The Death Penalty In China

[Chinahand]

All these arguments are simple when you KNOW you are dealing with a guilty person who has committed some crime which fills you with moral outrage - say child torture or whatever.

 

But the simple fact is you don't write laws for specific cases, you have to write them for the general, and here what you KNOW quickly becomes less clear and the moral outrage often becomes more nuanced.

 

Playing Solomon is easy in the comfort of ignorance and prejudice, but the closer you get to the reality of putting a bullet into a person's head, or pressing the injection into their veins, then the task gets much more dificult.

 

China doesn't care much for nuance and so shoots people when doubt, circumstance and mitigation would make most stay their hand.

 

The US has a pretty abysmal record of miscarriages of justice, but for all its flaws it tries to ensure every last avenue of appeal is available before the dead man walking leaves death row. The only trouble is that this takes on average 14 years, invovles thousands of hours of legal and political scrutiny and means it convicts 200 times more people each year of murder than it executes and adds twice as many people to death row each year as are removed through execution. The system is totally unsustainable.

 

In the US, life imprisonment is considerably cheaper than executing people because of the time and legal cross checks required to ensure only the guilty are killed. All this effort though still results in a significant number of misscarriages of justice each year.

 

Morality is on difficult thing to twist into statute. I feel such efforts are very much compromised when it comes to the death penalty. Saying a person deserves to be killed for their actions does not seem very moral to me - Butterflies I'd be interested in you trying to do it - but please realize the easy cases aren't the point - it is how to morally set up a system which ensure only your monsters are executed. I am also disturbed by even your initial premise - are you really so certain that you can decide who is a monster and who is not, and so take their life?

 

Evil Goblin - what odd language - "... ever since the Fall people have been cursed with consciences" - don't you find it odd that the Christian religion calls gaining knowledge of good and evil the Fall? Plus, playing the admitedly ridiculous Christian counter-factual, how could Adam have known it was wrong to disobey God's commandment not to eat of that tree's fruit when he had no understanding of right and wrong.

 

Rats show empathy, Chimps display reciprocal altruism, the evolution of such behaviours goes back well before any so called Fall (a concept that explains nothing and ocludes much). Seeing the development of society from one which stones to death people for minor infractions, to one which executes those who have gone through a legal process, to one which abandons the death penalty and rather excludes from society as simply a result of the prevalent view of those holding power in a society seems to miss out quite alot. That developmental path says something to me about society's understanding of justice.

 

Sure we are animals, but our systems and societal conventions show a groping towards justice - something I cannot see being compatible with judicial killing except in a tiny number of circumstances.

[Evil Goblin]

Evil Goblin - what odd language - "... ever since the Fall people have been cursed with consciences" - don't you find it odd that the Christian religion calls gaining knowledge of good and evil the Fall? Plus, playing the admitedly ridiculous Christian counter-factual, how could Adam have known it was wrong to disobey God's commandment not to eat of that tree's fruit when he had no understanding of right and wrong.

I don't see it as odd at all - when you think about it so many human troubles arise from the fact that we do have the concepts of good and evil and consciences which cause us personal conflict between what we naturally may want to do and what we think we ought to do. Without our "knowledge of good and evil" life would be a lot less troublesome - like animals we would simply behave instinctively without being troubled over what we ought to do as opposed what our base nature tells us to do. Seems appropriate to describe our consciences as something of a curse.

As for Adam, his sin was simply to disobey God - there was no need for Adam (or Eve) to have any notion of right and wrong and whether God was "right" to prohibit them from acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. Arguably, the interpretation of Genesis is that before they acquired this knowledge they simply behaved instinctively (i.e. as God had "told" them by virtue of the natures He had given them) but after knowing good from evil they faced all the problems which come with such knowledge and conscience. Personally, I think the writers of Genesis used a pretty good metaphor to explain the human condition.

Rats show empathy, Chimps display reciprocal altruism, the evolution of such behaviours goes back well before any so called Fall (a concept that explains nothing and ocludes much).

There is no evidence that rats or chimps have notions of right and wrong or have consciences - their behaviour is likely purely instinctive.

