Capital punishment in Taiwan

[wushijiao]

I take the word of the DDP and the Taiwan Ministry of Justice at face value; there's no doubt that they want to increase human rights on the island and see the death penalty as a factor closely related to that. Yet to what degree is their long-run campaign to (rightly) decrease the frequency of death penalty simply a Machiavellian way to define themselves as the opposite of what the Middle Kingdom is not? For example, this is from bhchao's link which roddy kindly enabled us to view, “The Taiwan government has stated that human rights are the foundation of the nation and has conducted in-depth review of legislative policy on the death penalty.”

Isn't this similar to their drive to be a leader in environmentalism? I'm not very knowledgeable about Taiwan, just speculating...

[lpascoe]

I can't fathom what Chen Shuibian is up to most of the time, but I suspect in this case his motives have more to do with what the Taiwanese went through under the KMT than simply to be what the PRC is not. Maybe I'm being naieve, it wouldn't be the first time.

Do you think it might be an attempt to seek recognition and approval from the 'global community' Taiwan is eager to be accepted by? Like the little democracy that could?

[Jose]

If you say that you will want to revenge your stabbed daughter, have no intention to control yourself if such a situation arises, and you do not advocate the death penalty, that is hypocritical.

Why? I never said that killing a killer is right. Only that, human nature being the way it is, I can understand the desire to see the death of a person who has killed a beloved one, and I think I would probably feel that way if such a tragedy were to happen to me.

It would still be wrong. A murder is a murder, and must be punished. The terms of the sentence should vary depending on the circumstances, but nobody has the right to take anyone else's life.

[Ian_Lee]

Actually the abolition of death sentence is a global trend. Even in Mainland China, occasionally there are some voices opposing death sentences.

And at least many executions are undertaken in a more humane way -- lethal injection in lieu of a bullet on the back of the neck.

Even though death sentence may still be very controversial for a long time to come, the less controversial topic related to it should be the way it is undertaken and the way it is applied.

On this aspect, I would say even in many advanced East Asian societies, the governments are quite flawed.

For instance, execution is always undertaken in a massive scale to act as a social deterrent in times of crisis.

The most famous example is that whenever there is a national anti-crime campaign or on the eve of Lunar New Year, mass execution is undertaken in many cities in Mainland China.

Even in South Korea, during the economic crisis of 1998-1999, President Kim Dae Jung (ironically President Kim had been a long time human rights advocate) ordered concurrent execution of 13 death row inmates on one single day!

The way that it is applied is also flawed in some Asian societies.

The first type is too open. Mainland China sometimes put some capital offense criminals on trial in stadium and asked students to attend the trial. After the trial, the convicts were tied up like a Shanghai crab, then paraded around the city on an open truck for half an hour, then moved to the execution ground.

But this is exactly how the death row inmates were tortured in feudal China before execution! Though death row inmate has been deprived of political right (but not human right), such image would definitely impose scars in the minds of their parents for the rest of their lives!

Another extreme is Japan. Recently a NYT article portrayed the secretiveness of Japan's execution: The spouse of the death row inmate didn't know that her husband had been executed until many days afterwards.

[bhchao]

Taiwan has abolished the juvenile death penalty. People who commit homicide under the age of 18 and over 80 cannot be executed. Juvenile death penalty has also been abolished in mainland China and Pakistan.

Momentum is rapidly growing though in Taiwan to gradually phase out the death penalty. Earlier this year, Taiwan passed a law amendment that will gradually abolish the death penalty. This amendment will take effect on July 1, 2006. Elimination of capital punishment in Taiwan will start with crimes that do not directly inflict harm on human life. For example, kidnapping cases in which the victims remain alive will not receive the death penalty. This contrasts with Singapore's legal system, where the punishment for kidnappings is execution.

However, the death penalty will remain in effect for inhumane crimes such as this:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/01/26/2003220996

For those who support abolishing capital punishment, do you still think crimes like the one in the article should not receive the death penalty? Although I believe that Taiwan is taking a step in the right direction, I support retaining the death penalty for such crimes. If I was the judge and the defendants in that case were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (which is not the case), I will pass the death sentence. However maximum life imprisonment seems more appropriate for this scenario.

[peeyuwu]

What do you think of the movement to abolish capital punishment in Taiwan? ?

