FIRST WORLD CONGRESS
AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY
Strasbourg - 21, 22 and 23 June

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA
The Death Penalty Killing Chickens to Scare Monkeys
Introduction to death penalty in China
Crimes punishable by death
Debate in China
Prospects for reform
Appendices
Presented at First World Congress
against the Death Penalty
Strasbourg - 21, 22 and 23 June 2001

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally on the grounds that it constitutes the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and that it violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. Amnesty International is also concerned about the way in which the death penalty is applied in China including the speed and fairness of trials and the wide range of offences punishable by the death penalty.
Background
The death penalty in China is used extensively, arbitrarily, and frequently as a tool of politics. Executions can occur within weeks of the alleged crime and within hours of final approval. Public reporting of sentencing varies enormously depending on the time or year or political campaign. The number of crimes punishable by the death penalty remains unknown. There are at least 69 crimes punishable by the death penalty but some Chinese commentators put the figure much higher.
Statistics
From 1990 to the end of 1999 Amnesty International has recorded a figure of over 27,599 death sentences in China and over 18,194 executions - an average of at least 2,759 death sentences and 1,802 confirmed executions every year or an average of over 50 people a week. Throughout the 1990s, China has executed more people than the rest of the world put together. For the past few years, 88 per cent of all known executions took place only four countries – China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA.
These figures are believed to be far below the actual number of death sentences and executions in China during the year and are based on the public reports, which Amnesty International has monitored. Only a fraction of death sentences and executions carried out in China are publicly reported, with information selectively released by the relevant authorities.
All death sentences should in theory be approved by the Supreme People’s Court, however there have been several different regulations delegating this final approval to lower courts. Additional regulations also state that all courts must submit records of executions carried out to the Supreme People’s Court. Recently some Chinese authorities have insisted that they do not maintain statistics on the national use of the death penalty, however, it is clear that national records of the sentences and executions do exist.
Amnesty International is the only international organisation which systematically monitors and records executions and death sentences in China. In most cases monitored, there are very few details. Trial procedures set out in the criminal procedure law do not conform to international standards for fair trials; in addition many of the defendants recorded may have been subjected to torture to obtain a confession. Many may be illiterate and have little way of arguing their defence or understanding the processes. Many more have been executed summarily during peaks in sentencing or crime crackdowns. The death penalty falls predominantly on those people with a low educational and social standing. Amnesty International has monitored numerous death sentences being imposed on migrant workers who are often marginalised in their communities and labelled by the local population as the main source of crime
Deterrence and Reduced Scope?
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crimes more effectively than other punishments. The Special Rapporteur for the United Nations on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions stated in 1997 that Athe death penalty is not an appropriate tool to fight the growing crime rate in China@ and Athe death penalty should be eliminated for economic and drug related crimes@.
In September 1998, the Supreme People’s Court reported that there had been a very large reduction in executions following revisions to the Criminal Law in 1997 and in April 2000, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi reportedly stated that China strictly controls and cautiously uses the death penalty, imposing it only on Aextremely abominable criminals@.
Official Chinese statements about the limited application and large decline in the use of the death penalty are not borne out by the monitoring of cases by Amnesty International. The organisation has seen a general change in the media reporting of cases and a decrease in the number of reports giving confirmation of execution. Amnesty International continues to call upon the Chinese government to make public national statistics on the imposition of the death penalty. Only then can claims of a reduction in the use of the death penalty be taken seriously. Instead such statistics remain a state secret.
In the face of calls from international bodies, including the European Union and the United Nations, endorsing and promoting the global trend towards the reduction in use and abolition of the death penalty, the Chinese government still maintain that they need the death penalty for reasons of Asocial stability@ , that they ‘do not have the conditions to abolish the death penalty’ and that ‘if the death penalty is abolished prematurely it will trigger more crime’.
Officials also state that there is general public demand for the current usage of the death penalty and that it is the public who is urging the authorities to execute criminals. However, no open and public studies have been conducted on this issue and it is clear from the reports that it is partly the official media, which fuels any public demand for the death penalty. One example covering a recent case stated that
Aas harsh punishment was handed down to these criminal elements guilty of robbery, theft, drug trafficking and other crimes which cause serious harm to society, the citizens of Lhasa applauded and cheered. In the opinion of the masses who witnessed the event, striking hard at criminal elements has the support of the masses, and is in line with the will of the masses - a good thing!@
This type of inflammatory reporting is commonplace and frequently reveals reporting which prejudges a defendant’s guilt. During anti-crime campaigns this type of reporting is widespread. Despite claims from officials that it is public opinion that is holding back moves towards limiting the death penalty, during such campaigns, it is the authorities that continue to uphold and promote to the masses the mistaken idea that the death penalty is a deterrent
It is also clear that the death penalty is retained and used by the authorities in order to reinforce its legitimacy; to be seen to be tough on crime; by using it as a tool for social stability, and in the way it is applied to perceived enemies of the state, including alleged ‘separatists’ and other crimes ‘endangering national security’.