 

Seeing the development of society from one which stones to death people for minor infractions, to one which executes those who have gone through a legal process, to one which abandons the death penalty and rather excludes from society as simply a result of the prevalent view of those holding power in a society seems to miss out quite alot. That developmental path says something to me about society's understanding of justice.

But what is justice? Purely a human construct (ideas of which vary) - there is no indication that other animals have any notion of "justice" as a mental construct. Very likely empathy and altruism in humans are instinctive behaviours also, hard-wired in by nature as a result of evolution.

 

 

Sure we are animals, but our systems and societal conventions show a groping towards justice - something I cannot see being compatible with judicial killing except in a tiny number of circumstances.

See above - what is justice?

[ScotsAlan]

I am totally oppossed to the death penalty. I think it is just plain wrong. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

 

But I think we should be concentrating on campaigning against it in the "developed" world, instead of China. Because what moral right do we have to tell China to stop killing people, while our best friends across the pond do it on a regular basis?

 

Chinese justice is very strange, and to be honest I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell of changing the way they do things, in the forseeable future anyway.

 

Last week China executed a brothel keeper. I suspect that was more about shutting her up than giving justice to the girls she sold. This week a drug smuggler was executed ( South African I think). He obviously was not paying off the right people.

 

And I have a feeling we will be reading about some Chinese bus drivers being executed soon.

 

Because China don't always execute people in the name of justice. They do it to make a point. I think the government do it to say to the people "look... We are in charge". And also of course to gain "face".

 

As an interesting note, it is interesting to read Chinese newspapers (ChinaDaily is in English). It is not unusual at all to read reports on ongoing trials, where the article states " It is expected the accused will receive the death sentence after he is found guilty".

 

I don't think many people are found not guilty in Chinese courts. But I'm probably wrong on that: maybe they just don't report it.

[Chinahand]

Rats show empathy, Chimps display reciprocal altruism, the evolution of such behaviours goes back well before any so called Fall (a concept that explains nothing and ocludes much).

There is no evidence that rats or chimps have notions of right and wrong or have consciences - their behaviour is likely purely instinctive.

 

Seeing the development of society from one which stones to death people for minor infractions, to one which executes those who have gone through a legal process, to one which abandons the death penalty and rather excludes from society as simply a result of the prevalent view of those holding power in a society seems to miss out quite alot. That developmental path says something to me about society's understanding of justice.

But what is justice? Purely a human construct (ideas of which vary) - there is no indication that other animals have any notion of "justice" as a mental construct. Very likely empathy and altruism in humans are instinctive behaviours also, hard-wired in by nature as a result of evolution.

I dont really know what to make of this Evil Goblin. I'm reminded of a quote from Darwin:

 

Let man visit Ouran-outang in domestication, … see its intelligence … and then let him boast of his proud pre-eminence … Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy the imposition of a deity. More humble and I believe true to consider him created from animals.

 

I disagree with you when you say there is no evidence that animals have notions of right and wrong etc - there is quite alot of evidence that social animals - rats, ravens, wolves, primates - have behaviours which are part of the same spectrum as human ideas of empathy, conscience, reward and punishment. Humans are not unique with no analogues elsewhere in nature - rats and chimps do have understandings of their behaviour being accepted or rejected by the group they belong to and so do the former openly and the latter surreptitiously.

 

There are both inate and socialized elements to these behaviours and both humans and social animals are a combination of these things.

 

You start of by saying animals have no concepts of right and wrong and their behaviours are purely instinctual, and then go on to say human behaviours concerning empathy and altruism are instinctual.

 

Well, where did we get these instincts from? We inherited them from other social animals and these behaviours are ancient and exist in a wide variety of species - birds, mammals etc.

 

Humanity certainly due to our large brains has greatly enhanced these abilities and due to our memories and our better ability to understand what other people are thinking are far more Machiavellian than other animals, but quite definitely you are wrong to say animals do not have notions of right and wrong. They do, they are just based on their far more basic social norms, and obviously are rat or whatever centric.