Good or bad, in Taiwan or elsewhere, it is up to society to decide (lets hear if for Taiwan). It has been discussed in this forum (I don't recall the exact posting.) that "morality" changes with the times and location. I agree with this point of view. For example, in the Qing and other dynasties, a person could be executed by various means. One of the more unusual forms would be "death by a thousand cuts", closely followed by "cut waist". It was considered an "Imperial Favor" for the condemed person to be able to "Protect Complete Corpse". I would venture that TODAY these methods of TORTURE would be opposed by even the heartiest supporters of the death penalty. So the question is: "Is it moral for the State to deprive life?" As the mores evolve and change, the answer to this question changes with "time" and "place". As Friend Jose asked "Should society stoop to the level of the criminal?"

As a practical issue, (today) most of us would agree that someone who cruelly takes the life, liberty, happiness of a fellow human being is "Guilty Should Ten Thousand Deaths". However often times it is not "black and white". In these instances, is it jusified to "Kill 1000 in order to NOT let one guilty person escape" or should a civilized society "Pardon 1000 in order to AVOID wrongly executing one innocent person"? It is for each of us to reflect upon our conscience and come to terms with ourself.

Finally, in China there is a tradition of "Autumn Finality" when executions are performed. Is it symbolic of the pending "twilight of the year"? Does anyone know the origins of this practice?

P5

[Jose]

A few more thoughts on the subject.

First of all, there is no perfect system of retribution. If, for example, one murder is punished with death, a murderer who has killed one person will get the same punishment as another murderer who has killed one hundred people. It may appear that the second murderer deserves a form of punishment one hundred times harsher, but it's simply impossible to have a proportional system here. There has to be an ultimate punishment, whether it be death (as in the US or China), life imprisonment (as in Britain), or 30 years in jail (as in Spain).

And that's the big question: What should that ultimate punishment be?

As I see it, there is a difference between what criminals might "deserve", and what can actually be done to them. As peeyuwu said, even most people who advocate the death penalty oppose the use of physical torture against criminals. We accept that while people can commit the most heinous crimes we could imagine, there are limits to what the penal system of a country can do to an individual. For example, we may think that somebody deserves being gruesomely tortured or whatever (because they did that to their victims), but how could such a form of punishment be carried out? That would require having a body of civil servants on the state's payroll who would be trained in torturing and abusing people. That is regarded as unacceptable in most societies, so torture as a form of punishment has been suppressed in most penal systems in the world.

But a similar problem arises in those countries that accept the death penalty. Such countries need to have executioners on their payrolls. This is something I find extremely cruel and difficult to palate. The thought of somebody whose job consists in killing people is quite distressing to me. Whether the executioner is a man with a sharp axe used to sever heads, as in Saudi Arabia, or a doctor (yes, a doctor!) who administers a lethal injection, as in the US, it is an example of what in a previous post I described as 'the brutalisation of society'. Countries that accept the death penalty are effectively saying that killing people is not wrong in all cases. On the contrary, countries that reject the death penalty are making a strong statement that killing is always wrong, and this results in a morally healthier society, in my opinion.

By not killing people, a country sets a good example: That, unlike criminals, it values human life and regards it as a sacrosanct right of all its members. Also, I think there is a general trend in this direction. A few decades ago, the death penalty existed in most countries in the world. Right now, it has been abolished throughout Europe, and in most of the Americas, the exceptions being Cuba, Guatemala, the USA and a handful of Caribbean English-speaking countries. In Africa, most countries have also abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. The situation in the US is particularly poignant. I find it really unnerving how the US government is always trying to lecture others on human rights, while, in this regard, they're at the same level as the Irans and North Koreas of the world.

In the end, the death penalty poses more problems than it solves. When heinous crimes like the one in the article posted by bhchao are committed there will inevitably be calls to reintroduce the death penalty (that happens occasionally in Europe), but the debate shouldn't be driven by the gut feelings aroused by such extreme cases.

I think, and hope, that Taiwan and the rest of China (Hong Kong and Macao are already death penalty-free places, by the way) will eventually join the global trend against the death penalty, though it won't happen soon.

[wushijiao]

I agree with most of what Jose said, especially,

On the contrary, countries that reject the death penalty are making a strong statement that killing is always wrong, and this results in a morally healthier society

But I just have to add a tiny bit (seeing how it is the 4th and a patriotic duty).

I find it really unnerving how the US government is always trying to lecture others on human rights, while, in this regard, they're at the same level as the Irans and North Koreas of the world.