Crimes punishable by death
The exact number of crimes punishable by death in China is not clear. It has been rising steadily since the first Criminal Law in 1979. The revised Criminal Law includes nearly three times as many capital offences as the 1980 version, since almost all of the capital crimes introduced in the interim, through decisions of the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, have been included. Many crimes are punishable by death if they are >extremely serious= - but no precise interpretation exists for Aextremely serious@. These and other regulations surrounding the death penalty remain vague and open to abuse. Estimates on the number of crimes punishable by death vary with at least 69 offences as the minimum. Many of the capital crimes added since 1979 are non-violent or economic crimes. For example, in 1995, serious value-added tax fraud and bogus insurance claims were added to the list of capital offences. The Supreme People’s Court has issued at least five reinterpretations of capital crimes since the start of the present “Strike Hard”.
Concerns
In brief, Amnesty International concerns can be divided into concerns for the scope and nature of the cases and concerns surrounding the procedural mechanisms for implementing the death penalty, including concerns over trial procedure and ill treatment of prisoners.

Shackles, rallies and parades
Under relevant laws and regulations in China, no time limit is imposed on the use of handcuffs and shackles on prisoners sentenced to death. Such prisoners are usually kept handcuffed and some also have their feet shackled from the time they are sentenced to death until their execution. The use of leg irons and chains as instruments of restraint is prohibited by international standards.
The parading and humiliation of condemned prisoners at mass rallies or in trucks on the way to execution grounds remains common, even though a series of regulations outlawing such practices have been issued by government and judicial authorities since the 1980s. Prisoners may be paraded in trucks driven from a detention centre to the execution ground, often via a public sentencing rally. They are often paraded with their hands tied behind their backs, their arms tied with rope and sometimes with placards hanging from their necks listing their names and alleged crimes.

As in previous years, mass rallies, public sentencing rallies and televised events have been held all over China. Often the prisoners are executed immediately after the rally. At such rallies, prisoners are made to stand facing the audience with their hands tied behind their backs, wearing placards on their chests listing their names and alleged crimes. They are usually forced to keep their heads bowed by the police or soldiers escorting them. In some cases, their feet are also chained and their mouths gagged with rope or wire tied tightly at their backs to prevent them from speaking or shouting. Amnesty International believes that such practices constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and add to the inherent cruelty of the death penalty.
Usually rallies are held in public areas such as sports stadiums, so that huge crowds can gather to watch the sentencing. It is clear from many reports, that audiences are not always voluntary, and instances of groups of school children attending have been monitored.
Often prisoners are taken straight from the rallies to be executed nearby, for example in deserted fields or enclosed courtyards linked to the police or military forces. The local populace may know of these sites and have heard the shots being fired. With the advent of lethal injections as a method of execution it is likely that more executions will take place in hospitals or clinics linked to prison or police facilities. The bodies will then be collected by the families if they have been notified and if they have the money to pay for the corpse
Mitigating Circumstances and Excessive Punishment
As in previous years, prisoners were sentenced to death or executed in 1999 for repeat offences or crimes which cannot be described as the Amost heinous@ , such as stealing cars or ‘poisioning cattle’ .
Many of the sources monitored by Amnesty International reveal, behind the details of the alleged crimes, a context of extreme emotional distress, severe poverty, and ingrained violence. Death sentences have been imposed in the face of mitigating circumstances such as the violence of a spouse leading to unpremeditated murder in self-defense or extreme hardship or illness leading to theft and violence committed by people such as abused wives or people found guilty of ‘mercy killings’. Mitigating circumstances are no excuse for crime, and Amnesty International does not condone any of these crimes. However, carrying out executions where mitigating circumstances are demonstrated appears to undermine the Chinese government’s stated policy Anot to kill when this is not absolutely necessary” and executing only Aextremely abominable@ criminals.
Juveniles
One welcome revision to the amended Criminal Law in 1997 withdrew the applicability of the death penalty for pregnant women and all people under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged offence. Prior to 1997, juveniles between the ages of 16 and 18 and pregnant women could be sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve. However, there have been several reported cases of defendants whose age has been in question and cases where it appears that the defendants were actually under 18 at the time of the alleged crime but was still sentenced to death. Such penalties would be in violation not only of Chinese law, but also of international human rights standards, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which China is a party.
Foreign nationals
Foreign nationals have also been executed in China in 1999. For example, a Pakistani national was reportedly executed along with five Chinese in Urumqi city, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region for alleged drugs offences on 24 June 1999. All death sentences involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan affairs must be approved by the Supreme People's Court, but it is not clear if this safeguard makes any impact in terms of a reduction in sentences or the increased likelihood of a two-year reprieve. There have been several cases of defendants executed in the mainland for crimes committed in Macao and the Hong Kong SAR. The death penalty has been abolished in both Macao and Hong Kong. The Chinese authorities asserted jurisdiction on the basis that the defendants had all committed Across-border@ crimes or had carried out crimes in Macao or Hong Kong which they had planned on the mainland. Some cases have provoked controversy in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government were criticised for not seeking the transfer of alleged criminals to face trial in Hong Kong thereby undermining article 19 of Hong Kong=s Basic Law which stipulates that Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over all cases in the Special Administrative Region. Currently there are steps towards negotiating rendition agreements.
