Spc Guidance On Economic Crime Sentencing And Its Research Implications
A comparative study of China’s death penalty with abolitionist jurisdictions involves understanding the legal, moral, and political aspects of the death penalty in countries that retain it versus those that have abolished it. China is one of the few countries that applies the death penalty extensively, while many countries, particularly in Europe, have abolished it. Below is a detailed analysis, comparing China's practices with those of abolitionist jurisdictions, followed by a look at key case law from both sides.
China’s Death Penalty
Overview
China is the world's largest user of the death penalty. Although official statistics on the number of executions are classified, estimates suggest that China accounts for around 70-90% of global executions. In 2020, Amnesty International reported that China executed thousands of people, with most crimes being non-violent (e.g., corruption, economic crimes).
Legal Basis
The Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (1997) provides the legal framework for the death penalty.
Crimes punishable by death include murder, corruption, drug trafficking, violent crimes, and serious financial fraud.
The death penalty can be imposed by people's courts, and appeals are possible, although in practice, such appeals rarely succeed.
Recent Reforms
China has slightly reduced the use of the death penalty in recent years. In 2011, it narrowed the scope for capital punishment by removing the death penalty for some economic crimes.
The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) now has to review all death sentences (introduced in 2007), which somewhat limits local governments’ ability to carry out executions indiscriminately.
However, China's heavy use of the death penalty remains a controversial human rights issue, especially in light of its lack of transparency and the widespread use of capital punishment for economic and political crimes.
Comparative Study with Abolitionist Jurisdictions
An abolitionist jurisdiction is one where the death penalty has been abolished through law, judicial review, or both. In these jurisdictions, the state has opted for alternatives to capital punishment such as life imprisonment or long-term sentences.
Some notable abolitionist jurisdictions are:
European Union (all EU member states have abolished the death penalty)
Canada
South Africa
Australia
Key Differences Between China and Abolitionist Jurisdictions
| Aspect | China (Retentionist) | Abolitionist Jurisdictions |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Framework | Death penalty is entrenched in law for serious crimes. | Death penalty is either prohibited by law or abolished through judicial decisions. |
| Crimes Punishable by Death | Includes violent crimes, corruption, drug-related offenses, and economic crimes. | Only the most serious crimes, if any, are punishable by death, often limited to murder. |
| Transparency | Little transparency; official statistics are classified. | Transparent judicial proceedings and post-conviction data. |
| International Pressure | Faces international criticism from human rights organizations. | More likely to be supported by international human rights law. |
| Appeals Process | Limited or no meaningful appeal for death sentences. | Extensive appeals and due process protections in death penalty cases. |
| Execution Methods | Lethal injection and firing squad. | Varies by jurisdiction, but often life imprisonment instead of the death penalty. |
Case Law: Key Cases in Abolitionist Jurisdictions
**1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UK, 2001) – Abolition of Death Penalty in the UK
Background:
The UK abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965.
However, the Human Rights Act 1998 (which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) required the UK to comply with Protocol 13 of the ECHR, which specifically prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances.
Key Legal Point:
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in 2001 that even the retention of the death penalty for certain crimes (like treason) was incompatible with the ECHR’s absolute prohibition on the death penalty.
The Court held that the UK had to comply with international norms and abolish capital punishment for all offenses.
Significance:
This case is vital as it represents the international human rights standard that has been followed by many European nations, marking a complete shift from the death penalty as a tool for justice to a more rehabilitative approach.
2. Furman v. Georgia (U.S., 1972) – Supreme Court Declares Death Penalty Unconstitutional (Brief Period)
Background:
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty, as applied at the time, was unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and discriminatory application.
Key Legal Point:
The Court held that the death penalty, as administered in the U.S., violated the Eighth Amendment (prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment).
The ruling was a temporary moratorium on executions across the U.S., leading to several reforms in how the death penalty was applied.
Significance:
This case represents a significant moment in the global abolitionist movement. Though the U.S. reintroduced the death penalty after the case, the ruling reinforced the need for fairness and equality in the justice system.
3. Soering v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 1989) – Death Penalty and Human Rights
Background:
Jens Soering, a German national, was facing extradition to the U.S. on charges of murder. He argued that if extradited, he would face a death sentence in Virginia, which had the death penalty at the time.
Key Legal Point:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the extradition would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment) because of the “death row phenomenon”—the conditions of prolonged confinement awaiting execution.
Significance:
The case reinforced that extradition to face the death penalty can be prohibited under international law, especially if the conditions of death row in the requesting country violate human rights norms. It also emphasized the human rights angle of capital punishment in abolitionist jurisdictions.
4. State v. Makwanyane (South Africa, 1995) – Abolition of the Death Penalty
Background:
The Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional in the case of State v. Makwanyane, following the country’s transition to democracy under Nelson Mandela.
Key Legal Point:
The court held that the death penalty violated fundamental human rights, specifically the right to life and the right to dignity under the South African Constitution (adopted in 1996).
Significance:
This case was a key turning point for African nations. South Africa's abolition of the death penalty was seen as a commitment to human rights and a rejection of punitive justice. It set a strong precedent in the global abolitionist movement.
5. Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 2013) – Life Imprisonment as an Alternative
Background:
Three applicants, serving life imprisonment, challenged the imposition of life sentences without the possibility of release, claiming it was akin to the death penalty.
Key Legal Point:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that life imprisonment could not equate to a death sentence if there was a possibility of eventual release.
Significance:
The case underscored that while abolitionist jurisdictions have moved away from the death penalty, they still allow life sentences, provided they include a process for review and eventual reintegration. It affirmed that life imprisonment without parole could be a valid alternative to the death penalty.
Conclusion
China’s retentionist approach to the death penalty is in stark contrast to the abolitionist stance seen in jurisdictions like Europe and many parts of Africa. While China continues to use the death penalty widely, focusing on both violent and non-violent crimes, abolitionist jurisdictions have prioritized human rights, rehabilitation, and reformative justice, ultimately moving away from the death penalty. This shift reflects broader international trends, where human dignity, fair trials, and due process protections are increasingly viewed as incompatible with capital punishment.
The key cases discussed here highlight the growing consensus against the death penalty in international human rights law, with a few exceptions like China, the U.S., and a few other countries where the death penalty remains legally sanctioned, albeit with significant ongoing debates around its morality and effectiveness.
RELATED Blog
comments