (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Approximately fifteen criminal offenses eligible for capital punishment consideration were criminal offenses that were considered counterrevolutionary to the established government (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The Criminal Procedure Law of China was amended and updated in 1997, and now also included criminal offenses related to the social, economic, and political reforms originally developed and implemented under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The 1997 Criminal Procedure Law of China categorized criminal offenses into 10 category types, and included 68 criminal offenses eligible for capital punishment consideration (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Capital punishment eligible criminal offenses still addressed the social, economic, and political mandates of the ruling Communist Party, and more economic crimes were now included (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Lu and Miethe (2007) stated the 1997 Criminal Procedure Law of China stipulated some criminal offenders were issued capital punishment sentences upon conviction, but execution of these criminal offenders was formally adjourned for a period of two years. This sentencing option was imposed on criminal offenders whose executions were not considered immediately required (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The 1997 Criminal Procedure Law did not provide specific details regarding when immediate execution of criminal offenders was required (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Specific cases eligible for this capital punishment sentencing option include the following: the criminal offender was a gang member, but not the leader of the gang; voluntary confession of the criminal offender, determination that the victim was partly at fault in the commission of the crime, the value of specific criminal offenders to prosecution, and criminal offenders with immediate family members identified as foreign nationals (Lu & Miethe, 2007). After the conclusion of the two year adjournment of execution, a judicial review of the facts and circumstances of the criminal case and history of these criminal offenders was conducted (Lu & Miethe, 2007). After the review was completed, judicial authority could authorize commutation of the original capital punishment sentence to an imprisonment term of not less than 15 years if the criminal offender had not committed any additional crimes during that two year period, or order the original capital punishment sentence be accomplished (Lu & Miethe, 2007).Criminal Offenses Eligible for Capital Punishment Consideration (68) + *Endangering national security (7).Plotting to jeopardize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of thecountryInstigating to split the countryOrganizing, plotting, or carrying out armed rebellions, or armed riotsOrganizing, plotting, or acting to subvert the political power of the StateEspionageStealing, secretly gathering, purchasing by bribery or illegally providing thenational secrets or intelligence for foreign institutionsProviding the enemy with armed equipment or military materialsEndangering public security (14).ArsonBreaching dikesCausing explosionsPoisoningThreatening public security with dangerous methodsSabotaging transportation instrumentsSabotaging transportation infrastructuresSabotaging electrical powerSabotaging inflammable or explosive facilitiesHijacking an aircraftIllegal manufacturing, trading, transporting, and mailing guns, ammunitionor explosivesIllegally trading or transporting nuclear materialsStealing or snatching guns, ammunition or explosive materialsForcibly seizing guns, ammunition or explosive materialsUndermining the socialist market economic order (15).Producing or distributing bogus medicinesProducing or distributing poisonous or harmful foodsSmuggling weapons or ammunitions *** Smuggling nuclear materials ***Smuggling counterfeited currencies ***Smuggling cultural relics **Smuggling precious metals **Smuggling rare plants and their products ** Counterfeiting currency ***Illegal fund-raising fraud ***Financial instrument fraud **Letter of credit fraud **Credit-card fraud **Illegally issuing value-added tax invoices **Counterfeiting or selling counterfeited value-added tax invoices **Infringing on the rights of the person and the democratic rights (5).MurderRapeStatutory rapeKidnappingAbducting women and childrenEncroaching on property (2). RobberyTheft **Disrupting the order of social administration (8).Imparting criminal methods ** Organizing a jail breakPrison riots using weaponsIllegally digging and robbing ancient remains or tombs ** Illegally digging or robbing fossils of ancient human beings or fossils ofancient vertebrate animals **Smuggling, trafficking, transporting or manufacturing narcoticsOrganizing another person to engage in prostitution *** Forcing another person to engage in prostitution ***Endangering the national defense interests (2).Sabotaging military weapons, military installations or militarycommunicationsKnowingly providing unqualified weapons or military installations to thearmed forcesGraft and bribery (2).GraftBribe-takingViolating duties by military servicemen (13).Refusing to carry out an order in wartimeDeliberately concealing military intelligence, furnishing falsified intelligenceRefusing to disseminate military orders, or falsely disseminated military ordersSurrendering to the enemyDeserting on the eve of a battleObstructing commanding officers or on-duty servicemen from carrying out theirduties ***Defecting to a foreign countryIllegally obtaining military secretsIllegally providing military secrets to foreign organsFabricating rumors to mislead people during wartime ***Stealing or robbing weapons or military materialsUnlawfully selling or transferring military weaponryInjuring or killing innocent residents or looting property from innocent residents during wartime+Original source of information is Wei Luo. The 1997 Criminal Code of the People’s Republic of China (Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein & Co., Inc. 1998), as stated by Lu and Miethe (2007).