Legal safeguards
In spite of certain positive revisions to the Criminal Procedure Laws, Amnesty International remains concerned that legal safeguards for those accused in death penalty cases remain inadequate including access to lawyers, the right to a free and fair trial, the right to review of the conviction and sentence by a higher tribunal, freedom from torture, and presumption of innocence,
Defendants are very rarely successful in their appeals against death sentences. Appeals by the procuratorate or the victim=s family against sentences they consider too lenient are more often reported as successful with the death penalty being imposed upon a defendant originally sentenced to life imprisonment or a lesser sentence. It is not uncommon for the defendant and the procuratorate to appeal at the same time and for the sentence to be increased at the end of the process.
Under the Criminal Procedure Law, final approval of the death penalty rests with the Supreme People=s Court in Beijing. In presentations to UN bodies, China=s diplomats continue to present this as a significant safeguard against overuse of the death penalty. However, subsequent legal interpretations issued by the court have delegated powers of final approval back down to the High People=s Courts and Military Courts for the majority of crimes. Some legal analysts in China have described this as unconstitutional as it nullifies an additional safeguard for defendants set out in national law.
Lethal Injection and the Organ Trade
Execution by lethal injection as an alternative to the firing squad was introduced in China in the revised Criminal Procedure Law in 1997. It was first introduced on an experimental basis in Yunnan province. Although its use is now beginning to spread, this method is still not widely used. Lethal injection was reported as being Afaster, safer and less traumatic, allowing extreme punishment which is at the same time humane in spirit and in keeping with world trends”.
It has also been reported that ADoctors appointed by the relevant courts administer the injections@. The involvement of doctors in executions runs contrary to internationally accepted standards of medical ethics. The Chinese Medical Association is a member of the World Medical Association, which is opposed to medical participation in executions.
There are compelling arguments to end judicial executions immediately and the continued application of medical skills and medication to the extinction of human life at the behest of the state remains an abuse of medical ethics. There are also well-grounded fears that the use of lethal injections may facilitate the removal of organs from executed prisoners for transplantation - a practice that has been well-documented in China. Lethal injection can be used to execute a person without damaging crucial organs. This could lead to an ill-defined boundary between the execution itself and the subsequent resuscitation and removal of organs, since medical procedures involved in transplantation of major organs need to commence while the prisoner is still alive.
As in previous years there continue to be many news reports and testimonies from people alleging that the organ transplantation from the bodies of executed prisoners does take place and in some cases, does take place to order. Amnesty International has been unable to gather concrete evidence of these allegations. The government insists that organs are never taken without the written consent of the prisoner and his/her family. However Amnesty is concerned that the conditions under which consent takes place are far from satisfactory. Recent reports suggest that the consent is not always open and may take place under duress. The Chinese authorities have denied that a trade in organs from executed prisoners takes place. However, the one official document publicly available, which relates to organ trafficking, is not backed up by specific provisions in the criminal law and its legal status and effectiveness are questionable. No prosecutions for such offences have yet been reported.
Increasing Scope of the Death penalty
Drugs
A large proportion of the reported death sentences monitored by Amnesty International each year were imposed for drug related crimes. Often such sentences are intensified during International Anti Drugs day on 26th June. For example, in 1999, in Shenzhen, south China, anti-drugs rallies took place on 15 June 1999 where nineteen people were executed after the rally for alleged drug-trafficking crimes. One report stated that Aas there were too many corpses to cremate at once, the excess corpses were stored in the mortuary@ and relatives had to wait all day when they came to pick up the ashes. Another report states that more than 1000 soldiers were also present at the rally.
Economic Crimes
People were sentenced to death or executed for a variety of non-violent economic crimes ranging from tax and value-added-tax fraud to counterfeiting, embezzlement and credit card theft. Corruption has been a focus for an anti-crime crack down with major resources directed towards stemming corruption in government and financial circles. In some cases the amounts of money involved are very large but in others appear relatively small. Reaction to recent trials and executions for corruption shows that members of the public often see the issue as a political one, linked directly to shifting relationships among the powerful. This attitude is compounded by the widespread view that corruption in China is so pervasive that anyone arrested is simply unlucky and that those arrested are unlikely to be the principal criminals, as all officials are corrupt. Cases have been monitored of death sentences being given for the new crime categories of computer related economic crime and such new types of alleged crimes continue to add to the expanding number of crime types punishable by death. In the past several years, executions for economic offences such as corruption, embezzlement and fraud are known to have been carried out in only five countries, China, Vietnam, Iran, Sudan and Iraq.
Prostitution
Prostitution and pimping are reportedly increasing throughout China. In 1999 in Zhejiang province, Wang Hongying, a 34-year-old woman was sentenced to death for organizing prostitution. It was reported that she employed pimps to run 12 prostitutes at a popular massage parlour. On 18 March 1999, in Hangzhou City, Zhejiang province, Wang Peng and Ling Yonggang were both sentenced to death for organizing prostitution and accused of 120 counts of prostitution.
