ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled
| Filter | Status | Condition | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTTP status | PASS | download_http_code = 200 | HTTP 200 |
| Age cutoff | PASS | download_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH | 0.1 months ago |
| History drop | PASS | isNull(history_drop_reason) | No drop reason |
| Spam/ban | PASS | fh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0 | ml_spam_score=0 |
| Canonical | PASS | meta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsed | Not set |
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| URL | https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/china-and-the-abuse-of-the-death-penalty |
| Last Crawled | 2026-04-11 00:43:40 (3 days ago) |
| First Indexed | 2021-05-24 08:19:35 (4 years ago) |
| HTTP Status Code | 200 |
| Meta Title | China And The (Ab)Use Of The Death Penalty — Human Rights Pulse |
| Meta Description | The regulation and use of the death penalty in China deepens concerns within the international community about the country’s disregard for its citizens’ human rights. |
| Meta Canonical | null |
| Boilerpipe Text | Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Tunisian sociologist, was of the view that a “government prevents injustice, other than such as it commits itself,” which accurately describes the use of the death penalty in China. Amnesty International’s
report
on the use of the death penalty in 2020 revealed that at least 483 people were executed around the world last year. The report, however, did not include any figures about death penalty’s use in the country that is infamous for using it the most, China. The report alleges that “each year thousands of people are
executed and sentenced to death
” in China, where the data concerning the use of the death penalty is considered a state
secret
. This raises questions regarding how state killings are regulated in the country and where that regulatory framework stands when put to test within the context of the international human rights system.
THE CHINESE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Article 48
of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) provides that “the death penalty is only to be applied to criminal elements who commit the most heinous crimes”. It also provides that if immediate execution is not necessary, a two-year suspension on the death penalty may be announced. Further,
article 50
states that if a person who has received the two-year suspension period does not intentionally commit any crimes within the suspension period, he is to be given a reduction of sentence to life imprisonment. Furthermore,
article 49
establishes that people who committed the crime in question whilst younger than the age of 18 and women who are pregnant at the time of the adjudication shall not be given the death penalty. Currently,
42 crimes
carry the death penalty in China.
In terms of the trial process, it begins with the first trial taking place at an Intermediate People’s Court. If found guilty and sentenced to death, the defendant can appeal in the High People’s Court. The defendant cannot appeal the High People’s Court’s judgment. However, each case involving the death sentence is sent to the country’s Supreme Court for review. Even if a defendant does not appeal against the Intermediate People’s Court’s decision, it is still automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
KEY ISSUES
The primary criticism regarding the death penalty laws in China consists of two points. First, what makes a crime “heinous,” thus worthy of the death penalty, remains unclear. The lack of a definition has led to an inconsistent interpretation in courts across China. For example, a man who stole 14 cattle (
Zhang Xizhong
) and a man who murdered 11 women (
Gao Chengyong
) were both given the death penalty, despite the severity of their crimes being poles apart in the eyes of a reasonable person. The flexible interpretation has also allowed, as another one of Amnesty International’s
report
alleges, intermediate courts to give “death sentences for non-capital crimes” to come across as being tough on crime.
Further, the absence of a definition for the term “heinous” contributed to the death penalty being imposed for economic crimes. Since economic crimes like illegal fundraising, tax fraud, or stealing fossils do not involve the loss of human life, and their effects are, to some extent, reversible unlike crimes like murder and rape, the logic behind considering them heinous is inherently flawed. Even though China stopped using the death penalty for economic crimes in
2011
after realising that it failed in the “reversal of the spiralling trend of economic
crime
,” the legislative experiment cost the lives of at least
23 people
who had been executed for offences like tax fraud, counterfeiting, or smuggling money.
Second, the implementation of the two-year suspension rule on death sentences remains unscrutinised. The state advertises it as a
progressive feature
of its capital punishment framework as it gives a reasonable amount of time for discovering new evidence to overturn convictions—avoiding miscarriages of justice—and also as it allows convicted individuals to avoid the death penalty if they can showcase that they have reflected on their actions and reformed as individuals. However, this rule is criticised as an
inhumane approach
, as during the suspension convicted individuals live with the fear of the impending death penalty. Additionally, it is alleged that in practice the two-year suspension rule has been used as a “get-out-of-death card available to wealthy and powerful
defendants
” convicted for economic crimes, as death sentences deemed worthy of immediate execution have always been “disproportionately imposed on those with little education and social
standing
”.