*The total amount of crimes eligible for capital punishment consideration after legislative amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law of China in 2011 and 2015 now stands at 46 (World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 2015).**These crimes were removed from crimes eligible for capital punishment consideration in the Criminal Procedure Law of China in 2011. A criminal offense also removed from capital punishment consideration, but not specifically listed, is the criminal offense of smuggling general goods or articles (CECC, 2011). The total amount of criminal offenses eligible for capital punishment consideration was reduced from 68 to 55 as a result of these legislative changes (CECC, 2011). ***These crimes were removed from crimes eligible for capital punishment consideration in the Criminal Procedure Law of China in 2015. The total amount of capital punishment eligible crimes as of 2015 was reduced from 55 to the current amount of 46 as a result of these legislative changes (World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 2015). Chapter FivePractice of Capital Punishment in the People’s Republic of ChinaAdministrative Review of Capital Punishment SentencesAdministrative review of capital punishment sentences imposed on criminal offenders in the early years of the newly established China, was markedly different than was conducted in western countries at that time, or even as compared with contemporary China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Although capital punishment sentences were imposed on criminal offenders by judicial authority, judges at that time were required to act on behalf of Communist Party mandates (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Attorneys for criminal offenders were also required to act on behalf of Communist Party mandates (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Capital punishment was often used to eliminate political opposition to the ruling Communist Party (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Enforcement of criminal sanctions on criminal offenders during the leadership of Chairman Mao Zedong was often completed outside of court jurisdiction and oversight, and few official records kept (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Miao (2013) stated that approximately 710,000 Chinese citizens Chairman Mao Zedong had determined were counterrevolutionaries were executed during the years of 1950 to 1953. Administrative review of capital sentences imposed on criminal offenders in contemporary China is accomplished through a standard legal process (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Criminal cases that have resulted in a guilty verdict and capital punishment sentence for criminal offenders, must be reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court (Lu & Miethe, 2007). This review is automatic and mandatory (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The Supreme People’s Court is legally authorized to transfer final review of the capital punishment sentence of criminal offenders convicted of violent criminal offenses to the Supreme Court of a specific government recognized province, autonomous region, or municipality, for review and approval (Lu & Miethe, 2007). As with criminal cases that have not resulted in a capital punishment sentence for criminal offenders, the Supreme People’s Court may reject the capital punishment sentence of criminal offenders, amend the original sentence, or uphold the original verdict (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Public executions are currently prohibited under the established guidelines of the Criminal Procedure Law of China (Lu & Kelly, 2008).Exempt PopulationsUnder the guidelines published in the 1997 Criminal Procedure law, specific criminal offenders are exempt from consideration for capital punishment sentences as a result of their criminal conviction (Lu & Miethe, 2007). A capital punishment cannot be imposed on juvenile offenders who committed their criminal offenses before the age of 18, women who are pregnant at the time of their trial, citizens over the age of 75 at the time of their sentencing, and criminal offenders with specific physical or mental impairments (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Juvenile offenders convicted of otherwise capital punishment eligible criminal offenses, are prohibited from consideration for capital punishment sentences for reasons very similar to the reasons for prohibition of capital punishment sentences for juvenile offenders in the United States (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The criminal justice systems of the United States and China have both determined that the immature biological, intellectual, and psychological development of juveniles mitigated their criminal culpability in capital punishment eligible criminal offenses (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Women who are pregnant at the time of their trial, citizens who are at least 75 years old at the time of their trial, and those with specific physical or mental impairments, are exempt from consideration for capital punishment sentences as a result of their conviction for specific criminal offenses, because of societal benevolence (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Death