Talk:Capital punishment in China

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MYao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I moved this page to conform with the style used by other articles ie Capital punishment in the United States, Capital punishment in the United Kingdom and Capital punishment in Canada. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 04:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Valuable page! Glenlarson

Picture?

Without any information, the picture seems to support a POV due to its brutal nature. What is the picture about? What year was this? What was the person guilty of? etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.252.33 (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Question marks

What are all those question marks in paranthesis (sp?) doing sprinkled through the article? I think that either they or the sentences they belong to, if they cannot be verified, should be removed. Brutulf 18:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

They are Chinese characters for the phrases used in the article. If you only see question marks then it means that your computer does not have the correct character set to display them. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:50, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Do you know where I could get those fonts? Brutulf 11:40, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

FYI- My Windows XP Pro SP2, with Firefox Browser, displays them fine with no special sfw. Commking May 7 2005

Control Panel, Regional and Language Options, Languages, make sure you've got the East Asia fonts installed. SchmuckyTheCat 14:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV??

This article has a tendency to challenge a NPOV. It needs to be copyedited. MyNameIsNotBob 21:10, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think the picture of the dead woman is a little too sensational for an NPOV. It's highly repulsive and appears more than a little sympathetic to opponents of capital punishment.

Beauty products from the skin of executed Chinese prisoners

See this guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1568622,00.html bogdan | ^Talk 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats BS

That's even more BS than the crap Falun Gong talks about with organ harvesting. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Falun Gong is behind this propaganda as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.19.208 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

your ignorant barbarism makes you seem less intelligent to the rest of the world. How can you possibly expect anyone to take the PRC seriously?64.222.124.107 (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that it is a stupid Falun Gong member. Since their skin exudes a stench, no one likes the Beauty products from their skin. hah hah Du Yanning - talk 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I hope this user gets removed for such hate comments. But it fits to what is going on here. The article is being manipulated and stuffed with false Chinese propaganda content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.63.246 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of Opening Paragraph

This sentence could be misinterpreted: "China is one of the few countries now using capital punishment, and its rate of executions is disproportionately more common than in any other."

I'd suggest that its changed to "... and its number of executions is higher than any other." Iran, Iraq and Sudan all execute more people each year per capita than China, although China has a higher total number of executions because of its larger population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiembrown (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is the Achilles' heel of the PRC

If the PRC does not abolish capital punishment within the next 25 years, We can never hope to be a respected world power, never mind a superpower. THe West will continue to walk all over us, as we will be thought of as a barbaric laughingstock of the world, a nation that never fully emerged from the middle ages. 64.222.124.107 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, nobody will respect China for that reason, just like nobody respect US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.175.217 (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

Article makes reference to 68 death penalty crimes but BBC reports the number is now 55. Have not changed as I don't know if the list of crimes being referenced is still correct.

[1]

87.112.178.244 (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there's been a change, passed in February and enacted in August 2011, that reduces the number of crimes: http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-10/27/content_13988709.htm But I don't find enough details to make a proper edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.133.168 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

--65.75.99.66 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)chinese culture is silk cave of seven stars

Question of emphasis

In this change [2] of the lead, Shrigley changed the emphasis, broadly speaking, to be from death penalty used "for a wide variety of crimes ranging from tax evasion to aggravated murder and drug trafficking" to "usually administered to offenders of serious and violent crimes." My first question is: Do we have evidence that the death penalty is usually administered to offenders of serious and violent crimes? Secondly, do we have evidence that the broad emphasis of reliable sources, when reporting on the death penalty in China, emphasize the way the death penalty is applied in serious and violent crimes, or do they emphasize how it is applied for a "wide variety of crimes ranging from tax evasion... [etc.]" and including violent and serious crimes. The Washington Post article linked obviously emphasizes the latter aspect. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Since no defense for this change of emphasis was proffered I have reverted it and expect discussion on further changes of this nature. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that while I pointed this out and fixed it, the fact that I only pointed this out and dealt with it is not a tacit message that I believe other changes conform to relevant content policies - I didn't have time to check them. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AGF, please. I didn't see this discussion and was otherwise preoccupied on Wikipedia, for reasons which you are very well aware. First thing: WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a summary of the contents of the article. In the body, I summarized and paraphrased the Scobell source, which actually says: "Most death sentences in post-Mao China are meted out to violent criminals. The U.S. Department of State estimates that the "great majority" of persons executed in China have been convicted on "serious nonpolitical crimes."⁸⁵ The President of the SPC stated in 1988 that more than 90 per cent of death sentences and life sentences were handed out to those convicted of violent crimes.⁸⁶ Rapists and murderers conprised the majority of those executed in 1978 and 1979.⁸⁷ Data collected on more than 250 executions carried out in China in mid 1983 reveals that some 80 percent of those executed were violent criminals.⁸⁸ ... While most condemned criminals in post-Mao China have been convicted of what would be considered extremely serious crimes in other countries, some have been found guilty of petty crimes." Perhaps you could fault the source for being outdated, but my reading of Trevaskes (2008), and the statements I cite to it about recent policy reform, show an unmistakable trend towards reducing death sentences for nonserious, nonviolent crimes. We should base our emphasis on hard data in academic sources, and not on fuzzy impressions of prurient press pieces or hysterical advocacy groups. Shrigley (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not assume bad faith so there is no need to quote the policy. I suggest that a couple of those sources be used as the reference for this point in the lead rather than the Washington Post article - since this was the source used, I thought it didn't quite fit. You've clarified the matter (again, further research and evidence may lead to a different discussion and consensus of course). Also, there is little need for you insert your opinions in describing press reports you don't like. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Capital punishment in Washingtonwhich affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taxation in the People's Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Scrambled phrase: meaning impenetrable.