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FRAMEWORK
The
arbitrary detention of journalists
,
Uyghur genocide
, and
clampdown of Hong Kongese protesters
are all examples of instances when China’s disregard of its citizens’ human rights has been criticised internationally. Unfortunately, China’s use of the death penalty has endured a similar fate, and three points showcase how China’s implementation of the death penalty is incompatible with standards set by the international community.
First,
article 10
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides everyone with the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. Naturally, this applies to individuals being tried for capital crimes. Whilst the UDHR is not a binding instrument, China did play a pivotal role in its creation. Additionally, China is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and one of the 47 members of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Thus, figuratively, it should be the flagbearer of states implementing the UDHR. Yet, individuals being tried for capital crimes in China hardly receive the requisite level of legal assistance. It is common for defence lawyers involved in capital crime cases to get
less than a week to prepare for the trial
. It is also common for defence lawyers to be denied the request for meeting their clients in the early stages, accessing prosecution’s file, conducting independent investigations, and calling expert witnesses in
capital crime cases
. Naturally, all of this culminates in defence lawyers being unable to establish any sort of mitigation. Further, lawyers are reluctant to get involved in matters involving the death penalty, as it often leaves them vulnerable to personal attacks. For instance, Teng Biao, a lawyer who
co-founded
“China Against the Death Penalty,” a network for lawyers working on death penalty cases, was “
detained, tortured and stripped of his licence to practice law
” for campaigning against China’s use of the death penalty.
Second,
article 7
of the UDHR provides that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. However, death sentences in China have been “increasingly associated with selective enforcement along socioeconomic and political-power
lines
”. Whilst it is uncommon for uninfluential people to expect any kind of leniency by the authorities during investigations and trials, the same cannot be said for wealthy individuals. A comparison of two separate instances encapsulates this disparity accurately. On one hand,
Li Qiming
, the son of a prominent police official, killed one person and seriously injured another after hitting the two with his car whilst driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon arrest, he openly flaunted his father’s position. He was charged with endangering public security under
article 115
of the PRC, which carries the death penalty but, was eventually sentenced to six years of imprisonment. On the other hand,
Zhang Yuhuan
, a farmer charged with the murder of two boys, was tortured in police custody and forced into signing a confession. Consequently, he was sentenced to death but released 27 years later after the court adjudicated in an appeal that there was never direct evidence to prove he committed the murders. Further, nearly 70% of 4,500 Chinese citizens acknowledged in a
survey
conducted by the EU-China project that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed on “
poor and ‘grassroots’ people than a rich person or an official or a relative of an official
”.
Lastly, the death penalty’s imposition in China is directly incompatible with
article 6
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that every human has an inherent right to life. From a legal perspective, China has not ratified the ICCPR and is under no obligation to follow it. However, the right to life is a fundamental principle of natural law, which transcends borders. Even Confucius, a philosopher from ancient China whose teachings remain popular till today, criticised the idea of capital punishment. Further, it is human to err, thus, as long as the death penalty remains, so does the possibility of innocent people being executed, and cases of
Huugilt
and
Nie Shubin
exemplify that in China. Nonetheless, the death penalty remains an integral part of the country’s criminal justice system.
In 2001, as a part of the “Strike hard” campaign,
1,000
people were executed within a month alone. Currently, the death penalty is being used as an instrument for curbing dissent. For instance,
Tashpolat Tiyip
, a Uyghur academic, was arbitrarily detained, convicted of separatism, and sentenced to a suspended death sentence; his current whereabouts remain unknown. However, the international community is unable to scrutinise China’s use of the death penalty as figures remain a state secret. Although this year some western countries did impose
some sanctions
on China over the Uyghur genocide, due to China’s position as an economic force, harsh sanctions remain implausible. Thus, the chances of China using the death penalty transparently or moving away from it remain bleak. |
| Markdown | - [Landing page](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/)
- Other Languages
- Pulse Projects
[Menu]()
# [](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/)
Street Address
City, State, Zip
Phone Number
Make justice a priority
Your Custom Text Here
# [](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/)
- [Landing page](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/)
- [Other Languages](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/china-and-the-abuse-of-the-death-penalty)
- [Pulse Projects](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/china-and-the-abuse-of-the-death-penalty)
# [China And The (Ab)Use Of The Death Penalty](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/china-and-the-abuse-of-the-death-penalty)
May 24, 2021
[Sartaz Billing](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?author=6047bb86c677047ebf953850)
Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Tunisian sociologist, was of the view that a “government prevents injustice, other than such as it commits itself,” which accurately describes the use of the death penalty in China. Amnesty International’s [report](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5037602021ENGLISH.PDF) on the use of the death penalty in 2020 revealed that at least 483 people were executed around the world last year. The report, however, did not include any figures about death penalty’s use in the country that is infamous for using it the most, China. The report alleges that “each year thousands of people are [executed and sentenced to death](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5037602021ENGLISH.PDF)” in China, where the data concerning the use of the death penalty is considered a state [secret](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5037602021ENGLISH.PDF). This raises questions regarding how state killings are regulated in the country and where that regulatory framework stands when put to test within the context of the international human rights system.