The death penalty in the US right now is carried out on the state level. That means, some states have rejected the idea of the death penalty, say, Maine or Illinois, while other states fully embrace it, say, Texas. This reflects the diversity of opinion in the country that is big and has huge cultural diverences. After all, the name of the country is the United States of America, which used to mean something like the the Nations that are United that are located in the Americas. Although, as time has gone on, power has become more concentrated at the federal level.

Foreign policy is made at the national level, but many other things are still carried out at the local, county or state level, for better or for worse (education, prisions system, state parks, many driving laws, drinking laws, gun laws...etc). Thus, while Bush lectures other countries about human rights (and I can find that to be annoying especially in light of the abuses at Guantanamo), I think what the federal government says as far as foreign policy and how the states choose to carry out death penalty policy are really two seperate issues.

[gato]

Interesting that the U.S. is one of the few "Christian" countries that still permit the death penalty and is the only "Christian" developed country that permits it. Most Asian countries still have the death penalty, including Japan, the two Koreas, India, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia.

See http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Culture seems to have as much of a influence here as economics. Of course, you're right that it makes little rational sense to kill someone who's already imprisoned, provided that you have a working prison system. In that case, then, the main purpose of the death penalty is retribution or revenge. Its deterrence role is minor because the prospect of spending a lifetime in prison would be just as much, if not more, of a deterrent to most people, especially those in their 20s-30s (who are the most likely to commit crimes).

[bhchao]

On the contrary, countries that reject the death penalty are making a strong statement that killing is always wrong, and this results in a morally healthier society, in my opinion.

By not killing people, a country sets a good example: That, unlike criminals, it values human life and regards it as a sacrosanct right of all its members.

I empathize with what Jose said here, and this is a strong argument against the death penalty. However I like to point out that from the Asian perspective, the taking of an innocent life by an offender is a crime against society as a whole. In ancient times an individual often belonged to a group, for example 保甲. One reason why most Asian countries still have the death penalty is because of the strong emphasis Asians place on communitarian values, where the interests of society take precedence over that of the individual. This is unlike the Western value where the individual takes higher precedence.

So from this perspective, if we as a society allow the murderer to live, we are degrading the victim's life and placing a higher value on the murderer's life.

I think, and hope, that Taiwan and the rest of China (Hong Kong and Macao are already death penalty-free places, by the way) will eventually join the global trend against the death penalty, though it won't happen soon.

Despite the DPP's movement to abolish the death penalty in Taiwan, opposition against its abolition is high among Taiwan's citizens. A sudden abolishment of the death penalty in Taiwan will be tough to swallow for many people on the island. That is why death penalty opponents there are making it their goal of gradually phasing out capital punishment over the long term.

[Outofin]

Will it make me sound like a evil if I say some don't deserve to live? Some don't contribute a bit to soceity. They just bring miseris to others. In many crime movies, they choose to kill the bad guys, like The Killer by Chow Yun-Fat, like Seven by Bratt Pit, like The Untouchable by Kevin Costner. Using movies as examples may sound funny on the seious issue. But, I doubt some criminals in reality are any better than those in movies. And it is always a moral question to us even in real life. I don't think we have a clear conclusion that death penalty is bad and will eventually be abandoned.

Some argue, as long as we don't have a perfect justice system, (which I believe we will never have,) we can't kill. You mis-kill someone, you can't undo it. IMO, the society has never to fair to every and each individual in it and it will never be able to be and I support it to work this way. To keep human society functioning, we always sacrifice, even with lives. See the soldiers. They enrolled the army. Some of they didn't know there would be a war and they wouldn't be in the army in the first place if they knew. But they were sent to battlefields and died there. Lives! They didn't choose to die there. And they were kind of forced to die there. Were they any luckier than a person who was misjudged and killed by the non-perfect justice system?

[gato]

Which is why I brought up Christianity because it (or at least one version of it) teaches that God has the right to create and destroy human life and that human beings may only kill in self-defense. It's one of the Ten Commandments. Executing a prisoner, when one has other non-lethal ways of protecting the society, is no longer self-defense. For Christians, it's a religious belief, but one can also find non-religious basis for the rule. For instance, this may help to reduce violence by establishing a value in society that no one has the right to kill another who he decides doens't deserve to live, not even by a democratic vote.

