Essay: The Current state of the death penalty in China

*Written by Written By Samuel Zhang and Lily Cressent, Edited by Olivia Marcham

What is the death penalty in China?

China is widely considered to be the country with the most death sentences and executions. Studies have highlighted that around 108 countries have abolished the application of the death penalty, along with 144 countries having abolished the death penalty in law and practice. This statistic would further emphasize China’s position as holding the most death sentences. 

What crimes does the death penalty cover?

To understand the severity behind China’s death penalty system would require knowing the origins behind the death penalty. Officially, article 48 of the Criminal Law of the People’s republic of China states that “the death penalty is only to be applied to criminal elements who commit the most heinous crimes.” This definition provides an understanding behind the perspectives of the Chinese court system. It should be noted that China does not officially publish the numbers of death sentences, along with the personal details of each death penalty ward. In the Penal code of 1997, over 68 crimes would be punishable by death, including 24 violent crimes and 44 non-violent crimes. During 2011, this would be revised, leading to the reduction of crimes punishable by death by 13. Continuing through 2015, the death penalty would be further reduced by 9 offences. Currently this would mean that China has 46 crimes which can be punishable by death, including 24 violent crimes along with 22 nonviolent crimes.

What are the restrictions?

Restrictions regarding China’s death penalty system would include article 49, which states that individuals beneath the age of 18, along with women pregnant at the time of adjudication will not be given the death penalty. This showcases that China’s death penalty system is only applicable to the adult population, and that the application of the death penalty is only done towards those who have the physical capabilities to violate laws. Regarding economic crimes, China’s definition of heinous becomes inherently flawed, as compared to criminal offences regarding human life, the logical behind economic crimes is that these offences are reversible damages. 

Public opinion

Public opinion surrounding the death penalty is limited, evidence is difficult to search for. However, there are examples of organizations which seek to challenge the Chinese judicial system. An example of this would be ‘China Against the Death Penalty’, which has shown commitment in promoting abolition of the death penalty in China. Statistically over 8,000 people have been executed in China since 2007. The “World Death Penalty Report 2020”, which was published by Amnesty International states that over 483 people were executed worldwide. This statistic did not take into consideration countries which had kept the death penalty as classified defense secret such as China, Syria and Vietnam. This evidence establishes the severity behind China’s usage of the death penalty, as when considering China’s death penalty count, it rises to over 8,000 executions. Regarding public opinions, Zhang Ning would point out that the open nature of debates against the death penalty should constitute as a form of development. I believe this implies that public opinion is gradually swaying towards the abolition or restriction of the death penalty in China. 

Prevalence

If the death penalty still has great resonance today, it is mainly due to the belief in its ability to deter crime and to provide a strong sense of justice for victims and their families. But to what extent is that true? 

Death penalty in China faces different tendencies; on one hand, ‘kill less and kill cautiously’, but on another hand the ‘strike hard’ campaign, also known as the ‘anti-crime’ campaigns that predominantly took place four times, in 1983, 1996, 2001 and 2010. The aim of these campaigns is to create a deterrent effect, i.e. to prevent crimes as far as possible by creating a climate of harsh repression, but also to 'satisfy the masses' by creating a strong sentiment of justice among the populace and demonstrating the responsiveness of legal institutions. However, major procedural flaws during these large-scale campaigns have revealed the negligence of China’s death penalty procedures and sometimes even the arbitrariness of the sentences, where innocent citizens have been unlawfully or unfairly sentenced to death and executed. In fact, miscarriages of justice in capital punishment happen frequently. Instances of coerced confessions, inadequate legal representation, and limited access to appeals highlight systemic shortcomings that undermine the integrity of the judicial process. Furthermore, the courts refuse to carry out any forensic psychiatric examination, thus putting aside any potential psychiatric pathology of the defendant. The speed of the criminal procedure also demonstrates the disregard for due process ad evidence as well as a lack of rigor when assessing sentences. 

Moreover, if these campaigns were initially proclaimed against major crimes of violence and criminal gangs, the President of the Supreme People’s Court revealed it had a wider focus, including: “dealing severe blows to criminal activities involving drugs”, corruption, financial crimes, and offences of undermining the social order, including “habitual thieves who cause damage to the people in many respects”. This poses a major problem regarding the status of convicted offenders. China classifies death penalty statistics as state secrets, making it impossible to provide precise figures on the profile of those most convicted. However, some reports of officials from poor provinces expressed the fear that most crimes committed were linked to survival, and that the campaign was falling disproportionally on people with low social status. I believe that the risk of mainly individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds being sentenced to death, combined with the lack of in-depth analysis of the circumstances surrounding the crimes committed, raises major concerns about the fairness and justice of the judicial system, especially when it comes to an irreversible sentence such as the death penalty. In addition, I think that the fact that these sentences are classified as state secrets reinforces the opacity of the judicial system, accentuating the risk of unfair convictions and preventing accountability for its failings. 

Impact

But what about the effectiveness of the deterrent, the central argument in favor of the death penalty? Made to ‘solved homicide cases’ and then extended it to various offense, China did not experience a significant reduction in crime rates, and instead faced an increase on violent and economic crimes, and executions did not prevent the recurrence of similar crimes, indicating a lack of deterrence effect. I believe this discrepancy between intention and outcome demands a critical re-evaluation of its efficacy. As we confront these realities, it becomes evident that the death penalty fails not only in its intended purpose but also in upholding fundamental principles of justice. Its inability to curb crime, coupled with its discriminatory application, highlights systemic flaws that cannot be ignored. Abolishing the death penalty in China is not just a moral imperative; it is a pragmatic step towards building a more equitable and effective criminal justice system. 

Bibliography

China against the death penalty, The status quo of China’s death penalty and the Civil society abolitionist Movement, (World Coalition against the death penalty, February 2022)

Sartaz Billing, China and the (Ab) Use of the Death Penalty, (Human Rights Pulse, 24th May 2021)

‘China against the Death Penalty (CADP)’ (2012) https://worldcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CADP2012report-EN-1.pdf

‘China’s Deadly Secret’ (Amnesty International12 April 2017) https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/04/chinas-deadly-secrets/

Fu H, ‘Between Deference and Defiance’ [2015] Columbia University Press eBooks 274 <https://academic.oup.com/columbia-scholarship-online/book/37062/chapter-abstract/323122710?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=true#no-access-message%23no-access-message> accessed 26 April 2024

Jintao H, ‘PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC of CHINA the Death Penalty in China: Breaking Records, Breaking Rules Strike Hard -Yanda (ÑÏ´ó)’ (1997) https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa170381997en.pdf

Zaalouni H, ‘Peine de Mort En Chine 2022’ (WCADP15 February 2022) https://worldcoalition.org/fr/2022/02/15/peine-de-mort-en-chine-2022/

Zhang Ning, The Debate over the death penalty in Today’s China, (China Perspective, November-December 2005)