Separatism
In recent years Aseparatism@ has been a major target of AStrike Hard@, after a crack-down on suspected Muslim nationalists and religious leaders intensified in 1997 after several bombing incidents attributed to underground Uighur independence groups and anti-Chinese protests by Uighurs. Unrest in Xinjiang province is growing and there is a continuing trend of sentencing to death ethnic Uighurs on charges relating to state security. The Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) is the only region of the People=s Republic of China where political prisoners are known to have been executed in recent years. Most of those sentenced to death in the region have been accused of offences related to clandestine opposition activities, street protests, violent clashes with the security forces, or Aterrorist@ incidents. The Chinese authorities have publicly reported only a minority of these cases. Political prisoners are often tried in secret, under procedures which are reported to be summary. Trials are a mere formality, with the verdict usually decided by the authorities before the trial. Convictions are frequently based on forced confessions and statements extracted under torture. Defendants= families are often excluded from the trials and few defendants are known to have had the assistance of defence lawyers. Defendants who appeal against the verdict invariably see their appeal rejected. Reports of torture are common
Internal Debate
Despite the difficulties in engaging in sensitive debate in China, a growing number of academics and legal personnel have been speaking publicly about their concerns on the use of the death penalty in China. The issues include a great concern over the wide scope of the death penalty and the lack of strong procedural safeguards. Although many of the opinions voiced are not at one with much of the abolitionist world they do include some of the same calls for eventual abolition and an immediate limiting of capital crimes.

There has also been criticism of the lack of legal safeguards and the bypassing of established procedure, which leave defendants vulnerable to abuse and increase the likelihood of miscarriages of justice. Scholars and indeed reporters have made it clear that the increasing number of miscarriages of justice reported in the Chinese media are not isolated instances and occur often during a “Strike Hard” campaign and most often are linked to confessions extracted through torture.
The issue of appeals and jurisdiction over cases is also discussed as is the growing awareness in China that there is a real need for more transparency on the death penalty and more research and openness around the death penalty statistics which remain a state secret. There are increasing calls for figures to be more readily available so that research on the alleged deterrence effect of the death penalty can be developed.
Anti-crime campaigns put a huge pressure on local and provincial judicial bodies to perform and demonstrate that they have cracked down on the particular criminal targets of the campaign. They are also criticized for the scale of the ensuing executions, the possible negative effects such politicized campaigns might have upon an emerging legal system and the public, as well as the potential damage caused to the development of a truly independent legal system.
While few inside China believe the death penalty should be abolished, many do believe it should be limited to the most heinous crimes as suggested by the United Nations. At a very basic level, many commentators believe the death penalty for economic crimes is not appropriate.
Current developments – No positive changes in sight?
Despite a dialogue focussing primarily on the death penalty between the European Union and Chinese authorities and a growing trend towards the issue being raised in dialogues and internal debate, the authorities have recently launched what seems like the most severe “Strike Hard” against crime for several years.
The nationwide AStrike Hard@ anti-crime campaign reported to last for the next two years peaked first on 11 April 2001. A circular issued by the Supreme People’s Court on 13 April detailed the targets of the campaign and the need for the imposition of severe and heavy punishments including “capital punishment [which] must be resolutely imposed on those who should be sentenced to death”. The campaign initiated in December 2000 focussed on criminal gangs but the “Strike Hard” has since widened considerably to include crimes seen as endangering the security of the masses, with the provinces free to decide their own targets. So far the level of reported death sentences has been unprecedented since the last major “Strike Hard” in 1996 where thousands and thousands of people were sentenced to death. Previous “Strike Hard” campaigns have been marked by numerous cases of summary justice.
During a “Strike Hard@ campaign people are often sentenced to death or executed for crimes which may have received a lesser penalty at other times or in another part of the country. Often the campaign takes on slightly different forms or is directed against different crimes according to provincial or local directions. In most cases public rallies are held to mark the start of a new AStrike Hard@. Amnesty International is concerned that in effect, this can mean people are being sentenced to death for reasons of political expediency.
The current “Strike Hard” has seen a rash of reporting and propaganda stories of executions, sentences and rallies as well as a huge increase in the reporting of “success” stories giving details of the crimes solved, the criminals arrested and other figures. There is a huge pressure on local and provincial security forces to perform well and prove their performance against the targeted crimes, demonstrated only by figures such as the number of cases ‘solved’ and the number of death sentences passed during the “Strike Hard”. As in previous campaigns, the pressure of such crude indicators could lead to an increase in the number cases ‘solved’ using illegal means resulting in miscarriages which have come about through the use of torture and other pressures to concoct false witnesses, extract guilty confessions and other violations.
Amnesty International has recorded over 1,800 death sentences since the start of April 2001. This figure is the equivalent of the estimated figure for the whole of last year. Executions have been recorded in Xinjiang for people accused of “separatism” and “religious elements engaged in illegal activities” which is the main focus of the “Strike Hard” there. Huge numbers of executions have been recorded all over the country for crimes as diverse as bribery, drug related crimes, primping, robbery and other violent crimes.
Amnesty International has also expressed concern over the reported content of directives issued by the Ministry of Public Security, the Supreme People’s Court and the Procuratorate which encourage the speedy investigation, arrest and sentencing of cases once the basic facts have been ascertained, without ‘getting too entangled in details’. For example, the Liaoshen Evening news reported the deputy Mayor of Jinzhou city, Li Zhong, at a rally which saw the execution of five people, as reiterating that for the “Strike Hard” the only requirements are that they: “only need major facts of the crime [to be] clear, the major evidence complete, then [we] must apprehend, arrest and try quickly”.
