CHINA, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Analysis: The Executed Can Not Rise Again
By Xu Yan
"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." Francis Bacon
"Please bring back my son, my poor son…" An old woman mournfully beseeched the journalists’ favor in the setting sun. Everyone present was deeply moved by Zhang Huanzhi, a heart-broken mother. Her son, Nie Shubin, was executed for rape and murder ten years ago.
These are the "facts" agreed upon by the police, the investigators, and the justice system: On the afternoon of August 5th, 1994, the not-yet-21-year-old Nie Shubin stole a blouse while wandering around Kongzhai Cun on a blue racing bicycle. He found the victim, Ms. Kang, riding her bicycle through the area. He followed her, ran her down, then raped and strangled the 38 year-old woman with the stolen blouse in a cornfield.
On April 29th, 1995, after trial first by the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court, and then the Hebei Province Supreme People's Court, Nie Shubin was executed bearing two heinous crimes upon his name and family--rape and intentional homicide.
However, these seemingly definite facts came into doubt in January 2005, when an escaped criminal was captured. The Xingyang police had arrested Wang Shujin as a suspect in several crimes. During interrogation, Wang admitted to killing and raping four women in Hebei. The Xingyang police immediately brought Wang Shujin to the police in Guangping County, Hebei, where he was officially registered as a resident.
Unexpectedly, Wang Shujin admitted that in 1994, in the area of Kongzhai Cun, he had raped and murdered a local woman. He was able to describe the crime scene and offer details that only the rapist and murderer would know. Of course, whatever he said was of no help to Zhang Huanzhi. Her son was irreversibly dead, executed for a crime he did not commit.
After learning of the situation, the Hebei Politics and Law Committee formed a group to investigate the Nie Shubin case again. In an interview, the secretary of Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court said that they were trying their best to search the records and gather the evidence. He admitted that since the case was wrapped up ten years ago, it was exceedingly difficult.
According to legislation on wrongful convictions issued by the Supreme Court, the relevant people should bear corresponding responsibility: criticism punishment, discipline punishment, or indictment.
Although there are still uncertainties about the real criminal, and about whether the execution was in fact an unjust case, it brought abolishment of the death penalty and reforms of the criminal justice system into the spotlight.
Many officials and experts in criminal justice have argued that China should revise its approach to the death penalty to demonstrate respect for human rights and to radically avoid false convictions. "When it comes to life or death, we have to be very cautious," said Wang Mingdi, vice president of the China Penology Society, claiming that the move will help reduce death roll numbers and prevent miscarriages of justice.
Chinese media commentators say the scandal should accelerate Beijing's plans to allow the Supreme Court to review death-penalty cases. A commentator on the People's Daily website, Yuan Yuan, said he opposes the death penalty because the Chinese judicial system is too opaque and unaccountable. "Look at this case," he wrote on a Chinese website. "Only a single piece of evidence, a confession obtained by torture, can decide someone's death."
However, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao told reporters in Beijing at a press conference during the NPC this year, "Given our national conditions, we cannot abolish the death penalty."
Thus, facing the current situation, we should turn to reforms of the judicial system, especially judicial review of all death-penalty sentences.
Fan Chongyi, a professor at China Politics and Law University, believes that two bulwarks of the judicial system must be established: first, the standardization of gathering, validating and presenting evidence; second, a valid and effective system of rectifying false convictions.
On practical measures against incorrect verdicts, Professor Fan offered two suggestions. One is founding a supervisory bureau to handle the public's appeals for help. Another is counterchecking all severe-punishment cases automatically, death penalty cases in particular.
It is far from enough to only be outraged when confronting wrongly convicted cases. What we need are rational thoughts and practical solutions to prevent a second, and a third Nie Shubin. It requires the endeavor of government as well as that of the public. It is deeply rooted in the public's mind that every criminal should be severely punished.
But as life is exceedingly precious and punishment and death are not reversible, we should respect every life and deal cautiously with all suspects, assuming their innocence in the first place, offering them the opportunity to testify or keep silent, the right to challenge all evidence presented against them, and to be aware of all judicial proceedings in their case.
Therefore, although every judicial system has flaws and mistakes will happen, we can at least claim that we have spared no efforts in perfecting it and that we prize life above all.
"It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer." Francis Bacon
"Please bring back my son, my poor son…" An old woman mournfully beseeched the journalists’ favor in the setting sun. Everyone present was deeply moved by Zhang Huanzhi, a heart-broken mother. Her son, Nie Shubin, was executed for rape and murder ten years ago.