[Outofin]

Which is why I brought up Christianity because it (or at least one version of it) teaches that God has the right to create and destroy human life and that human beings may only kill in self-defense. It's one of the Ten Commandments. Executing a prisoner, when one has other non-lethal ways of protecting the society, is no longer self-defense. For Christians, it's a religious belief, but one can also find non-religious basis for the rule. For instance, this may help to reduce violence by establishing a value in society that no one has the right to kill another who he decides doens't deserve to live, not even by a democratic vote.

I knew it! It's not a legal issue. It will from a legal issue to morality, from morality to religion, from religion to philosophy. I'm no believer and I don't agree with some principles rooted in Christianity. "It's said by God" is not a point to me if without further explanation. "this may help to reduce violence by establishing a value in society that no one has the right to kill another who he decides doens't deserve to live" I have to say, this is just a wish. Did it ever work? Any statistic proving that Christians killed less than Islams or Buddhists? I seriously doubt it.

Sacred laws are perfect. Secular laws are just okay or even make terrible mistakes. But I think secular laws works better than sacred laws.

Although I don't agree with countries that don't have death penalty on this matter, but I wholeheartly think they are good. However, I don't think they're good if they wages wars at the mean time, that's why I thought of the soldiers died in battlefields in my previous post. It's like, animal protectors are good. But if they're not vegetarians, I would doubt their faith. You can't be angry about deer killing but eat chickens at the same time, or protect whales but eat catfishes.

[大肚子]

X kills Y' date=' because Y murdered X's loved one, Z, is revenge.

X punches Y, because Y pushed X is revenge.

X slaps Y, because Y stared at Z's chest is revenge.

X hits Y's bumper, because Y cut him off is revenge.

X demands money from Y, because Y broke X's music player is revenge.

Etc., etc., etc.

There are many ways of seeking revenge, not just death. Be it fining the offender, jailing for 1 day, life-sentenced, or death. They are all revenge. Many of you are classifying revenge as just taking the offender's life for his/her killing.[/quote']

Not really, there's a distinction between revenge and justice. Revenge is passionate, justice dispassionate. Take the last case, I'd say that has more to do with justice than revenge. If someone broke my music player and I needed money for a new one then it's perfectly just for me to ask, or even demand, money. Revenge would be more like me smashing his player in return. Revenge is balanced on causing equal harm to someone who has previously caused harm. Justice is about fairly punishing those who caused harm and, if possible, providing reparations to victims.

If you say that you will want to revenge your stabbed daughter' date=' have no intention to control yourself if such a situation arises, and you do not advocate the death penalty, that is hypocritical.

[/quote']

No more than if I were to ask you whether you would like to be executed for a murder of which you were innocent and you answer "no". The point is that being able to recognise that our own emotions and preferences do not determine what is right for everyone is what makes us moral beings. We don't just act on instinct blindly. We are able to see that even if we would do something under certain circumstances it would still be wrong to do so.

My question is this: what exactly is the justice system for?

Punishment? Rehabilitation? Protection of society?

Where these three differ' date=' which should take precedence?

I ask because I'm not sure what I think about this. What do you guys think?

[/quote']

I would argue that the role of a justice system should be to minimise crime while conforming to the moral values of the society in question.

Which brings us to the question of morality. Basically whether the death penalty is right or wrong depends on your (or your society's) moral values.

In a rights-based society, as all western societies are, then it is hard to argue for the death penalty. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights and should only be taken away under extreme circumstances, for example in self defence. As far as I can tell there are three main arguments in favour of the death penalty that apply to rights-based societies:

1. Deterrence. First of all, as gato pointed out, it's unlikely that someone rationally contemplating comitting a murder in the US would decide "no way, it's too risky" whilst the same person in a European country would think "ah, screw it, it's only the rest of my life in prison." As to the idea that prison is comfortable, well, I'll believe that when I hear it from someone who's been inside. Secondly, the crimes that have the death penalty in those rights based societies which allow it (ie the US) are the sort that are either comitted by those in such a non-rational state (through passion or insanity) that thought of the consequences doesn't even pass their mind, or else by those who are convinced they will not be caught. Deterrence here doesn't enter into the equation. Finally, it is not clear that deterrence alone is enough to justify such a breach of human rights. Cutting off the hands of thieves, as is sometimes practiced in Muslim countries which follow the Sharia laws, certainly has a deterrent effect, probably much more so than the death penalty. But most of those in rights-based societies would never support such an action due to the rights it violates. The only distinction with the death penalty is the severity of the crime which brings us to...