It is generally the case that prior to major events, public holidays and anniversaries, the authorities sentence and execute more prisoners than usual. These peaks and the use of regional or national AStrike Hard@ campaigns increase the possibility of miscarriages of justice and unequal or arbitrary sentencing. A crime punished during a “Strike Hard@ or in the run up to a major event may attract a much harsher sentence, the death penalty, than if the punishment was imposed at another time.
Despite the media hype, some scholars, journalists and members of the judiciary continue to raise their voices against the effectiveness of “Strike Hard” campaigns in stemming the rising crime rate and in addressing public fear of crime.
Amnesty Internationals work and potential for Change
There are three main foci for our work on the death penalty. Firstly Amnesty International has a role in ensuring information on the death penalty in China, is disseminated internationally and domestically and public awareness of the death penalty is developed.
The second main area of work is to campaign against the death penalty, encourage our members to put pressure on Chinese authorities and their home governments to call for the reduction and abolition of the death penalty in China. We work on the cases of individual prisoners (the Urgent Action of one prisoner is attached ) by calling for the commutation of individual sentences and/or an investigation into allegations of torture or other ill treatment and investigations into violations of trial procedures. We also work on specific trends and events such as the current “Strike Hard”, produce action documents and publications. This includes putting pressure on governments with economic or other links to China. The inter-connectedness of the world and the ties that bind China to the international community are increasing. China’s involvement in the World Trade Organisation and its signing of the two main human rights treaties are potential opportunities for governments and activists to lobby the Chinese authorities for change. As the fight against crime becomes similarly global, China will come under increasing pressure to confirm international standards in its law enforcement activities.
Thirdly we must tap into the internal debate within China, by ensuring our material and our research is available within China despite current restrictions on our material entering China and the blocking of our web site. We want to encourage and openly debate with officials, academics and others on the scope and use of the death penalty. We are actively doing this by attaching a greater importance on preparing our material in Chinese and on the web and by taking part, where appropriate, in international meetings and bilateral/multi-lateral dialogue seminars on the subject, with Chinese authorities through the invitation of other states and by raising our voice where possible all over the world.
There are opportunities for Amnesty International and other NGOs and individuals to work with concerned Chinese scholars and others in encouraging the research and debate needed to further the discussion within China. There are opportunities for us to play a part in encouraging others to push for increased transparency in publishing figures on the death penalty, in preparing public polls on the death penalty and supporting other suggestions made by the participants of the debate in China. It is important that we challenge the Chinese authorities when they argue that “ China is a special case”, or that “China needs the death penalty for its own special circumstances”.
We need to ensure all participants in the debate including foreign government representatives, scholars and campaigners know of the actual implementation of the law and the death penalty in China as well as the possibilities for reform. The theory of the law in China and official Chinese rhetoric remain distinctly different to the practical implementation of the law and reality. We need to ensure that pressure continues on China, both in terms of a constructive and meaningful dialogue and in terms of campaigning pressure.
Current issues such as the worldwide publicity given to the McVeigh execution can be instructive. Sun Yuxi, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson recently stated in response to questions over the execution that "Whether to abolish the death penalty depends on if it's conducive to safeguard the safety and interests of the majority of the Chinese people and to safeguard their human rights". It is important to continue to highlight the fallacy of such statements and the arguments against this, the most the most final and irreversible of all human rights abuses.

APPENDIX ONE
CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH – a selection of crimes
Include:

Crimes of Endangering National Security
Betraying the Motherland
Organizing, plotting or acting to split the state
Stealing, prying into buying or illegally providing state secrets or intelligence for structures, organisations & people outside the borders
Crimes of Endangering Public Security
Arson
Spreading Poison
Using other dangerous means to endanger public security
Sabotaging electricity equipment
Hijacking aircraft
Illegally manufacturing, trading transporting, mailing or stocking up guns, ammunition & explosives

Crimes Undermining the Socialist Market Economic Order
Producing or selling fake medicines sufficiently able to seriously endanger health
Smuggling counterfeit currency
Smuggling cultural relics prohibited export by the state
Smuggling rare animals & their by-products prohibited import or export by the state
Smuggling goods & articles carrying a tax of over 500,000 yuan
Sale for profit in China of reduced import duty or tax exempt goods & articles without Customs approval & before settling defaulted tax
[BRIBERY] Personnel performing public duties in state-owned companies & enterprises or assigned by them to non-state owned companies and enterprises to perform public duties who: exploit their position to demand property from others or illegally receive it in exchange for benefits
“ who: in the course of economic contacts receive personal kickbacks and commissions in various forms in violation of state rules
Forging currency & selling or transporting it
Personnel of state-owned or delegated to perform public duties in non state owned Insurance Companies who take advantage of their office to intentionally make false claims on insured incidents which have not occurred to defraud insurance indemnity