RowDeath Row in China in both the early years of the country, and in contemporary China, is often brief, with executions of some criminal offenders carried out within minutes or hours after judicial imposition of the capital punishment sentence on those criminal offenders (Lu & Miethe, 2007). During their brief time on death row, convicted criminal offenders in contemporary China are provided with psychological, political, and moral education services, encouraged to write letters to their families, and allowed a final meeting with their families (Lu & Miethe, 2007). During a criminal offender’s final moments with their family, the criminal offender’s handcuffs and restraining devices are removed, and security personnel present with the criminal offender and their family sit down near the family during that final visit (Lu & Miethe, 2007). In some cases, condemned inmates are allowed to specify their request for a final meal, receive an unlimited amount of cigarettes, a shower, and a change of clothes (Amnesty International, 2004). Condemned inmates are not provided with alcohol prior to their execution (Amnesty International, 2004). Execution Process and Methods There are two separate means of execution currently authorized under the Criminal Procedure Law of China: shooting, and lethal injection (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Execution of condemned inmates by shooting was discontinued in 2010, as the result of an official directive originally issued in 2009 by the People’s Supreme Court (Death Penalty Worldwide, 2014). Execution of condemned inmates by lethal injection is the execution method currently practiced in China, and was first used as an execution method for condemned inmates in that country in 1997 (Death Penalty Worldwide, 2014). Execution of condemned inmates by lethal injection was preferred by government officials, because of the presumed practical efficiency and cost-effectiveness of that particular execution method (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Contemporary Chinese citizens preferred the execution of condemned inmates by shooting, because of the presumed additional physical suffering of the condemned inmate (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The sentencing judge who originally imposed the capital punishment on the condemned inmate, is present at the execution of that inmate (Amnesty International, 2004). After the execution of a condemned inmate, the court clerk present at the execution immediately documents the details of the execution in writing, submits the report to the People’s Supreme Court, and notifies the family of the executed inmate (Lu & Miethe, 2007). On the day of a condemned inmate’s execution in contemporary China, court and law enforcement personnel jointly come to the condemned inmate’s cell, and read the sentencing document to the condemned inmate (Amnesty International, 2004). The condemned inmate is then placed in handcuffs and ankle restraining devices, and physically escorted by court and law enforcement officials to the designated execution area. Execution of condemned inmates is completed either in a designated area on prison grounds, or in another designated location (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Condemned inmates to be executed by shooting, are physically escorted to the designated execution area by armed judicial representatives in an unmarked judicial vehicle (Lu & Miethe, 2007). At the designated execution area, the condemned inmate is forced to kneel on the ground with their hands tied behind their back, and the identity of the condemned inmate is confirmed prior to the execution (Lu & Miethe, 2007). After the condemned inmate’s identity is confirmed, the condemned inmate is executed by an armed judicial representative with a single bullet to the back of the head (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Condemned inmates to be executed by lethal injection are also physically escorted to the designated execution area by armed judicial representatives (Lu & Miethe, 2007). A typical execution chamber for the lethal injection of condemned inmates in China is a specially equipped and renovated passenger van (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The specially equipped and renovated passenger van used for execution of condemned inmates by lethal injection, is more commonly known in China as an execution van (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The outside of the execution van is equipped with a red siren on the top of the outside of the vehicle, dark tinted windows, and with double doors at the reverse of the van (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The inside of the execution van includes an execution bed, a sink, and four additional seats (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The driver’s section of the execution van is physically separated from the execution section of the van by a clear glass window, and contains a seat for the driver, and a desk area for use by the legal administrator of the execution process (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The execution bed is made of aluminum, covered with a mattress, and includes a pillow (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Two video cameras are installed on the interior ceiling of the execution van, and are used by execution staff to record the execution process, and any final words stated by the executed inmate (Lu & Miethe, 2007). After the condemned inmate to be executed by lethal injection has been physically escorted into the execution van by armed judicial officers, and is reclining on the execution bed, the left hand of the condemned inmate is placed on a holder physically attached to the