These are the "facts" agreed upon by the police, the investigators, and the justice system: On the afternoon of August 5th, 1994, the not-yet-21-year-old Nie Shubin stole a blouse while wandering around Kongzhai Cun on a blue racing bicycle. He found the victim, Ms. Kang, riding her bicycle through the area. He followed her, ran her down, then raped and strangled the 38 year-old woman with the stolen blouse in a cornfield.
On April 29th, 1995, after trial first by the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court, and then the Hebei Province Supreme People's Court, Nie Shubin was executed bearing two heinous crimes upon his name and family--rape and intentional homicide.
However, these seemingly definite facts came into doubt in January 2005, when an escaped criminal was captured. The Xingyang police had arrested Wang Shujin as a suspect in several crimes. During interrogation, Wang admitted to killing and raping four women in Hebei. The Xingyang police immediately brought Wang Shujin to the police in Guangping County, Hebei, where he was officially registered as a resident.
Unexpectedly, Wang Shujin admitted that in 1994, in the area of Kongzhai Cun, he had raped and murdered a local woman. He was able to describe the crime scene and offer details that only the rapist and murderer would know. Of course, whatever he said was of no help to Zhang Huanzhi. Her son was irreversibly dead, executed for a crime he did not commit.
After learning of the situation, the Hebei Politics and Law Committee formed a group to investigate the Nie Shubin case again. In an interview, the secretary of Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court said that they were trying their best to search the records and gather the evidence. He admitted that since the case was wrapped up ten years ago, it was exceedingly difficult.
According to legislation on wrongful convictions issued by the Supreme Court, the relevant people should bear corresponding responsibility: criticism punishment, discipline punishment, or indictment.
Although there are still uncertainties about the real criminal, and about whether the execution was in fact an unjust case, it brought abolishment of the death penalty and reforms of the criminal justice system into the spotlight.
Many officials and experts in criminal justice have argued that China should revise its approach to the death penalty to demonstrate respect for human rights and to radically avoid false convictions. "When it comes to life or death, we have to be very cautious," said Wang Mingdi, vice president of the China Penology Society, claiming that the move will help reduce death roll numbers and prevent miscarriages of justice.
Chinese media commentators say the scandal should accelerate Beijing's plans to allow the Supreme Court to review death-penalty cases. A commentator on the People's Daily website, Yuan Yuan, said he opposes the death penalty because the Chinese judicial system is too opaque and unaccountable. "Look at this case," he wrote on a Chinese website. "Only a single piece of evidence, a confession obtained by torture, can decide someone's death."
However, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao told reporters in Beijing at a press conference during the NPC this year, "Given our national conditions, we cannot abolish the death penalty."
Thus, facing the current situation, we should turn to reforms of the judicial system, especially judicial review of all death-penalty sentences.
Fan Chongyi, a professor at China Politics and Law University, believes that two bulwarks of the judicial system must be established: first, the standardization of gathering, validating and presenting evidence; second, a valid and effective system of rectifying false convictions.
On practical measures against incorrect verdicts, Professor Fan offered two suggestions. One is founding a supervisory bureau to handle the public's appeals for help. Another is counterchecking all severe-punishment cases automatically, death penalty cases in particular.
It is far from enough to only be outraged when confronting wrongly convicted cases. What we need are rational thoughts and practical solutions to prevent a second, and a third Nie Shubin. It requires the endeavor of government as well as that of the public. It is deeply rooted in the public's mind that every criminal should be severely punished.
But as life is exceedingly precious and punishment and death are not reversible, we should respect every life and deal cautiously with all suspects, assuming their innocence in the first place, offering them the opportunity to testify or keep silent, the right to challenge all evidence presented against them, and to be aware of all judicial proceedings in their case.
Therefore, although every judicial system has flaws and mistakes will happen, we can at least claim that we have spared no efforts in perfecting it and that we prize life above all.
1 Comments:
At 5:01 AM , davesgonechina said...
You say "It is deeply rooted in the public's mind that every criminal should be severely punished."
I'm curious... you say every criminal. I realize you mean every criminal properly convicted, and this is a sentiment I generally agree with. Something I've always been interested in with the Chinese justice system is where the line exists between the mental health system and prison - some criminals are deemed mentally unstable (in any society) by law. How does the Chinese judicial system take mental health into account? Is it possible to plea insanity, or otherwise change the perspective of the court by examining issues of mental health? Or is processing and sentencing identical regardless of the defendants mental condition?
Post a Comment
<< Home