### THE CHINESE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
[Article 48](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) provides that “the death penalty is only to be applied to criminal elements who commit the most heinous crimes”. It also provides that if immediate execution is not necessary, a two-year suspension on the death penalty may be announced. Further, [article 50](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) states that if a person who has received the two-year suspension period does not intentionally commit any crimes within the suspension period, he is to be given a reduction of sentence to life imprisonment. Furthermore, [article 49](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) establishes that people who committed the crime in question whilst younger than the age of 18 and women who are pregnant at the time of the adjudication shall not be given the death penalty. Currently, [42 crimes](https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/how-many-crimes-are-punishable-by-death-in-china) carry the death penalty in China.
In terms of the trial process, it begins with the first trial taking place at an Intermediate People’s Court. If found guilty and sentenced to death, the defendant can appeal in the High People’s Court. The defendant cannot appeal the High People’s Court’s judgment. However, each case involving the death sentence is sent to the country’s Supreme Court for review. Even if a defendant does not appeal against the Intermediate People’s Court’s decision, it is still automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
### KEY ISSUES
The primary criticism regarding the death penalty laws in China consists of two points. First, what makes a crime “heinous,” thus worthy of the death penalty, remains unclear. The lack of a definition has led to an inconsistent interpretation in courts across China. For example, a man who stole 14 cattle ([Zhang Xizhong](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf)) and a man who murdered 11 women ([Gao Chengyong](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-46743882)) were both given the death penalty, despite the severity of their crimes being poles apart in the eyes of a reasonable person. The flexible interpretation has also allowed, as another one of Amnesty International’s [report](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf) alleges, intermediate courts to give “death sentences for non-capital crimes” to come across as being tough on crime.
Further, the absence of a definition for the term “heinous” contributed to the death penalty being imposed for economic crimes. Since economic crimes like illegal fundraising, tax fraud, or stealing fossils do not involve the loss of human life, and their effects are, to some extent, reversible unlike crimes like murder and rape, the logic behind considering them heinous is inherently flawed. Even though China stopped using the death penalty for economic crimes in [2011](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12580504) after realising that it failed in the “reversal of the spiralling trend of economic [crime](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf),” the legislative experiment cost the lives of at least [23 people](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf) who had been executed for offences like tax fraud, counterfeiting, or smuggling money.
Second, the implementation of the two-year suspension rule on death sentences remains unscrutinised. The state advertises it as a [progressive feature](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf) of its capital punishment framework as it gives a reasonable amount of time for discovering new evidence to overturn convictions—avoiding miscarriages of justice—and also as it allows convicted individuals to avoid the death penalty if they can showcase that they have reflected on their actions and reformed as individuals. However, this rule is criticised as an [inhumane approach](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf), as during the suspension convicted individuals live with the fear of the impending death penalty. Additionally, it is alleged that in practice the two-year suspension rule has been used as a “get-out-of-death card available to wealthy and powerful [defendants](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf)” convicted for economic crimes, as death sentences deemed worthy of immediate execution have always been “disproportionately imposed on those with little education and social [standing](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf)”.
### THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FRAMEWORK
The [arbitrary detention of journalists](https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/26/china-free-journalists-activists), [Uyghur genocide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56843368), and [clampdown of Hong Kongese protesters](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49317695) are all examples of instances when China’s disregard of its citizens’ human rights has been criticised internationally. Unfortunately, China’s use of the death penalty has endured a similar fate, and three points showcase how China’s implementation of the death penalty is incompatible with standards set by the international community.