Signing & issuing dud cheques or cheques which don’t correspond with boe+ to defraud funds [state assets]
Falsely issuing exclusive VAT invoices or other invoices to defraud export tax refunds or offset taxes
Chapter 4 Crimes of Infringing Upon the Rights of the Person and the Democratic Rights of Citizens
Intentional injury
Judicial workers extracting confessions from criminal suspects or defendants by torture, causing injury, physical disablement or death
Robbery "steal property by violence, coercion or other means"
Theft [cut: swindle or forcibly seize] relatively large amounts of public or private property or have committed several thefts [prev:habitual theft]
stealing others communication lines for profit
reproducing others telecom codes for profit
Using telephone equipment or facilities knowing they are stolen/reproduced
Chapter 6 Crimes of Disrupting the Order of Social Administration
Assembling a crowd for “beating smashing & looting” causing injury disability or death
Organize & use [cut:reactionary] sects or cults , or use [cut:feudal] superstition to have illicit sex with women = rape
Ringleaders or those who take an active part in staging a riot to escape from prison or assembling a crowd to open a prison with tools [prev:those whose crime are monstrous]
Looting ancient cultural sites, and ancient tombs that have historical artistic & scientific value
Crimes of smuggling, trafficking, transporting or manufacturing drugs
Crimes of organizing, forcing, enticing, sheltering or introducing prostitution – including forcing others into prostitution [applied to women only] and Organizing others for prostitution
Chapter 8 Crimes of Bribery and Embezzlement
Embezzlement(tanwu):"state functionary or personnel entrusted by state organs, state companies, state enterprises, state undertakings and mass org.s to administer & operate state property who take advantage of position to appropriate steal, swindle or use other illegal means to acquire state property.
Bribery: State personnel who take advantage of office to demand money & property from others, or illegally accept money for favours
Chapter 10 Crimes of Military Personnel Violating Duties including
defying orders and endangering military operations in wartime
surrender to the enemy of own accord
Endanger national or military secrets by leaving posts without permission, fleeing the country or defecting whilst abroad on official duties
APPENDIX TWO
The internal Debate Extracts from an Article by C.Howie in China Rights Forum Fall 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese Critiques of the Ultimate Penalty
Not everyone in China is enthused by the constant parade of criminals to the execution ground that has characterized the government's periodic anti-crime campaigns. A significant number of legal scholars have argued against the continuous expansion in the scope and use of the death penalty, writes C. Howie, and have even questioned its deterrent effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you cut off a head by mistake, there is no way to rectify the error, even if you want to." -- Mao Zedong, 1956
Over 1,000 people have been executed in China since the launch of the nationwide "Strike Hard" anti-crime campaign on April 28, 1996. On a daily basis, the state-run media has publicized arrests, executions and mass sentencing rallies under headlines proclaiming: "Swift Investigation and Solutions, Punish Without Mercy: Lightning Flashes and Thunder Rolls" and "The Gun of Justice Sounds, 19 Criminals Eat Bullets." Local leaders, police and the judiciary have been exhorted to adhere to the dictum of "severe and speedy punishment" and the goals of "quick approval of arrest, quick prosecution and quick trials."
Set against such frenzied rhetoric, the voices of three Chinese legal experts, who warned in a June 13 article in Legal Daily of the danger of summary justice and appealed to the authorities not to "bypass the law," appeared marginal and lonely. In fact, the use of the death penalty has been the subject of consistent criticism in legal journals and books published in China throughout the 1990s. Such articles provide glimpses of a wide-ranging and continuing debate in legal circles over the reform of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Law. Interestingly, while several of the articles dismiss the arguments of international human rights monitors on the death penalty as "promoting bourgeois human rights values and ideas," the conclusions they reach are often similar.
Debate and criticism has focussed on topics including the constant expansion of the list of crimes punishable by execution and the anomalies this has created in legally-prescribed punishments. In particular, the increasing use of the death penalty for economic crimes has been widely challenged. There has also been criticism of the lack of legal safeguards and the bypassing of established procedure, which leave defendants vulnerable to abuse and increase the likelihood of miscarriages of justice. The resort to periodic crackdowns like the current campaign, with executions on a massive scale, has also been criticized for subjecting an immature criminal justice system to pressures it is ill-equipped to withstand. Commentators have also questioned whether the leadership's stated goal of "stability" is really served by this destabilizing judicial roller coaster.
Figures on death sentences and executions continue to be classified state secrets in China, and no scientific studies have been conducted on the deterrent effect of the death penalty. There is a consensus on the need for such research. Opinions vary widely on the issue, but some commentators argue that the death penalty has no value as a deterrent, while others question whether the public's well-founded fear of crime is best addressed by the increasing reliance on the "ultimate penalty."
Spiraling scope
While few of the commentators advocate the immediate abolition of the death penalty in China, all support strict control of its use, reduction of its scope and eventual abolition when economic, political and social "conditions are right." "It is a fallacy to say the death penalty is absolutely necessary," writes one.
Guiding principles articulated by Mao Zedong are frequently cited in support of restrictions on the use of the death penalty, particularly his statement: "We should only kill a few, and in all cases in which there is a choice whether or not to execute, we should not execute." Many believe that this principle has been abandoned since the mid-1980s and most criticism is directed at the ever-increasing scope and use of capital punishment.