 

Chimps do have notions of justice - sure they are different from ours, but when some Chimp unfairly steels a bannana the victim does get fed up about it and will try to get the alpha male to punish the perpetrator - unless the perpetrator is the alpha male, in which case, it's taxation and they'll try and get a groom off him later to ensure their contribution is recognized as maintaining their social position!

 

Certainly let's debate the meaning of justice, but lets not ignore the evidence that our ideas have deep evolutionary precedents and exist in many animal behaviours observable in nature today.

[wheels]

Forgive me for going off topic slightly but

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=56696

Economic Development Minister John Shimmin has been showing off the attractions of the Island to rich businessmen from China.

Mr Shimmin, along with members of the Manx business community, presented to 14 high net worth individuals from the country.

The event was set up by the government's director of international business development Michael Charlton and featured information on wealth management, capital markets and e-business opportunities.

Mr Shimmin says the event is an example of government working closely with the private sector to market the Isle of Man.

 

Regarding the last line, to me it's an example of

1. Manx gov still sticking to the tired old notion that rich people are the solution to all the IOMs woes

2. Max gov is quite happy to put money making above ethics - eg tax arrangments with Bahrain and China - both countries having questionable human rights records

[ScotsAlan]

Forgive me for going off topic slightly but

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=56696

Economic Development Minister John Shimmin has been showing off the attractions of the Island to rich businessmen from China.

Mr Shimmin, along with members of the Manx business community, presented to 14 high net worth individuals from the country.

The event was set up by the government's director of international business development Michael Charlton and featured information on wealth management, capital markets and e-business opportunities.

Mr Shimmin says the event is an example of government working closely with the private sector to market the Isle of Man.

 

Regarding the last line, to me it's an example of

1. Manx gov still sticking to the tired old notion that rich people are the solution to all the IOMs woes

2. Max gov is quite happy to put money making above ethics - eg tax arrangments with Bahrain and China - both countries having questionable human rights records

 

I dont think that is off subject at all wheels.

 

After all, in China the popular opinion is that getting justice depends on if you can afford it.

 

In my humble opinion, the Chinese Government and the Manx Government have a lot in common.

 

[Evil Goblin]

 

I dont really know what to make of this Evil Goblin. I'm reminded of a quote from Darwin:

 

Let man visit Ouran-outang in domestication, … see its intelligence … and then let him boast of his proud pre-eminence … Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy the imposition of a deity. More humble and I believe true to consider him created from animals.

I’ve never tried to argue to the contrary, China.

 

I disagree with you when you say there is no evidence that animals have notions of right and wrong etc - there is quite alot of evidence that social animals - rats, ravens, wolves, primates - have behaviours which are part of the same spectrum as human ideas of empathy, conscience, reward and punishment. Humans are not unique with no analogues elsewhere in nature - rats and chimps do have understandings of their behaviour being accepted or rejected by the group they belong to and so do the former openly and the latter surreptitiously.

There may well be observable correlations between the behaviour of humans and other animals but that does not imply that there is necessarily a causal link – there may or may not be. For example, we do not know if empathic behaviours arise in wolves, etc. because other types of animal have any ideas about empathy or whether they are just following instinctive, genetically determined behaviour and are actually unaware of what they are doing. Perhaps it is appropriate to ask if other animals possess consciousness and if so, how developed is that consciousness compared to humans’ experience? And is the fact that we are aware of our behaviours misleading us to think that a particular behaviour is volitional rather than genetically determined?

 

There are both inate and socialized elements to these behaviours and both humans and social animals are a combination of these things.

Agreed but how much of a mix is there between the two – an animal today may have genetically determined behaviours resulting from the natural selection of behaviours learned by previous generations. How do we know if such previous learning and hence genetically predetermined behaviours remain appropriate to the changed circumstances of today/the future or whether natural selection will prefer changed characteristics? How do we know which of our behaviours is due to genetic predetermination and how much has been currently learned? Fascinating stuff.

 

You start of by saying animals have no concepts of right and wrong and their behaviours are purely instinctual, and then go on to say human behaviours concerning empathy and altruism are instinctual.