First, [article 10](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides everyone with the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. Naturally, this applies to individuals being tried for capital crimes. Whilst the UDHR is not a binding instrument, China did play a pivotal role in its creation. Additionally, China is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and one of the 47 members of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Thus, figuratively, it should be the flagbearer of states implementing the UDHR. Yet, individuals being tried for capital crimes in China hardly receive the requisite level of legal assistance. It is common for defence lawyers involved in capital crime cases to get [less than a week to prepare for the trial](https://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/DP_Baseline.pdf). It is also common for defence lawyers to be denied the request for meeting their clients in the early stages, accessing prosecution’s file, conducting independent investigations, and calling expert witnesses in [capital crime cases](https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2751&context=hlr). Naturally, all of this culminates in defence lawyers being unable to establish any sort of mitigation. Further, lawyers are reluctant to get involved in matters involving the death penalty, as it often leaves them vulnerable to personal attacks. For instance, Teng Biao, a lawyer who [co-founded](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/04/teng-biao-china-courts-are-told-what-decision-make-important-cases-including-death-penalty/) “China Against the Death Penalty,” a network for lawyers working on death penalty cases, was “[detained, tortured and stripped of his licence to practice law](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/04/teng-biao-china-courts-are-told-what-decision-make-important-cases-including-death-penalty/)” for campaigning against China’s use of the death penalty.
Second, [article 7](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) of the UDHR provides that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. However, death sentences in China have been “increasingly associated with selective enforcement along socioeconomic and political-power [lines](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf)”. Whilst it is uncommon for uninfluential people to expect any kind of leniency by the authorities during investigations and trials, the same cannot be said for wealthy individuals. A comparison of two separate instances encapsulates this disparity accurately. On one hand, [Li Qiming](https://www.rfa.org/english/li-geng-accused-of-falsifying-evidence-in-murder-burglary-case-appeal-10132015124635.html), the son of a prominent police official, killed one person and seriously injured another after hitting the two with his car whilst driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon arrest, he openly flaunted his father’s position. He was charged with endangering public security under [article 115](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) of the PRC, which carries the death penalty but, was eventually sentenced to six years of imprisonment. On the other hand, [Zhang Yuhuan](https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3096430/zhang-yuhuan-case-shows-chinas-need-prevent-wrongful-convictions), a farmer charged with the murder of two boys, was tortured in police custody and forced into signing a confession. Consequently, he was sentenced to death but released 27 years later after the court adjudicated in an appeal that there was never direct evidence to prove he committed the murders. Further, nearly 70% of 4,500 Chinese citizens acknowledged in a [survey](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/RHoodOnChina.pdf) conducted by the EU-China project that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed on “[poor and ‘grassroots’ people than a rich person or an official or a relative of an official](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/RHoodOnChina.pdf)”.
Lastly, the death penalty’s imposition in China is directly incompatible with [article 6](https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that every human has an inherent right to life. From a legal perspective, China has not ratified the ICCPR and is under no obligation to follow it. However, the right to life is a fundamental principle of natural law, which transcends borders. Even Confucius, a philosopher from ancient China whose teachings remain popular till today, criticised the idea of capital punishment. Further, it is human to err, thus, as long as the death penalty remains, so does the possibility of innocent people being executed, and cases of [Huugilt](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-30474691) and [Nie Shubin](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38179311) exemplify that in China. Nonetheless, the death penalty remains an integral part of the country’s criminal justice system.
In 2001, as a part of the “Strike hard” campaign, [1,000](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/RHoodOnChina.pdf) people were executed within a month alone. Currently, the death penalty is being used as an instrument for curbing dissent. For instance, [Tashpolat Tiyip](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1710062019ENGLISH.pdf), a Uyghur academic, was arbitrarily detained, convicted of separatism, and sentenced to a suspended death sentence; his current whereabouts remain unknown. However, the international community is unable to scrutinise China’s use of the death penalty as figures remain a state secret. Although this year some western countries did impose [some sanctions](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56487162) on China over the Uyghur genocide, due to China’s position as an economic force, harsh sanctions remain implausible. Thus, the chances of China using the death penalty transparently or moving away from it remain bleak.
