The Study on Abolishment of Death Penalty of Corruption Crimes Essay Example

are excessively severe or cause an imbalance in values. This is particularly relevant to non-violent offenses without a specific victim or those that do not infringe upon others' fundamental rights (Zhao, 2004). The discussion surrounding whether to eliminate capital punishment for bribery and corruption offenses has gained significant attention within academic and theoretical circles.

One opinion is that although bribery and corruption crimes are a significant threat to the honesty of government officials and public resources, they do not directly impact people's lives. Hence, this viewpoint proposes eliminating the death penalty for bribery and corruption crimes (Ma, 2006). Conversely, another perspective opposes abolishing the death penalty in China for these offenses due to two reasons. Firstly, China heavily depends on probation or exempting individuals from criminal punishment for numerous bribery and corruption cases, which contradicts fair penalty principles.

While other countries have abolished the death penalty for bribery and corruption crimes, our country does not have a suitable alternative punishment. The cost of life imprisonment is too high and puts a strain on our financial resources. Therefore, it is crucial to eliminate bribery and corruption crimes because they are inherently essential and widespread.

The ongoing debate surrounding capital punishment often centers on the societal harm caused by bribery and corruption crimes, as well as the inherent issues associated with the death penalty. However, we tend to overlook the main underlying cause -the fundamental reason for the emergence of bribery and corruption crimes. According to Liu (2005), regardless of whether we focus on general prevention or specific prevention measures, the effectiveness of penalties is determined by people's reactions. So why do corrupt officials continue their actions despite facing potential

execution? This is because their psychological flaws gradually develop into a harmful desire that is stimulated by their objective environment. The progression of this harmful desire eventually becomes a motivation for committing crimes.

Similar to Beccaria's concept of "crime saturation principle," each society has its own unique set of crimes that result from its natural and social conditions. These crimes are appropriate for each social group's development (Ma, 2004). Bribery and corruption crimes only exist and grow when centralized power is present.

The text highlights the flawed belief that severe punishments can effectively deter corruption. It also emphasizes that using murder as a method to combat corruption has negative repercussions and underscores that corruption and bribery are societal issues, not solely the responsibility of individuals.The text highlights that corruption crimes are influenced by multiple factors including the economy, politics, law, culture, and more. It argues that corruption is not solely caused by individuals seeking personal gain at the expense of national interests but also by economic mismanagement and a lack of societal oversight. Although economic reforms have been implemented, the political system still lags behind with power concentration and excessive control over social resources by party and government leaders. Moreover, there is insufficient leadership within the power structure leading to ineffective supervision. Consequently, some individuals lacking moral cultivation and self-awareness may resort to corruption (Zou, 2006; Wang, 2004).

The political system in China experiences a lag due to historical and systemic factors, alongside various complex elements. Merely implementing the death penalty for individual corrupt criminals will not bring about change. Some argue that China's use of the death penalty for corruption crimes indicates an intensified punishment that

will significantly reduce corruption. However, this belief does not align with reality. In China, bribery and corruption penalties are considered severe, but enforcement of criminal law is lacking. Legislation faces numerous issues including negligence, vague concepts, and implementation difficulties which impede anti-corruption efforts. These factors demonstrate that corruption results from both individual officials' psychological flaws and external circumstances. It is a societal problem that cannot be solved solely by imposing harsh penalties on corrupt officials. The country must take responsibility for the maturity of its system instead of solely blaming corrupt officials, as this may lead to suspicion of shifting responsibility and incite public animosity.

Eliminating corrupt officials in our country is insufficient for completely eradicating corruption; it may even result in the emergence of more corrupt individuals. To guarantee prosperity, stability, and progress in our economy, politics, and society, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive system. Continuously emphasizing the significance of constructing such a system is necessary to effectively combat bribery and corruption. Merely reacting to these issues is inadequate; preventive measures must also be taken into account. Hence, bolstering system construction plays a vital role in holistically preventing bribery and corruption (Tan, 2006).

Due to the relatively short time that China has spent on constructing and implementing systems to prevent and combat bribery and corruption, when compared to Western countries, our country's system is not as flawless or on par. This has resulted in an increasing rate of bribery and corruption crimes in China year after year. In order to effectively prevent these crimes through system implementation, we must learn from the successes of developed Western countries and prepare accordingly.

The strategy of "Beating the

dog before the lion" is not very effective in combating bribery and corruption, and the public does not perceive penalties as a strong deterrent. While imposing the death penalty on corrupt officials can prevent them from committing future crimes, it may not discourage other corrupt individuals. Feuerbach, an esteemed jurist following classical criminal law principles, argues that different types of crimes should have specified penalties and all crimes must be punished.