2 Retribution. By retribution I don't just mean revenge I mean the idea of the crime fitting the punishment. With the death penalty for murder we have a clear case of "an eye for an eye." Yet rights-based societies do not follow the eye for an eye principle for any other crimes (those who commit assault are not themselves beaten, those who commit rape are not themselves raped) so why is it tolerated for murder? The only reason is the magnitude of the crime and the passion it invokes. Yet as I said earlier passion should not be a part of justice.

3. Cost effectiveness. Cyberian mentioned this at the start of the thread. Why should tax payers hard earned cash go to feeding and keeping alive a murderer for decades? Well, for that matter, why should it go to feeding and keeping alive a rapist for decades? Or a thief for years? Or someone with unpaid parking tickets for days? In a rights based society the answer is because they have fundamental rights. And though the state can take away their right to property, in fines, or liberty, in prison sentences, it must stop short at the right to health or life. We don't execute a man who beats his wife on a regular basis, even if it is highly likely he will do so again if released, so why a murderer? And, ultimately, the right to life should never, ever, be sacrificed in the name of budget balancing. To do so is for murderers is little different from euthenising old age pensioners. Implicit in this line of reasoning is the attitude "one less criminal to deal with". However, it is against everything a rights-based society stands for to kill, or otherwise grievously infringe the rights of, a person just because they are inconvenient, or even dangerous, to society.

I hope it's clear from all this that rights based societies cannot have the death penalty and be consistent with their own moral values.

Thus, while Bush lectures other countries about human rights (and I can find that to be annoying especially in light of the abuses at Guantanamo), I think what the federal government says as far as foreign policy and how the states choose to carry out death penalty policy are really two seperate issues.

I must disagree here. One of the tenets of the US constitution is that the while the inidividual states have freedom to persue their own policies in many areas human rights is not one of them (hence the Bill of Rights). The federal government, then, would be entirely within its rights to ban the death penalty on human rights ground. By not doing so it does indeed diminish its position on human rights.

What about non-rights-based societies? For those societies that value social stability above human rights (and mainland China would fit into this category, I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with Taiwan to comment), human life does not have the sacred value it has in rights-based societies (though it obviously does have value). Thus there's not the same pressure to preserve life, especially if doing so might harm social stability. For a social stability-based society, if corruption is a serious problem instituting the death penalty for extreme corruption (as occurrs here for bribe taking over 1 million RMB) makes sense. It has an obvious deterrant value, far more so than the death penalty for murder. Public executions are also consistent with the value system for the extra deterrent effect. Finally, there's always the factor of "one less criminal to be concerned with". If the death of one troublemaker will provide a significant benefit to society, then that is perfectly valid.

The reason the US alone maintains the death penalty is because the US has always kept a streak of social stability morality. This is why, for instance, the US was more severe in clamping down on Communism in the 50s and 60s than most other western societies (with the obvious exception of Franco's Spain). I would argue that this is because the US has always had a larger, and politically more significant, rural population than, say, most European countries. And rural societies, with their closer communities, tend to favour social stability. Both history and geography show us that the more urbanised a society becomes the more rights-based its politics becomes. Why this is I could only guess at, and I've written more than enough already.

Will it make me sound like a evil if I say some don't deserve to live? Some don't contribute a bit to soceity. They just bring miseris to others. In many crime movies, they choose to kill the bad guys ... like Seven[/i'] by Bratt Pit

And on a final note I don't think that's a particularly good example, since in Seven it's made clear that by killing the villain Brad Pitt has actually lost. The villain wanted himself to die for the sin of envy and in doing so Brad Pitt is guilty of the sin of wrath (and will presumably be executed). Actually, it's a pretty telling criticism of the death penalty from that perspective.

[Outofin]

it's unlikely that someone rationally contemplating comitting a murder in the US would decide "no way, it's too risky" whilst the same person in a European country would think "ah, screw it, it's only the rest of my life in prison."

Yes, it applys to those like us. Death or prison life, I don't see which is better or worse. But I believe, to some criminals who have got used to jail life, that's a huge difference and they will make different desicions.

And on a final note I don't think that's a particularly good example, since in Seven it's made clear that by killing the villain Brad Pitt has actually lost.