*Sartaz graduated with a First-Class LLB (Hons) degree from the University of Hertfordshire and aims to practice as a public law barrister in the future. He is currently working as a Paralegal for a class action firm and has volunteered for the following organisations in the past: Citizens Advice, Shelter UK, and the Hertfordshire Law Clinic. His commitment towards pro bono services earned him the LawWorks and Attorney General Award for the ''best contribution by an individual'' in 2020.*
[**LinkedIn**](https://www.linkedin.com/in/sartazpal-singh-billing-/?originalSubdomain=uk)
In [Community Contributions](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/category/Community+Contributions), [International Law and Justice](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/category/International+Law+and+Justice) Tags [China](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/tag/China), [death penalty](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/tag/death+penalty), [capital punishment](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/tag/capital+punishment), [right to life](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/tag/right+to+life)
Share
[Previous Post](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/in-schools-and-legislatures-across-the-united-states-transgender-youth-are-under-attack)[Next Post](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/interrelation-between-the-right-to-education-and-rights-to-water-and-sanitation)
Featured
[](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/the-federation-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina-recognise-the-victim-status-of-invisible-children)
Jan 11, 2023
[The Federation Of Bosnia And Herzegovina Recognise The Victim Status Of “Invisible Children”](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/the-federation-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina-recognise-the-victim-status-of-invisible-children)
Jan 11, 2023
Bosnia’s “invisible children” born as a consequence of sexual violence during the Yugoslav War have finally received legal recognition as civil victims of war.
Jan 11, 2023
[](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/how-university-students-are-suffering-from-the-international-struggle-between-the-us-and-china)
Jan 11, 2023
[How University Students Are Suffering From The International Struggle Between The US And China](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/how-university-students-are-suffering-from-the-international-struggle-between-the-us-and-china)
Jan 11, 2023
Tension between China and the US has impacted on students who wish to study in American institutions, who now face suspicion and barriers to immigration.
Jan 11, 2023
[](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/alarming-conviction-of-minors-under-hong-kongs-national-security-law)
Jan 11, 2023
[Alarming Conviction Of Minors Under Hong Kong’s National Security Law](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/alarming-conviction-of-minors-under-hong-kongs-national-security-law)
Jan 11, 2023
Hong Kong’s National Security Law puts democratic activists behind bars, these extensive powers to prosecute, detain, and imprison puts minors in danger.
Jan 11, 2023
[](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/arab-springs-unparalleled-gender-based-crimes-a-peoples-court-to-bring-perpetrators-to-justice)
Jan 11, 2023
[Arab-Spring’s Unparalleled Gender-Based Crimes: A People’s Court To Bring Perpetrators To Justice](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/arab-springs-unparalleled-gender-based-crimes-a-peoples-court-to-bring-perpetrators-to-justice)
Jan 11, 2023
Several Arab countries have witnessed major upheaval leading to protests against authoritarian regimes, known worldwide as the revolutions of the Arab Spring.
Jan 11, 2023
[](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/cjeu-rules-lithuanian-asylum-laws-to-be-unlawful)
Dec 18, 2022
[CJEU Rules Lithuanian Asylum Laws To Be Unlawful](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/cjeu-rules-lithuanian-asylum-laws-to-be-unlawful)
Dec 18, 2022
Belarus’ use of migrants as a political weapon against the EU has led to a swathe of anti-migrant laws in Lithuania. As EU courts condemn the legislation, the bloc is itself coming to blows with Lithuania.
Dec 18, 2022
### Categories
## [Business and Human Rights](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Business%20and%20Human%20Rights) \| [Climate Change](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Climate%20Change) \| [Democracy](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Democracy) \| [Equality](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Equality) \| [International Law and Justice](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=International%20Law%20and%20Justice) \| [Migration](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Migration) \| [Peace and Security](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Peace%20and%20Security) \| [Tech and Human Rights](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog?category=Tech%20and%20Human%20Rights)
[](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/)
## [**Terms of Service**](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/terms-of-service) \| [**Privacy Policy**](https://www.humanrightspulse.com/privacy-policy) **\| Copyright © 2019-2020**
## Logo by [Isacco Toniutti](https://www.instagram.com/isaactoniutti/?hl=en) |
| Readable Markdown | Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Tunisian sociologist, was of the view that a “government prevents injustice, other than such as it commits itself,” which accurately describes the use of the death penalty in China. Amnesty International’s [report](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5037602021ENGLISH.PDF) on the use of the death penalty in 2020 revealed that at least 483 people were executed around the world last year. The report, however, did not include any figures about death penalty’s use in the country that is infamous for using it the most, China. The report alleges that “each year thousands of people are [executed and sentenced to death](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5037602021ENGLISH.PDF)” in China, where the data concerning the use of the death penalty is considered a state [secret](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5037602021ENGLISH.PDF). This raises questions regarding how state killings are regulated in the country and where that regulatory framework stands when put to test within the context of the international human rights system.