Depending on using penalty to prevent crime is not about strictness but rather about stringency. The deterrent effect of penalty should encompass three aspects. Firstly, it must be deemed necessary, implying that anyone who violates the law must face punishment. Secondly, promptness is crucial, as individuals who break the law should be punished promptly to make them aware of the inescapable relationship between their criminal actions and the ensuing penalty. Finally, strictness is a fundamental requirement for penalty. These three aspects are interconnected and indivisible.

Together, they affect and restrain the deterrent effect of penalties. However, solely emphasizing the severity of penalties and ignoring the other two aspects clearly shows that general prevention of penalties is not very efficient. Furthermore, imposing the death penalty for bribery and corruption crimes is inconsistent with international standards considering laws in various countries around the world. The use of the death penalty for such offenses contradicts the common principle of "death penalty does not apply to extradition" and fails to support efforts against serious instances of bribery and corruption.

Different countries have varying prison terms for bribery and corruption crimes. In most cases, the sentences range from six months to ten years. However, South Africa adopts a stricter approach with a

minimum jail term of 15 years for first-time offenders involved in bribery. This sentence increases to 20 years for the second offense and becomes 25 years for subsequent offenses. Conversely, China has an even more stringent stance, imposing life imprisonment or even the death penalty on individuals convicted of these crimes. This suggests that China may be the strictest country in combating bribery and corruption. Surprisingly, despite these severe penalties, China's rate of bribery and corruption continues to increase annually.

China's use of the death penalty for bribery and corruption offenses sets it apart from other countries. However, this strict approach has not been successful in reducing the occurrence of these crimes. Moreover, the international rule against extraditing individuals facing capital punishment enables many corrupt Chinese officials to flee to foreign nations and avoid prosecution in their own country. As a result, this loophole not only causes significant losses in public assets but also encourages corrupt individuals to seek refuge in countries such as America and Canada.

China's implementation of the death penalty for bribery and corruption was intended to enhance efforts against these crimes, but it has had the opposite effect as corrupt officials now perceive it as a valid justification for their actions. The elimination of the death penalty for corruption presents a significant challenge due to its contradiction with China's belief in "an eye for an eye" punishment, which emphasizes protection of human life and well-being. Abandoning this punishment would trigger widespread outrage and encounter substantial resistance. However, there may be no necessity to abolish the death penalty for military and state offenses given China's current circumstances. Maintaining this punishment is justified as it

safeguards national security, unity, social stability, and economic order.

Eliminating the death penalty in corruption cases is undoubtedly the optimal decision as it aligns with global trends and makes it more feasible to meet China's standards for evaluating crimes that cause societal harm. Corruption crimes, which involve financial interests and undermine the integrity of a supposedly corruption-free government, can be effectively prevented, rendering severe punishments unnecessary for deterrence and punishment.

Although corruption crimes may have different causes, a flawed system is a major factor. While it is not possible to completely stop corruption at a systemic level, certain aspects of it can be addressed. In contrast, violent crimes arise from both inherent violent tendencies or impulsive acts of passion and planned offenses that involve preparation. None of these problems can be solved through systemic measures.

Consequently, the complete abolition of the death penalty for corruption offenses is feasible, as it has already been substantiated in both theoretical and sociological realms. In China, experts in the field have long advocated for a gradual reduction and strict control over capital punishment, ultimately aiming to eradicate it altogether. Numerous scholars have put forward diverse strategies to diminish and restrict the implementation of the death penalty.

Although these theories differ, they all concur that the death penalty should be reserved for crimes that pose a significant threat to national security, public safety, and personal well-being. Additionally, several countries employing the death penalty exclude its use for corruption offenses. Jiang Bixin argues that taking into account China's historical tradition, legal culture, prevailing circumstances, public values, and other factors, it is presently impractical to entirely abolish the death penalty.

In order to prevent and control economic

crimes, it is crucial to have a robust economic management system and enhance the social supervision mechanism. Additionally, the government should eliminate the death penalty for the majority of corruption offenses. This viewpoint supports the goal of constructing a socialist harmonious society and establishing a new culture in China. Ultimately, both theoretical and sociological factors serve as the basis for abolishing capital punishment in corruption cases.

The death penalty for corruption crimes has decreased, as seen in the few cases where it has been imposed. This accounts for a small fraction of all corruption crimes. Therefore, the death penalty is being retained for possible future use. It is noteworthy that even in cases involving significant sums of money in provincial jurisdictions, such as tens or hundreds of thousands, the death penalty is frequently not employed.