Under the 1980 Criminal Code, "the death penalty is only to be applied to criminal elements who commit the most heinous crimes" and 28 crimes are listed as punishable by death. Since then the list has increased to 70, the highest in the world. This is also over 35 percent of all criminal offenses, double the proportion originally established in the Criminal Code. Many of the additional capital crimes are non-violent or economic crimes. For example, in 1995 serious value-added tax fraud and bogus insurance claims were added to the list of capital offenses. "Reducing the provisions in law for use of the death penalty," wrote one scholar, "would reflect the democratization of our country's socialist legal system and demonstrate its cautious approach to the use of the death penalty."
Lack of definition or clarity in what constitutes a capital crime is also a growing concern. For example, an NPC Standing Committee Decision adopted during the first "Strike Hard" campaign in 1983 provided that courts could sentence offenders to death under the catch-all rubric of "other serious endangerment of public security," which is clearly open to arbitrary interpretation. Scholars have condemned as an "abuse of the death penalty" executions during previous crackdowns for non-capital offenses or for crimes which did not cause "serious consequences," such as repeated petty theft. It is striking that such executions have also been carried out during the current crackdown, and that top officials, such as the president of the Beijing Higher People's Court, have advocated executions in this kind of case, arguing that such death sentences are consistent with the 1983 Decision.
The vague definition of other crimes which could be subject to the death penalty, and the potential for arbitrary sentencing, was demonstrated in a "major hooligan case" cited in one article. Two men from Yueyang City, Hunan Province, were executed and eight others sentenced to prison terms up to life for their part in stripping and verbally humiliating a woman in the presence of many people in September 1990. The local court believed this constituted "hooliganism where the consequences are extremely serious," for which the death penalty could be applied. The severity of the sentences reportedly caused some consternation in the locality. While the author of the article also questions the outcome, he concludes: "For those who are illiterate in the law, who have the potential to commit murder because they do not know the law, the death penalty is the best textbook for them to use in studying the law, so as to avoid ending up on death row."
Deterrence: does it work?
While the majority of scholars whose work was surveyed for this article believe that China needs to retain the death penalty, at least for now, there is no consensus on the deterrent or "restraining" effect upon which arguments for retention are generally premised.
"The death penalty has a unique role which no other punishment can replace" since those so punished can never reoffend, states one commentator. Another argues that it is a necessary tool in an under-developed economy undergoing rapid change, as a weapon against the "enemies" of the socialist system. Some scholars state that capital punishment is qualitatively different in socialist China as compared to capitalist countries, since instead of being the violent weapon the capitalist class uses against the proletariat to protect its private property, it is used by the working class against a minority of enemies and serious criminals.
It is interesting to note that these commentators do not promote an "educational" deterrent effect for the use of the death penalty in economic, largely white-collar crimes. On the contrary, it is in relation to such types of offenses that they challenge deterrence arguments with the most conviction. Although this point is not stated in the articles, the arguments presented in such challenges seem equally valid for the whole range of capital crimes:
"The death penalty is not a miracle cure for economic and financial crimes. Since the introduction of the death penalty for certain economic crimes, there has been no reversal of the spiraling trend of economic crime.... Relying on the death penalty is no way to curb these crimes.... primarily because economic crimes emerge from economic, political, legal and other factors. Elements such as weaknesses in state policy, chaos in economic management, corruption in political organs, the interference of the 'contacts network' in the administration, weakness of social supervision and the inadequacies of the criminal law all play their part."
And from another angle: "The deterrent effect is short-lived, the feeling of terror brought to bear on prospective criminals gradually fades as time progresses and the only way of sustaining it is to carry out executions at regular intervals which is really not acceptable in a civilized society. There is also the fact that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is reduced by the frequency of executions."
The ambivalence about the deterrent effect of the death penalty is most clearly articulated by Wang Zuofu of China People's University: "Our country has carried out the 'Strike Hard' struggle for 10 years, but still the number of capital crimes is ever increasing, there has been no fundamental improvement in social order and the case rate for some serious crimes is ever rising. Such facts are sufficient to demonstrate that increasing the use of the death penalty is of limited utility. This being the case, should we not change our point of view and look for other more effective ways of preventing crime? Furthermore, the side-effects of excessive use of the death penalty should not be underestimated."
What price a lie?
Many scholars also believe that neither "deterrence" nor "justice" is served by current practices. "A punishment imposed as a deterrent should be the minimum needed to deter the crime," one reminds. They state that for some violent crimes punishable by death, the standards used to determine whether capital punishment is applied have fallen to such a low level that, contrary to the "guiding principles," it is the majority rather than the minority who are now executed.
Alarm is also expressed at the growing proportion of younger people who are sentenced to death. Scholars claim that in the past few years, over 50 percent of those sentenced to death have been below 25, which "goes against the principle of mitigated or lesser punishment, education, rehabilitation and reform of young criminals." Moreover, many of these were first-time offenders who should be classified as belonging to the category "in which there is a choice" not to execute.
Such concerns lead to calls for specific definitions to be established in law on the question of in what circumstances "heavier" or "mitigated" punishments should be applied (rather than leaving this to the discretion of local courts). Other scholars insist that the highest judicial organs should define what "where the consequences are serious" means and set precise stipulations in law to clarify when the death sentence may be imposed for any crime.