execution bed (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The condemned inmate is also physically restrained to the execution bed by three separate belts: one each on the legs, stomach, and chest (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The required instruments are already secured on board, and the lethal injection chemicals are already secured in an onboard refrigerator, prior to the arrival of the condemned inmate and the armed judicial officers (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Music is played in the execution van for the relaxation of the condemned inmate and execution staff during the execution process (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The designated execution officer inserts a needle into the left arm of the condemned inmate, and injects the lethal combination of chemicals required for execution of the condemned inmate: an anesthetic (pentothal), a muscle relaxant (pancuronium bromide) and a chemical that stops the heart (potassium chloride) (Amnesty International, 2004; Lu & Miethe, 2007). Estimates vary on the amount of time between the commencement of the execution process, and the time when the execution of the condemned inmate is completed (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Generally, the execution of condemned inmates by lethal injection is completed within several minutes (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Organ Donation by Executed Criminal OffendersAmnesty International (2004) stated it was a common and well-known practice by the government of China that organs harvested from bodies of executed criminal offenders were transplanted into eligible recipients in China, without the prior voluntary and informed consent of those executed criminal offenders. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2015) confirmed that this practice by China continued through 2014. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2015) also stated that although the government of China had officially declared that it would end this practice in 2015, the government of China had also stated that executed criminal offenders would still be considered eligible organ donors. It is unknown at this time whether the government of China has officially terminated its practice of harvesting organs from the bodies of executed criminal offenders, without first having obtained the prior voluntary and informed consent of those executed criminal offenders. The international condemnation that the government of China has received from its practice of harvesting organs from the executed bodies of criminal offenders, is not solely due to its failure to obtain prior authorization from condemned inmates for the donation of their organs after execution (Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting [DAFOH], 2015). The government of China has also recently received international condemnation for its practice of specifically harvesting organs from bodies of convicted Falun Gong followers, who die as a result of the forced organ harvesting, for transplant into eligible patients in China (DAFOH, 2015). Fairbank and Goldman (2006) stated that Falun Gong is a Buddhist-Daoist based faith healing group that developed in China in the 1990s, and had grown to a membership of approximately 2.1 million followers before being forcefully suppressed by the ruling Communist Party of China in the early part of this century. Already marginalized as a population in China, it has been alleged that imprisoned Falun Gong followers were specifically targeted by the government of China for forced organ harvesting (Goldman & Fairbank, 2006). Legislation was recently introduced in the United States, Taiwan, European, and Canadian legislatures, specifically denouncing the practice of forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong followers in China (DAFOH, 2015). The need for organs for transplant into eligible patients in China developed in part because of the reluctance of many Chinese citizens to donate their organs after death (DAFOH, 2015). It is a commonly held belief and practice by many Chinese citizens that the body must remain intact after death, which then precludes the donation of the organs by Chinese citizens with this belief (DAFOH, 2015). Researchers have estimated that approximately 150,000 organ transplants have been performed in China since 1999, yet research evidence could only confirm that 130 organs were voluntarily donated by people between 2003 and 2009 (DAFOH, 2015). Demographic information on convicted criminal offendersAge. Lu and Zhang (2005) stated that younger criminal offenders received an inordinate amount of capital punishment sentences as compared with similarly situated older criminal offenders. Approximately half of executed criminal offenders were between the ages of 18 and 25 years old (Lu & Zhang, 2005). Lu and Miethe (2007) stated that the mean age for all convicted criminal offenders who had received capital punishment sentences was 32.4 years old. Approximately one-third of criminal offenders convicted of capital punishment eligible violent crimes were 25 years old or younger (Lu & Miethe, 2007). In general, the oldest criminal offenders who had received capital punishment sentences were more likely to have been convicted of corruption related crimes (approximately 43 years old), and the youngest criminal offenders who had received capital punishment sentences were more likely to have been convicted of property related crimes (28 years old) (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Gender. In China, both men and women are eligible for consideration for capital punishment sentences upon conviction for specific criminal offenses, with the exception of pregnant