onebir Posted January 3, 2008 at 02:32 PM Report Posted January 3, 2008 at 02:32 PM Interesting article here. It seems attempts to switch from shooting to lethal injection have been hampered by costs. At least "the number of death penalties has sharply decreased". I suspect rapid economic growth over the last decade has been a major contributing factor to this - though if anyone has any other explanations it'd be good to hear them. Another reason to hope the economy doesn't go badly awry... Quote
Senzhi Posted January 3, 2008 at 03:17 PM Report Posted January 3, 2008 at 03:17 PM I'm going to make a point here. And no, you don't have to agree with me. The price of a bullet should increase one million fold! The price of a needle also, unless it's for medical care. For medical care, it should be free. I've been to too many war countries to see death because of religious or political 'disagreements'. I don't need to see it any further. Yes, I'm sensitive. It is a very sensitive subject. Full stop. Quote
gougou Posted January 3, 2008 at 08:03 PM Report Posted January 3, 2008 at 08:03 PM Not that I was expecting much from Chinese journalism, but that interview was quite weak. Their "death penalty expert" even only heard from executions by lethal injection from friends. There is more information in here, which also says: [Chief Justice] Xiao said abolishing the capital punishment or strictly limiting the use of the death sentence are a global trend and "China is also working toward that direction."Curious whether we'll hear more about that one. Quote
roddy Posted January 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM Report Posted January 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM At least "the number of death penalties has sharply decreased". I suspect rapid economic growth over the last decade has been a major contributing factor to this Do you mean because of a reduction in crime? If so I doubt it, the economic growth is not evenly distributed, the gap between rich and poor is widening, and more mobile populations result in more desperate and destitute people. I was once told by a drunk PSB official that they have quotas. Maybe the quotas got cut. Quote
Hero Doug Posted January 4, 2008 at 02:46 AM Report Posted January 4, 2008 at 02:46 AM I was once told by a drunk PSB official that they have quotas. What is this quota for? Speeding tickets, violent crimes, death sentences,,,,???? Quote
muyongshi Posted January 4, 2008 at 02:47 AM Report Posted January 4, 2008 at 02:47 AM Our lawyer friend, who's father works with the police chief, aunt is a high ranking cop and every other member of the family works in government too, as we walked by a building very non chalantly said oh that is where all the executions take place....and in the same second infered that it was a very frequent practice in our quiet old town. Quote
gato Posted January 4, 2008 at 04:20 AM Report Posted January 4, 2008 at 04:20 AM At least "the number of death penalties has sharply decreased". Part of the reason is that death penalties are now subject to review to the Supreme Court in Beijing. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/14/content_424517.htm Court gets back power of death reviews By Hu Cong (China Daily) Updated: 2005-03-14 06:25 Power to review, and when necessary overturn, death sentences, is to be returned to the Supreme People's Court. Quote
onebir Posted January 5, 2008 at 07:56 AM Author Report Posted January 5, 2008 at 07:56 AM Do you mean because of a reduction in crime? If so I doubt it, the economic growth is not evenly distributed, the gap between rich and poor is widening, and more mobile populations result in more desperate and destitute people. There's some truth in what you're saying about inequality. But according to the World Bank: "Across China, there were over 400 million fewer people living in extreme poverty in 2001 than 20 years previously." Even with rising inequality - which they identify as a problem later in the same article - taking almost 1/3 of the population out of extreme poverty is such a huge reduction in the number of "desperate and destitute people" that it seems likely that it would help reduce crime rates - inspite of offsetting increases due to increased inequality & resulting mobility. And increased mobility isn't necessarily a bad thing - it's often about people going to places where they can earn more money. Provided their plans don't go disastrously wrong, it reduces poverty - of the individual concerned, & via flows of money back to family members in the 老乡, of that area generally. This is one of the ways the benefits of uneven economic growth can be distributed. But as I understand it (ie not very well) the current hukou system stands as an obstacle to this process and by denying official status to many internal migrants increases the risks of them running into trouble. (This is interesting too, but a bit dated.) Quote
aeon Posted January 14, 2008 at 09:02 PM Report Posted January 14, 2008 at 09:02 PM China may have taken 1/3 of it's population out of extreme poverty and destitution in real terms (which is something the Chinese "Communist" Party should be commended for if nothing else), however crime goes hand in hand with perceived poverty and a large income gap between rich and poor. While the number of actual starving and destitute people may have gone down, the gap between rich and poor is now extreme. China is effectively two countries - one with a relatively affluent population that lives in the cities and a 3rd world nation whose people live in rural areas, or migrate from the countryside and work as illegal aliens in the cities. Unless the gap is reduced then crime will continue to be a problem. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.