Where such baselines have already been set, however, there is great dissatisfaction with the result. At a conference on criminal punishment in the mid-1990s, a young researcher reportedly made a profound impact when he pointed out that dogs were currently on sale in Beijing at prices higher than the 20,000-30,000 yuan level stipulated as the lower limit for applying a death sentence for the crime of theft. Others have questioned the discrepancy between this sum and the 50,000 yuan baseline for bribery and corruption, which they characterize as "theft by another name." Consternation was provoked by the criterion of "one skin" set in 1987 for the imposition of the death penalty in the crime of killing pandas or trafficking in or smuggling their skins.
Tighten procedures
Over the past few years, a number of miscarriages of justice which have resulted in wrongful executions have been reported in the Chinese media. Legal scholars acknowledge that such "mistakes" are not unusual, and cite many weaknesses in legal procedures which facilitate their occurrence. Some have been partially addressed in welcome revisions to the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) which come into effect on January 1, 1997.
Certain legal experts claim that inappropriate courts are trying serious and complex cases. They report that "against the spirit of the law," some basic level people's courts have gone beyond the limits of their jurisdiction, trying cases which should be tried in the first instance by intermediate courts because they are liable for the harshest penalties. Intermediate courts have also taken the initiative in passing death penalty cases down to the basic level courts for first trials. This is permitted under Article 18 of the CPL, but will be eliminated when the revisions go into effect next year.
On the question of defense lawyers, scholars have called for the provision of lawyers to be compulsory in death penalty cases. The revised CPL includes the new formulation that in such cases, "the people's court should designate lawyers to undertake the obligation of offering legal assistance" (presumably on a pro-bono basis) when defendants have not appointed their own defenders. Clearly, clarification is needed on precisely at what point in the legal process such a lawyer will be made available. A logical assumption from the CPL revisions is that only those with the money to retain their own lawyers will benefit from the earlier access to counsel the revisions allow.
Most of the scholars believe that the appeals process has become gravely flawed. The original 1980 CPL gave the Supreme People's Court the power of approval over all death penalty cases. Less than 18 months later, however, an NPC Decision allowed for the delegation of this power to provincial higher courts in some cases. This trend has continued unabated until today, and has, they claim, seriously diminished and corrupted the system of review of such sentences, leading to regional inconsistencies in sentencing and inadequate protections for individuals facing execution.
As local authorities seek to make examples of types of offenders who are seen as a problem in their area, the same offense can be punished by death in one province and by imprisonment in another. The trend has also contributed to the "common practice which is against the spirit of the law" of combining the second hearing and the special review of death penalty cases into one proceeding, often adjudicated by the same committee, a practice which robs the "special review" of any value. Scholars call for a clear separation of the powers of "hearing" cases and "approving" sentences, and assert that this is an area in which arguments about inadequate state resources cannot be accepted.
The revised CPL repeats the original's stipulation that death penalty cases are to be approved by the Supreme People's Court, but it remains to be seen whether the option of delegating those powers once more, enshrined as it is in the Organic Law of the People's Courts, will be revised; or whether the political will exists to ensure that other well-established practices will be changed to conform with the law as written. The experience of severely abbreviated procedures and summary justice during the current "Strike Hard" campaign, coming as they do so soon after the revisions of the CPL were passed by the NPC, leave this in significant doubt.
In the face of local and central governments' desire to appear to be taking a tough line against rising crime, thus addressing the popular dissatisfaction this trend engenders, there is little indication yet that officials are listening to the concerns these legal scholars raise or considering implementing any of their suggestions. However, these dissenting voices do point to a healthy debate on the issue in legal circles, and a growing awareness of both the problems of indiscriminate use of the death penalty and the arguments favoring abolition, positions which may, over time, find greater support among those wielding legislative powers.
Major sources (all in Chinese):
"Retention or Abolition of the Death Penalty and Human Rights Protections," by Yang Dunxian and Chen Xingliang, in Chinese and Foreign Legal Studies, No.6, 1991.
Comparative Research on the Death Penalty, by Li Yunlong and Shen Demo, China People's Public Security University Publishing House, 1992.
"Profound Meditations on the Question of the Death Penalty in China," by Bao Suixian, in Reform, Openness and the Development of Criminal Law, China Procuracy Publishing House, 1993.
"Discussion on the Use of the Death Penalty," by Ma Kechang, in Reform, Openness and the Development of Criminal Law.
"Proposals and Debate on the Abolition of the Death Sentence for Economic Crimes," by Xia Feng, Reform, Openness and the Development of Criminal Law.
"On Revising and Perfecting the Procedures for Implementation of the Death Penalty," by Liu Genju, Politics and Law Forum, No.2, 1995.
General Survey of the Death Penalty, by Hu Yunteng, China University of Politics and Law Publishing House, 1995
"Several Questions on the Retention or Abolition of the Death Penalty," by Wang Fengzhi, Politics and Law Forum, No.4, 1995

APPENDIX THREE

APPENDIX FOUR
Reported Death Sentences in 1999

Reported Death Sentences in 1998