women (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Most capital punishment eligible criminal offenses were committed by men (92.5%), with women having committed significantly fewer (7.5%) of capital punishment eligible criminal offenses (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Male criminal offenders convicted of public order crimes were more likely than females to have received an immediate order of execution for capital punishment eligible criminal offenses (Lu & Miethe, 2007).Occupation. Approximately 62% of capital punishment eligible criminal offenses were committed either by an unemployed or rural citizen of China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Of those criminal offenders who had committed capital punishment eligible criminal offenses and who were also employed at the time of the commission of their crimes, approximately 70% held low-level, low-paying jobs (Lu & Miethe, 2007). As in the United States, criminal opportunities varied among Chinese citizens in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Chinese citizens in China who were in a lower socioeconomic class were more likely to have committed property related crimes, and Chinese citizens in a higher socioeconomic class were more likely to have committed economic related crimes (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Criminal history. Lu and Miethe (2007) stated that although there have been few empirical studies completed on the recidivism rate of criminal offenders in China, the recidivism rates of criminal offenders in China are typically relatively low, and that this can be adequately explained in at least one of three reasons: informal social control, certainty of severe punishment for criminal offending, and the more severe sanctions that are imposed on convicted repeat criminal offenders in China. Based upon a review of judicial judgment documents, Lu and Miethe (2007) found that a small amount of criminal offenders convicted of capital punishment eligible criminal offenses, had at least one prior criminal arrest documented in court records. Court records also showed that criminal offenders convicted of public order and property related criminal offenses showed a higher rate of recidivism (23%), than did criminal offenders who were convicted of corruption and public safety related criminal offenses (4%) (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Criminal offenders convicted of non-capital punishment eligible criminal offenses, were less likely than criminal offenders convicted of capital punishment eligible criminal offenses to have had a prior criminal record (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Chapter SixDiscussionDomestic PerspectiveThe domestic perspective regarding capital punishment in China varies, depending on which segment of the Chinese population in China is queried for their opinion on this subject. Lu and Miethe (2007) stated there was broad support among the citizens in China for capital punishment in China, but that support for capital punishment weakened when poll respondents were presented with other criminal sanctions, such as life in prison without parole. Some academic experts in the university environment in China have advocated for the complete abolition of capital punishment in China, while other academic experts in similar university environments advocated for a limited retention of capital punishment in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Government and Communist Party leaders in China generally favored the retention of capital punishment, because of the perceived effectiveness of capital punishment as a legal sanction for criminal offenders convicted of serious crimes (Lu & Miethe, 2007).The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2015) confirmed that Chinese citizens in China strongly supported the use of capital punishment as a legal sanction on criminal offenders in that country. Bakken (2011) stated that most Chinese citizens strongly feared lawlessness in their society, and that this may explain the strong citizen support in China for a strong governmental approach to crime control in China. In a 2005 survey of Chinese citizens, research found that 82.1% of Chinese citizens favored retention of capital punishment as a legal sanction of criminal offenders, and 13.7% stated they were against the use of capital punishment as a legal sanction of criminal offenders (Bakken, 2011). Lu and Miethe (2007) stated opinion was more mixed among academic experts in China regarding whether capital punishment should be retained, or abolished, as a potential legal sanction on criminal offenders convicted of criminal offenses in China. Lu and Miethe (2007) stated that Qiu Xinglong, a law school dean at Hunan Xiangtan University in China, strongly advocated for the complete abolition of capital punishment in China. Xinglong also criticized other Chinese scholars for not stating their opinions on capital punishment independently of current government policy on this issue (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Xingliang Chen, a law professor at Beijing University, proposed a more moderate view regarding the abolition of capital punishment as a legal sanction on criminal offenders in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Chen argued for a gradual abolition of capital punishment in China, and stated that in the interim, there should be lengthier imprisonment sentences imposed on convicted criminal offenders, and fewer capital punishment eligible criminal offenses (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Chen stated the current economic and moral climate of China would not support the complete abolition of capital punishment in China at this time (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Lu and Miethe (2007) stated that leadership of China advocated for retention of capital punishment on criminal offenders convicted of serious crimes, in part because of the perceived effectiveness of capital punishment in legally disciplining those particular criminal offenders, and also because of the perceived belief that there were no other viable legal alternatives for sanctioning that segment of the criminal population of China. In 2005, Hu Jintao, President of China at that time, stated capital punishment was considered an effective legal sanction for criminal offenders in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). President Jintao also stated that imposition of capital punishment sentences on criminal offenders convicted of specific criminal offenses must be cautiously utilized as a criminal sanction of those criminal offenders (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The Vice-Minister of Justice at that time, Zhang Jun, presented an argument similar to Chen’s proposed gradual abolition of capital punishment in China, and for lengthier prison sentences for convicted criminal offenders in China (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Jun stated there were not sufficient alternatives to capital punishment for specific criminal offenses (Lu & Miethe, 2007). As a possible explanation for leadership’s position in favor of retention of capital punishment in China, Lu and Miethe (2007) stated the actual average length of imprisonment for criminal offenders sentenced to life imprisonment in China was approximately 15 years, and that judges in China may be more likely to judicially impose lengthy imprisonment sentences on specific criminal offenders rather than capital punishment sentences, if judges were assured that criminal offenders sentenced to imprisonment served judicially acceptable longer prison sentences. Overall, criminal accountability and public safety are all paramount to the leadership, academic community, and citizens of China. Most Chinese citizens strongly favor the use of capital punishment as a legal sanction on criminal offenders in China, but are willing to consider other legal sanctions for criminal offenders if presented with reasonable legal options that also addressed the retributive needs of those members of Chinese society (Lu & Miethe, 2007). The amount of capital punishment eligible criminal offenses in China has dropped by one third in recent years, from 68 capital punishment eligible criminal offenses to the current amount of 46 (Lu & Miethe, 2007). Chen’s proposal of a gradual abolition of capital punishment, lengthier imprisonment terms for convicted criminal offenders, and fewer capital punishment eligible criminal offenses, appears to adequately reconcile the stated retributive needs of the leadership and citizens of China, and the practical reality of capital punishment as a currently acceptable legal sanction for specific criminal offenders in contemporary China.International PerspectiveAmnesty International is an international independent human rights organization respected by scholarly researchers and government authorities worldwide. Indeed, some of the scholarly researchers and government authorities referenced in this study have cited the published reports of Amnesty International in their own published works. Amnesty International (2015) has publicly declared that its organization is against the use of capital punishment as a legal sanction of criminal offenders in any country, and under all circumstances. Amnesty International (2015) stated there has been no published evidence that has confirmed the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent of criminal offending in any society. As stated previously in this study, the exact amount of criminal offenders executed in China each year is considered a state secret, and no official figures are publicly available (Amnesty International, 2015). As a result, Amnesty International has estimated the amount of criminal offenders executed each year in China based upon a variety of sources: self-reported information from condemned inmates, the families of condemned inmates, published media reports, and official reports from independent human rights monitoring organizations (Amnesty International, 2015). Amnesty International has directly challenged the government of China regarding the secrecy of the execution process, specific capital punishment eligible criminal offenses, harvesting of organs from executed criminal offenders without the voluntary and informed prior consent of those executed criminal offenders, and the failure to provide official records and figures regarding criminal offenders executed in China (Amnesty International, 2015). Amnesty International (2015) has also stated that the removal of 22 criminal offenses from capital punishment consideration would not likely have a significant effect on the amount of criminal offenders executed each year in China, as capital punishment was rarely used in the legal sanctioning of criminal offenders convicted of those criminal offenses. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2015) officially acknowledged legislative actions taken by the government of China to eliminate 22 of 68 criminal offenses from capital punishment consideration in China’s criminal law. The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2015) also acknowledged China’s official declaration that it would stop harvesting organs from the bodies of executed criminal offenders without the voluntary and informed prior consent of those executed prisoners. In that same report, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (2015) strongly criticized the government of China for the Communist Party of China’s continued practice of criminally disciplining its errant members independently of the criminal justice system in China utilized for all other criminally errant Chinese citizens, and also formally demanded more transparency from the government of China in the official details and figures published regarding criminal offenders executed each year in that country. Chapter SevenSummary and Recommendations for Future ResearchSummaryThe government of China is not alone in its use of capital punishment as a legal sanction against adult criminal offenders convicted of specific violations of criminal law. According to Amnesty International (2015). China is one of 58 countries in the world that still actively uses capital punishment as a criminal sanction against some of its adult criminal offenders. Most criticism of China’s legal concept and practice of capital punishment pertains to at least one of four specific issues: the specific criminal offenses eligible for capital punishment consideration, secrecy of the execution process, failure to publish official reports regarding details and amounts of criminal offenders executed in China each year, and the continued practice of harvesting organs from executed criminal offenders without having first obtained the voluntary and informed prior consent of those executed prisoners (Amnesty International, 2015; CECC, 2015). It is also important to consider criticism of the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China in an objective historical context, or risk the creation of an inaccurate and distorted viewpoint which inaccurately emphasizes the current legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China as representative of that society throughout the history of its existence.An informed knowledge of the evolution of the social, economic, and political context of China provides a discerning reader with comprehensive knowledge about those societal components of China. This knowledge helps to better explain the resultant influence on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China, because the evolution of those essential societal components are inextricably linked with the evolution of the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. It is especially important that information about the social, economic, and political context of the early formative years of China, is balanced with information about the social, economic, and political context of contemporary China. The reader is then better able to analyze and critique the evolution of the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China when presented with balanced and comprehensive information. This study has provided the reader with information about the social, economic, and political context of China, which has enabled the reader to acknowledge the resultant influence on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. All three research questions have been addressed and answered, and the educational significance of this study has been documented, by the information presented in this study. Information regarding the social, economic, and political context of China; the three stated research questions, and the educational significance of the study, has been presented in a comprehensive and objective manner, and with as many different perspectives as is possible with a study of this size and scope. Not covered within this study, is a detailed examination of all capital punishment eligible criminal offenses currently included in China’s criminal law that should be considered by the government of China for removal from capital punishment consideration for convicted criminal offenders in China. It is believed that an intelligent and comprehensive discussion of this issue requires a separate and detailed examination not possible in a study of this size and scope.With an increasing amount of countries having ended the practice of capital punishment either as a matter of official policy, or in actual practice, it becomes an increasingly more important issue to determine why some countries do still actively utilize capital punishment in their countries, in light of a documented global trend in the abolition of capital punishment as a legal sanction of convicted criminal offenders. The government and people of China have been receptive to international criticism regarding the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China, and have made substantive changes to the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China in response to that criticism (Miao, 2013). China has made substantive changes in its legal concept and practice of capital punishment in accordance with its stated and valued cultural identity and beliefs (Miao, 2013). The global community has acted in good conscience in identifying and publicizing specific areas of concern regarding the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. As China continues in its evolution as a country, and its quest for international respect and prominence, the global community must continue to shine its spotlight on the issues addressed in this study, and make a concerted effort to accurately document and publicize China’s progress in the resolution of international concerns over the stated issues. It cannot be left unsaid though, that the global community must also ensure that they have acted as prosocial role models for China, and have exemplified the ideals also desired for China.Recommendations for Future ResearchMore scholarly research must be conducted with the leadership and general population of China regarding the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. Discussion of the subject of capital punishment is a very sensitive political and human