The abolishment of the death penalty for corruption crimes in China is crucial to achieve a unified jurisdiction and align the criminal disposition with Hong Kong and Macao's related mechanisms. Roger (2005) stated that China has experienced closer political and economic exchanges with these regions, making personnel exchanges more accessible, which holds practical significance. Currently, individuals from Hong Kong and Macao who commit crimes in mainland China can face the death penalty, attracting attention from international non-governmental organizations. Amnesty International intends to persistently criticize the Chinese government on this matter as it believes this practice poses problems concerning the effectiveness of transferring criminals to mainland China rather than extraditing them.

It is imperative to immediately abolish the death penalty for corruption crimes in order to effectively address the issue of corruption and prevent suspects from escaping. From 1992 until June 2007, around 16,000

individuals, including 87 officials at provincial and ministerial levels, 320 officials at departmental levels, 1,920 vice-departmental officials, 8,250 division-level officials, and 11,340 deputy positions at the division level have been implicated in corruption and embezzlement cases amounting to over one billion RMB.

China is facing a challenge in combating corrupt officials, as many countries have abolished the death penalty. This poses difficulties for China when trying to extradite these officials because extradition laws in those countries often prohibit it if there is a possibility of the death penalty being imposed. Consequently, the Chinese government cannot guarantee that corrupt officials will not face capital punishment in those nations.

If the Chinese government were to make these commitments, it would contradict Chinese law. It would also be difficult to guarantee fairness for corrupt officials who have fled and maintain consistent punishment for the same crime. This problem is especially apparent in bribery and corruption cases. To tackle these concerns, the fundamental solution is to end the use of the death penalty for bribery and corruption offenses. The academic community increasingly supports this trend.

Many believe that China is not currently prepared to eliminate the death penalty, but it is crucial to begin taking this necessary step now. Today offers a favorable opportunity for doing so. Eliminating the death penalty for bribery and corruption offenses would both make the punishment more justifiable and deter corrupt officials from evading justice and finding places to conceal themselves.

Eliminating the death penalty for bribery and corruption crimes has significant implications. It enables our government to cooperate in extradition endeavors with developed nations, where corrupt individuals frequently attempt to evade justice, effectively countering their avoidance efforts.

Additionally, it serves as a powerful deterrent against prospective criminals, significantly decreasing their likelihood of escaping punishment. Taking an alternative perspective, abolishing the death penalty for bribery and corruption crimes ensures a more equitable sentencing procedure that considers factors like the monetary value involved or the particular circumstances of the offense.

Penalty's determinism will be fully implemented in reducing bribery and corruption crimes, as the escape of corrupt officials becomes less likely. In 1997, China enacted the "New Law," abolishing the death penalty for stealing. A thorough examination over the years shows that the rate of stealing crimes has not noticeably increased after the abolition of the death penalty, and the general public has not shown significant concerns. Therefore, it is entirely feasible to abolish the death penalty for economic crimes in terms of implementation.

Works Cited [1] Changsha Evening News, March 11, 2006. [2] Zhao, Bingzhi. From China’s Death Penalty Policy to See the Issue about Abolishment of Death Penalty of Non-violent Crime. Beijing: Chinese People Security University Press, 2004. [3] Ma, Kechang. To Carry Out The “Kill Fewer, Kill Carefully” Criminal Policy. Beijing: Chinese People Security University Press, 2006. [4] Chen, Xingliang. Ontic Crime Law. Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 2001. [5] Zhao, Bingzhi.

The text discusses various publications related to the abolition of the death penalty and the study of criminal law. These publications include "Exploration Of Way About Abolishment Of Death Penalty" by Beijing: China Prosecution Publishing House in 2004 [6], "A Brief History Of Modern Western Criminal Law" by Ma Kechang in Beijing: China Prosecution Publishing House in 2004 [7], "Psychological Characteristics And Punishment Of Duty Crime" by Liu Lu in the Journal of

Zhejiang Public Security College in 2005 [8], "To Carry Out The 'Kill Fewer, Kill Carefully' Criminal Policy" by Ma Kechang in Beijing: Chinese People Security University Press in 2006 [9], "A Study On Certainty Of Strengthening Anti-corruption Legislation And Law Enforcement" by Zou Yunxiang and Tian Hongjie in China Young Daily in 2006 [10], "Reflection On Legislation Of Death Penalty Of Duty Crime" by Wang Zuofu in Beijing: China Prosecution Publishing House in 2004 [11], and "Duty Crimes Must Be The Protection For System" by Tan Zhongchi in the Procuratorate Daily in 2006 [12]. Additionally, the publication "Global Survey Of Death Penalty" by Roger Hood is mentioned, published by Beijing: China Prosecution Publishing House in 2005.The text "

e-lib

" should beand unified while preserving the and their contents.

e-library