### THE CHINESE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
[Article 48](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) provides that “the death penalty is only to be applied to criminal elements who commit the most heinous crimes”. It also provides that if immediate execution is not necessary, a two-year suspension on the death penalty may be announced. Further, [article 50](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) states that if a person who has received the two-year suspension period does not intentionally commit any crimes within the suspension period, he is to be given a reduction of sentence to life imprisonment. Furthermore, [article 49](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) establishes that people who committed the crime in question whilst younger than the age of 18 and women who are pregnant at the time of the adjudication shall not be given the death penalty. Currently, [42 crimes](https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/how-many-crimes-are-punishable-by-death-in-china) carry the death penalty in China.
In terms of the trial process, it begins with the first trial taking place at an Intermediate People’s Court. If found guilty and sentenced to death, the defendant can appeal in the High People’s Court. The defendant cannot appeal the High People’s Court’s judgment. However, each case involving the death sentence is sent to the country’s Supreme Court for review. Even if a defendant does not appeal against the Intermediate People’s Court’s decision, it is still automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court.
### KEY ISSUES
The primary criticism regarding the death penalty laws in China consists of two points. First, what makes a crime “heinous,” thus worthy of the death penalty, remains unclear. The lack of a definition has led to an inconsistent interpretation in courts across China. For example, a man who stole 14 cattle ([Zhang Xizhong](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf)) and a man who murdered 11 women ([Gao Chengyong](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-46743882)) were both given the death penalty, despite the severity of their crimes being poles apart in the eyes of a reasonable person. The flexible interpretation has also allowed, as another one of Amnesty International’s [report](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf) alleges, intermediate courts to give “death sentences for non-capital crimes” to come across as being tough on crime.
Further, the absence of a definition for the term “heinous” contributed to the death penalty being imposed for economic crimes. Since economic crimes like illegal fundraising, tax fraud, or stealing fossils do not involve the loss of human life, and their effects are, to some extent, reversible unlike crimes like murder and rape, the logic behind considering them heinous is inherently flawed. Even though China stopped using the death penalty for economic crimes in [2011](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12580504) after realising that it failed in the “reversal of the spiralling trend of economic [crime](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf),” the legislative experiment cost the lives of at least [23 people](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/160000/asa170381997en.pdf) who had been executed for offences like tax fraud, counterfeiting, or smuggling money.
Second, the implementation of the two-year suspension rule on death sentences remains unscrutinised. The state advertises it as a [progressive feature](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf) of its capital punishment framework as it gives a reasonable amount of time for discovering new evidence to overturn convictions—avoiding miscarriages of justice—and also as it allows convicted individuals to avoid the death penalty if they can showcase that they have reflected on their actions and reformed as individuals. However, this rule is criticised as an [inhumane approach](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf), as during the suspension convicted individuals live with the fear of the impending death penalty. Additionally, it is alleged that in practice the two-year suspension rule has been used as a “get-out-of-death card available to wealthy and powerful [defendants](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf)” convicted for economic crimes, as death sentences deemed worthy of immediate execution have always been “disproportionately imposed on those with little education and social [standing](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf)”.
### THE INTERNATIONAL LAW FRAMEWORK
The [arbitrary detention of journalists](https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/26/china-free-journalists-activists), [Uyghur genocide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56843368), and [clampdown of Hong Kongese protesters](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49317695) are all examples of instances when China’s disregard of its citizens’ human rights has been criticised internationally. Unfortunately, China’s use of the death penalty has endured a similar fate, and three points showcase how China’s implementation of the death penalty is incompatible with standards set by the international community.