rights issue within most countries, and particularly when discussing this subject with the citizens and leadership of foreign nations. Therefore, particular care should be taken to consider differing cultural identities and beliefs in the discussion of capital punishment with the citizens and leadership of foreign nations, in order to avoid the appearance of culturally insensitive global bullying of foreign nations into desired global practices. This study has two very specific and detailed recommendations for future research on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. Future researchers should continue to document the evolution of the social, economic, and political context of China, and the resultant influence on the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China. As China evolves further from its societal roots as an agriculturally-focused country and is more solidly established as a global citizen, the legal concept and practice of capital punishment in China will become increasingly more domestically and globally important. International human rights organizations and government entities must continue to diplomatically pressure the government of China to provide more transparency in official provision of details regarding the execution process and criminal offenders executed in China each year, monitoring whether the official government practice of China of harvesting organs from the executed bodies of criminal offenders has actually terminated, and accurately and efficiently document China’s legislative efforts and progress in addressing and resolving those issues.ReferencesAmnesty International. (2004). Executed “according to law?” – The death penaltyin China (AI Index: ASA 17/003/2004). London, England: Amnesty International.Retrieved from International. (2015). Death sentences and executions 2014 (Index: ACT 5050/001/2015). London, England: Amnesty International.Retrieved from , B. (2011). China, a punitive society? Asian Criminology, 6, 33-50.Central Intelligence Agency. (2016). The World Factbook: China. Washington, DC: CentralIntelligence Agency. Retrieved from , J., & Halliday, J. (2006). Mao: The unknown story. New York, NY: Anchor Books.Chen, W. (2010). Retrospection and perspective: Chinese criminal procedure law (1979-2009). China Law, 5 (4), 510-531.China. (2016). In Nations Encyclopedia.Retrieved from Commission on China. (2006). Criminal procedure law of thePeople’s Republic of China (Chinese and English Text). Washington, DC: Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Retrieved from Commission on China. (2011). Chinese government considers reducing number of crimes punishable by death. Washington, DC: Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Retrieved from Commission on China. (2015). Annual Report 2015. Washington, DC:Congressional-Executive Commission on China.Retrieved from Penalty Worldwide. (2014). Death penalty database: China. Ithaca, NY: Death Penalty Worldwide. Retrieved from Against Forced Organ Harvesting. (2015). Worldwide reactions to forced organharvesting in China. Washington, DC: Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting.Retrieved from , J. K., & Goldman, M. (2006). China: A new history (Second Enlarged Edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Guo, J., Xiang, G., Zongxian, W., Zhangrun, X., Xiaohui, P., & Shuangshuang, L. (2009).World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems: China. Albany, NY: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from content/pub/ascii/WFBCJCHI.TXTKeay, J. (2011). China: A history. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kissinger, H. (2012). On China. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.Lu, H., & Kelly, B. (2008). Courts and sentencing research on contemporary China.Crime, Law, and Social Change, 50, 229-243.Lu, H., & Miethe, T. (2007). China’s death penalty: History, law, and contemporary practices.New York, NY: Routledge.Lu, H., & Zhang, L. (2005). Death penalty in China: The law and the practice.Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 367-376.Luo, W. (1998). The 1997 Criminal code of the People’s Republic of China. Buffalo, NY:William S. Hein.McConville, M. (2011). Criminal justice in China: An empirical inquiry. Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar.Miao, M. (2013). The politics of China’s death penalty reform in the context of globalabolitionism. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 500-519.Miethe, T., & Lu, H. (2011). Punishment: A comparative historical perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Muhlhahn, K. (2009). Criminal justice in China: A history. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.People’s Republic of China. (2012). The Communist Party of China. Retrieved from ’s Republic of China. (2013). The Presidency of the People’s Republic of China.Retrieved from ’s Republic of China. (2014a). Capital. Retrieved from ’s Republic of China. (2014b). National People’s Congress.Retrieved from’s Republic of China. (2014c). The President of the People’s Republic of China.Retrieved from Brain Research Institute. (2013). Chinese labor statistics.Retrieved from States Department of State. (n.d.). A guide to the United States’ history of recognition,diplomatic, and consular relations, by country, since 1776: China. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.Retrieved from Coalition Against the Death Penalty. (2015). China reduces the number of crimes punishable by death to 46, but keeps drug trafficking in the list. Montreuil, France:World Coalition Against the Death Penalty. Retrieved from Health Organization. (2015). China: WHO statistical profile. Retrieved from ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download