The ending of Seven is quite complex and we can read it in different way. It's not a sound example to support my point. But if you can read my 2 ealier posts and answer my other questions, it would be great.

Back to the example of Seven, Brad Pitt was choosing between, not to kill and live his rest life in misery, or, kill and rest in peace. He attempted to give up for several minutes but he finally chose the latter option.

We actually see 2 death penalties here. One is what Brad did, one is what Brad was going to face. How do you read the story? Both shouldn't happen? In that case, you're putting Brad in a situation worse than death, according to himself!

I think, if Brad could know for sure the murder would be excuted, he wouldn't kill the guy by himself. That's the point of death penalty. Brad was even only a relatives of the victim. What would the victim choose to do if she was alive? Someone breaks your music player, you can decide to break his, or ask for money, or even forgive him. But the victim couldn't because she's dead. We're ignoring the critical person here. Let me invent a system, when you apply your driver license, beside the organ donor option, you choose "I choose to sue the murder for death penalty upon my death." Fair enough?

[大肚子]

Outofin, sorry I took so long to respond, I've been very busy of late.

First off, it is possible that there may be those criminals who are so used to life in prison that a life sentence would be an acceptable risk, or even preferrable to life outside. However, I would be willing to guess that even if they exist their number would be far too small to justify the death penalty. Furthermore, if they do exist that suggests that the prison system needs to be reformed, rather than that the death penalty needs to be instituted.

I don't want to get into a complex movie debate, however, I will say that in almost all thrillers/action movies where the villain is killed by the hero it is usually because they cannot be brought to justice otherwise or else in self-defence. If a hero kills a villain who could be brought to a fair trial then they usually stop being a hero.

Finally, I don't think having the victim choose whether or not the death penalty should be instituted is practical, though it is a better idea than most on offer. First of all, the victim's wishes, though important, are less important than the actual determining of justice. Like I said justice should be dispassionate. Secondly, it's not a perfect determiner since all crimes are different. What if a person chooses no death penalty and then is brutally raped, tortured then killed.Would their family be happy with that? Or what if they choose the death penalty but their killer is someone close to them who they love dearly. Would they still choose the death penalty in that situation? The situation is too complex for a simple yes/no answer.

Finally, judging from your posts you would support the death penalty for its role in benefitting society. I have no problems with this, my initial argument was directed at the laws of those countries who are, or claim to be, primarily rights-based societies. I will ask this, though, purely out of curiosity, where do you think the line should be drawn? If there is a great social benefit in executing corrupt officials is it OK to execute them?

[Outofin]

Finally, judging from your posts you would support the death penalty for its role in benefitting society. I have no problems with this, my initial argument was directed at the laws of those countries who are, or claim to be, primarily rights-based societies. I will ask this, though, purely out of curiosity, where do you think the line should be drawn? If there is a great social benefit in executing corrupt officials is it OK to execute them?

Yes, some of your arguments make senses to me. I could make some other arguments to counter them and continue the discussion, but it doesn't seem necessary for now. I’ve said that I respect those who advocate the abolishment of death penalty, might including you, my dear friend. Many people, like monks, have been following the faith since ancient time. It will only bother me if they revokes my right to sue someone for death penalty or enforces their ethics upon me.

China does execute some corrupted officials, though I don’t think it’s necessary. I think corruptions are not 刑事犯罪 (sorry, I don't know how to say it in English). It’s a very different category. Throwing a corrupted official into jail will ruin his whole life and his capability to commit more crimes. They don't even have a profession.

Corruptions, unlike murder or rape, usually don’t a direct victim. But there are some exceptions. Some used industrial alcohols to make wine, which you could imagine was totally poisonous; A bridge in Sichuan collapsed due to corrupted officials and greedy businessmen; Not a long time ago, some infants died because the milk they drank didn’t provide any nutrition, because those illegal businesses wanted to save some cost. I couldn’t be angrier when I heard the news. You have one or some children, do you? Let me say this, I won’t show a bit pity if I see these people get executed.

[shibo77]

I am in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Every human gets to live, no matter what they did. But then I think that if people were this noble, there wouldn't be any crimes.

-Shìbó

[gato]

I am in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Every human gets to live, no matter what they did. But then I think that if people were this noble, there wouldn't be any crimes.

But we're talking about the government here. Not every person has to be noble for the government to be noble.

[Outofin]

The government doesn't mean to be noble. It's not supposed to be noble. Its job on this part is to keep the order.