First, [article 10](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides everyone with the right to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal. Naturally, this applies to individuals being tried for capital crimes. Whilst the UDHR is not a binding instrument, China did play a pivotal role in its creation. Additionally, China is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and one of the 47 members of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Thus, figuratively, it should be the flagbearer of states implementing the UDHR. Yet, individuals being tried for capital crimes in China hardly receive the requisite level of legal assistance. It is common for defence lawyers involved in capital crime cases to get [less than a week to prepare for the trial](https://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/DP_Baseline.pdf). It is also common for defence lawyers to be denied the request for meeting their clients in the early stages, accessing prosecution’s file, conducting independent investigations, and calling expert witnesses in [capital crime cases](https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2751&context=hlr). Naturally, all of this culminates in defence lawyers being unable to establish any sort of mitigation. Further, lawyers are reluctant to get involved in matters involving the death penalty, as it often leaves them vulnerable to personal attacks. For instance, Teng Biao, a lawyer who [co-founded](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/04/teng-biao-china-courts-are-told-what-decision-make-important-cases-including-death-penalty/) “China Against the Death Penalty,” a network for lawyers working on death penalty cases, was “[detained, tortured and stripped of his licence to practice law](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/04/teng-biao-china-courts-are-told-what-decision-make-important-cases-including-death-penalty/)” for campaigning against China’s use of the death penalty.
Second, [article 7](https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights) of the UDHR provides that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. However, death sentences in China have been “increasingly associated with selective enforcement along socioeconomic and political-power [lines](https://law.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/006_2017_Matthew-Seet.pdf)”. Whilst it is uncommon for uninfluential people to expect any kind of leniency by the authorities during investigations and trials, the same cannot be said for wealthy individuals. A comparison of two separate instances encapsulates this disparity accurately. On one hand, [Li Qiming](https://www.rfa.org/english/li-geng-accused-of-falsifying-evidence-in-murder-burglary-case-appeal-10132015124635.html), the son of a prominent police official, killed one person and seriously injured another after hitting the two with his car whilst driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon arrest, he openly flaunted his father’s position. He was charged with endangering public security under [article 115](https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/jdwt/crimelaw/t209043.htm) of the PRC, which carries the death penalty but, was eventually sentenced to six years of imprisonment. On the other hand, [Zhang Yuhuan](https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3096430/zhang-yuhuan-case-shows-chinas-need-prevent-wrongful-convictions), a farmer charged with the murder of two boys, was tortured in police custody and forced into signing a confession. Consequently, he was sentenced to death but released 27 years later after the court adjudicated in an appeal that there was never direct evidence to prove he committed the murders. Further, nearly 70% of 4,500 Chinese citizens acknowledged in a [survey](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/RHoodOnChina.pdf) conducted by the EU-China project that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed on “[poor and ‘grassroots’ people than a rich person or an official or a relative of an official](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/RHoodOnChina.pdf)”.
Lastly, the death penalty’s imposition in China is directly incompatible with [article 6](https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that every human has an inherent right to life. From a legal perspective, China has not ratified the ICCPR and is under no obligation to follow it. However, the right to life is a fundamental principle of natural law, which transcends borders. Even Confucius, a philosopher from ancient China whose teachings remain popular till today, criticised the idea of capital punishment. Further, it is human to err, thus, as long as the death penalty remains, so does the possibility of innocent people being executed, and cases of [Huugilt](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-30474691) and [Nie Shubin](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38179311) exemplify that in China. Nonetheless, the death penalty remains an integral part of the country’s criminal justice system.
In 2001, as a part of the “Strike hard” campaign, [1,000](https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/RHoodOnChina.pdf) people were executed within a month alone. Currently, the death penalty is being used as an instrument for curbing dissent. For instance, [Tashpolat Tiyip](https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1710062019ENGLISH.pdf), a Uyghur academic, was arbitrarily detained, convicted of separatism, and sentenced to a suspended death sentence; his current whereabouts remain unknown. However, the international community is unable to scrutinise China’s use of the death penalty as figures remain a state secret. Although this year some western countries did impose [some sanctions](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56487162) on China over the Uyghur genocide, due to China’s position as an economic force, harsh sanctions remain implausible. Thus, the chances of China using the death penalty transparently or moving away from it remain bleak. |
| Shard | 34 (laksa) |
| Root Hash | 14056266701181939034 |
| Unparsed URL | com,humanrightspulse!www,/mastercontentblog/china-and-the-abuse-of-the-death-penalty s443 |