“Kill fewer, kill carefully.” According to the wishes of the Chinese Politburo, these two political guidelines are to be implemented in the future in order to simultaneously maintain harmony and order in China.
As with any passed laws – independent of country or government –, two questions arise here:
1. What did the prior evolution look like and can obligatory reform prevail?
2. Which competences are the judiciary’s responsibility and is there a guarantee that secure monitoring of law enforcement will be carried out?
I will pursue these questions in this paper. For this purpose, I will start by addressing the term “death penalty”, the legal provisions in China as well as its evolution with a particular focus on the “Strike Hard” Campaign and the decentralization process of the courts, which substantially contributed to the need for reform.
Furthermore, I will analyze the reformation of the Supreme People’s Court and assess the current state of the political guidelines being strived for and their actual executive implementation.
The conclusion should allow for an assessment of the reformation measures, if they have indeed been successful, if there is a need to catch up or if they failed entirely.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Death Penalty in China and its Historical Evolution
2.1. Its Definition and Legal Foundation
2.2. The Evolution of the Death Penalty in China
2.3. The Strike Hard Campaign
3. The Reformation of the Supreme People’s Court
3.1. Returning to Centralization
3.2. Current Developments
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This article examines the historical evolution and current legal framework of the death penalty in China, specifically analyzing how shifts between judicial decentralization and centralization have influenced legal practice, the use of anti-crime campaigns, and the ongoing reformation of the Supreme People's Court to mitigate judicial errors.
- Historical development of capital punishment in China since 1949.
- Analysis of the "Strike Hard" campaigns and their impact on legal procedures.
- The centralizing role of the Supreme People’s Court in reviewing death sentences.
- Assessment of modern judiciary reforms and their effectiveness in reducing wrongful convictions.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3. The Strike Hard Campaign
In order to combat the massive increase in crime, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed extensive measure to counteract these developments on September 2, 1983.
The goal of this campaign was the reduction of crime to the level of the 1950’s by strengthening the executive powers.
I would like to focus on two measures in particular:
1. The rule regarding self-defense was expanded. According to § 20 III of the Penal Code, the following applies: ‟If, during the commission of a crime such as murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping or any other violent offense that severely threatens one’s bodily safety, the injured party has to initiate self-defense causing injury or death to the unlawful attacker, this does not represent excessive self-defense meaning the injured party is not criminally responsible.“ This expanded the discretionary powers of the police regarding the use of service weapons, which, by all means, may have been a positive trigger for the reduction in crime. The option of excessive self-defense without legal consequences in cases where death occurred should, however, be taken into consideration.
2. The change to the Court Organization Act had a much more significant impact on the People’s Courts. While all death sentences had to be confirmed by the Supreme People’s Court since 1957 and while they had to be automatically reviewed without request since 1979, this form of centralization was suspended and substituted by decentralization measures. The decision of the 6th National People’s Congress (NPC) in 1983 authorized provinces, self-rule zones, and autonomous cities to impose the death penalty without having to present such sentences to the Supreme People’s Court for review.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter outlines the research questions concerning the evolution of the death penalty, the distribution of judicial competences, and the effectiveness of reform measures within the Chinese legal system.
2. The Death Penalty in China and its Historical Evolution: This chapter defines the legal basis for capital punishment and examines historical phases, particularly the "Strike Hard" campaigns that sought to suppress crime through executive strengthening.
2.1. Its Definition and Legal Foundation: This section details the specific penal code provisions and procedural regulations governing the imposition and execution of death sentences in China.
2.2. The Evolution of the Death Penalty in China: This section explores the long-term historical context of capital punishment, contrasting pre-1949 traditions with the anti-crime campaigns of the socialist era.
2.3. The Strike Hard Campaign: This section analyzes the specific legal changes made in 1983, including expanded self-defense rules and the decentralization of judicial review authority.
3. The Reformation of the Supreme People’s Court: This chapter discusses the move toward recentralizing judicial authority to address "legal irritations" and the prevalence of judicial errors.
3.1. Returning to Centralization: This section explains the political and rights-based motivations behind transferring review powers back to the Supreme People's Court.
3.2. Current Developments: This section covers post-2007 reforms, including stricter review processes, the suspension of firing squads, and recent judiciary reform plans under President Zhou Qiang.
4. Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that while reforms are underway to reduce wrongful sentencing, the death penalty remains an entrenched component of Chinese culture and societal expectations.
Keywords
Death Penalty, China, Strike Hard Campaign, Supreme People's Court, Judicial Reform, Criminal Law, Penal Code, Centralization, Decentralization, Human Rights, Judicial Errors, Legal Procedure, Capital Punishment, Sentencing, Judiciary
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this article?
The article focuses on the historical development and legal evolution of the death penalty in China, specifically analyzing the impact of government campaigns and the structural shifts in judicial authority.
What are the central themes of the work?
Key themes include the interplay between crime control and human rights, the decentralization vs. centralization of judicial review, and the ongoing efforts to minimize wrongful executions.
What is the core research objective?
The objective is to assess whether the reformation measures of the Supreme People's Court have successfully addressed systemic issues like wrongful sentencing and inadequate legal oversight.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author utilizes a legal-historical analysis, relying on primary sources such as Penal Codes, Court Organization Acts, and secondary academic and human rights reports.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body examines legal definitions, the "Strike Hard" campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s, the recentralization of the Supreme People's Court, and modern judicial reform initiatives.
Which keywords best describe the paper?
Relevant keywords include Death Penalty, China, Judicial Reform, Supreme People's Court, Strike Hard Campaign, and Legal Procedure.
How did the "Strike Hard" campaign affect judicial authority?
The campaign initiated a process of decentralization, granting provincial courts the power to impose and confirm death sentences without mandatory review by the Supreme People's Court.
Why did the Chinese government eventually push for the recentralization of judicial powers?
Recentralization was motivated by the need to correct "judicial errors," address international human rights concerns, and eliminate regional inconsistencies in the application of criminal law.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Michael Sting (Autor:in), 2015, China and the Death Penalty. Historical and Current Developments, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/316010