Well, where did we get these instincts from? We inherited them from other social animals and these behaviours are ancient and exist in a wide variety of species - birds, mammals etc.

I would argue that just because we may share inherited characteristics with other animals does not necessarily imply that other animals have concepts of right and wrong – they may be completely unaware of what they are doing, they just do it.

 

but quite definitely you are wrong to say animals do not have notions of right and wrong. They do, they are just based on their far more basic social norms, and obviously are rat or whatever centric.

Whether other animals have concepts of right and wrong is surely a function of their level of conscious self-awareness. I can see that with close relatives such as chimps there is a case for assuming some level of consciousness and self-awareness but what level? I do not see that I am wrong in saying that other animals do not have notions of right and wrong – their behaviours may suggest that they might have but do not necessarily imply that they definitely do have.

 

Certainly let's debate the meaning of justice, but lets not ignore the evidence that our ideas have deep evolutionary precedents and exist in many animal behaviours observable in nature today.

Agreed that our ideas may have evolutionary precedents and origins and that some at least of the resulting behaviours can be observed in other creatures. But do those other creatures KNOW what they are doing?

[We Like The Moon]

As an avid true crime reader..I had primarily been a pro death penalty type person....believing that people who commit these horrific crimes deserved nothing less....but I have read quite a few books/articles now regarding executions and am horrified at the amount of what I would consider non-serious crimes that people are put to death for in sometimes quite barbaric ways. Reading about death row and inmates made me think alot more about the death penalty and now I am not so sure whether it is such a good thing or not.............I don't really know to be honest.

 

What I would say is, god forbid, if anyone murdered any member of my family, I would probably want to avenge their death and want the perpertrator to be executed, however on the flip side, if any member of my family was on death row...I would probably do anything to prevent their execution.....

[wheels]

Different country - same issue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16281016

The European Commission has imposed strict controls on the export of drugs used to carry out lethal injections.

EU firms wanting to export drugs such as the sedative sodium thiopental will now first have to ensure the product is not going to be used for executions.

The ruling could slow down the rate of executions in the US, where the drug must be used by law in lethal injections but is in short supply.

[Chinahand]

Adding to this topic -

 

The BBC is going to show a documentary following a Chinese TV talk show host who has a programme interviewing people on Deathrow immediately prior to their execution.

 

It will be shown next Monday 12-March at 11:20 pm on BBC2.

 

Here is a review via the Daily Mail

 

[W]hile in Britain the weekend evening entertainment will be The X Factor or Strictly Come Dancing, Ms Ding’s show features harrowing – some would say voyeuristic – footage of prisoners confessing their crimes and begging forgiveness before being led away to their executions.

 

The scenes are recorded sometimes minutes before the prisoners are put to death, or in other cases when only days of their life remain.

 

... She warms up with anodyne questions about favourite films or music, but then hectors the prisoners about the violent details of their crimes and eventually wrings apologies out of them.

 

She promises to relay final messages to family members, who are usually not allowed to visit them on death row. The cameras keep rolling as the condemned say a farewell message and are led away to be killed by firing squad or lethal injection.

 

...

 

Convicted criminals in China can be put to death for 55 capital crimes, ranging from theft to crimes against the state. However, the show focuses exclusively on murder cases, conspicuously avoiding any crimes that might have political elements.

 

 

As I wrote above there are certain cases where it is pretty easy to lose sympathy and so claim the death penalty is deserved.

 

I disagree with that - the state has to be impartial and write its laws to fit the messy reality of life - and quite simply it can't write laws which only allow the trully evil guys to be so punished. Trying to disentangle these cases from the complex ones is almost impossible and you end up executing abused wives; people acting in self defence; and in cases where guilt has not been irrefutably proved due to the monolithic nature of the state being unable to deal with the complexities of life.

 

This programme looks like it will only concentrate mainly on the easy cases - brutal, deliberate killing.

 

But China sentences to death may more nuanced cases than that - for example Wu Ying: a business woman who raised money outside the banking system and had her business fail.

Reuters

The Economist

[Max Power]

Or riding a push bike without lights.....