"Chairman Mao Zedong of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and his government somewhat glorified, to an extent, the death penalty's transient place in the legal system, ". I'd fix it if I had any idea what it means or should say. Or a reference. Midgley (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible revision

I would like to expand the sections on “Reform,” “Support,” and “Criticism” in order to give article readers a sense of the current reality of capital punishment in China and the international community’s actions and concerns regarding this. I would also like to add more the reasoning behind China’s support for capital punishment.

MYao (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)MYao

Update

Some sources I plan on using for editing the article:

"Death Penalty 2015: Facts and Figures." Death Penalty 2015: Facts and Figures. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2017. This website gives global figures in 2015 regarding the death penalty. It states that executions in China were in the thousands. Hildebrandt, S. "Capital Punishment and Anatomy: History and Ethics of an Ongoing Association." Clinical Anatomy 21.1 (2007): 5-14. Web. This article mentions the lack of ethical and legal restrictions on using the bodies of the executed for medical purposes. There is also documentation on the harvesting of organs from the executed. Hood, R. "Capital Punishment: A Global Perspective." Punishment & Society 3.3 (2001): 331-54. Web. This article discusses the global movement towards abolishing capital punishment and explains to some extent the defiance of countries that still retain the death penalty in the face of international pressure. Jiang, Shanhe, and Jin Wang. "Correlates of Support for Capital Punishment in China." International Criminal Justice Review 18.1 (2008): 24-38. Web. This article gives an insight into the public's view on capital punishment. The study showed that the surveyed college students had a strong support for capital punishment. Liang, B. "Sources of Variation in Pro-Death Penalty Attitudes in China: An Exploratory Study of Chinese Students at Home and Abroad." British Journal of Criminology 46.1 (2005): 119-30. Web. The article examines the attitudes of students in China in regards to the death penalty. Miao, Michelle. "Capital Punishment in China: A Populist Instrument of Social Governance." Theoretical Criminology 17.2 (2013): 233-50. Web. The article discusses establishing political party legitimacy using capital punishment. Ning, Zhang. "The Political Origins of Death Penalty Exceptionalism: Mao Zedong and the Practice of Capital Punishment in Contemporary China." Punishment & Society 10.2 (2008): 117-36. Web. This article discusses how Mao Zedong affected the current Communist legal system. Scobell, Andrew. "The Death Penalty in Post-Mao China." The China Quarterly 123 (1990): 503. Web. Capital punishment has had a long history in China and remains an integral part of the Chinese legal system.

MYao (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)MYao

I think a lot of the recent updates to the article are very well done. The updates provide more information on the subject as a whole as especially about how capital punishment is seen in a more public light. I think that it provides a nice perspective in looking at how capital punishment came to be widely accepted and why it is still widely accepted. For the next iteration, I would suggest working on the lead section of the article to better summarize and catch the reader’s attention. Additionally, I think it would be very beneficial to add more peer reviewed sources throughout the article to increase the credibility and long term reliability of the page as a whole. The recent updates are very necessary to the article and I think it is very important to keep the current mindset when improving the article further. Great job! Jmarrs94 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Great work on this article! You have included a lot of scholarly sources from a variety of perspectives that lead to a broad and nuanced coverage of the issue. I am particularly impressed by the “support” and “criticism” sections. Two areas that the article could be improved is in neutrality (especially in the “rates of execution” section) and readability (especially in the “legal procedure” and “executions procedure” sections). I’ve included some specific suggestions in the peer review document. Overall, great job with this article! I’m impressed and look forward to reading the rest of your work.Rjpg12 (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Capital punishment in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100803234710/http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php to http://www.cecc.gov/pages/newLaws/criminalLawENG.php
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120715002031/http://m.ibtimes.com/china-executions-amnesty-intl-151891.html to http://m.ibtimes.com/china-executions-amnesty-intl-151891.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This is a wildly confusing paragraph: "Amnesty International claims that Mainland China executes more people than all other countries combined,[9] though if China's very large population is taken into account, the number of executions per capita is comparable to Vietnam and Thailand, and much lower than several countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the United States....According to the Dui Hua Foundation, a U.S.-based organization, the estimated number of executions has declined steadily in the twenty-first century, from 12,000 each year to supposedly 2,400" The US executes less than 100 people per year, and averages more like 40-50 in the past decade or two. On a per capita basis that would be equivalent to about 200 people per year in China, or at most 400 people in peak years, which is way less than the 2,400 that the Dui Hua Foundation attributes to China. Jess_Riedel (talk)

Hi. The first part of the sentence which relates the China info with other countries has been changed from the original by vandalism. I know, because I spent a great deal of time finding the right info and digging up proper sources for it as well. It is an issue where proper sources is hard to come by, so it is both disturbing and very annoying that the fake info has been up for so long here. I have reverted it now.

The last part of the sentence is something new. And I agree that it is almost meaningless. It hints that the page is currently a minor battleground for vandalism with a political slant. I hope we can stop this. RhinoMind (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Attack Alert!

The page is currently under a vandalist attack. It is extremely annoying. The changed info is very important and I have spend a great deal of time and research to find it and properly source it as well. I hope I am not the only editor appreciating proper and correct content on a serious issue like this.

If the vandalism (which hints at political propaganda) persists, I really hope we can lock the page. RhinoMind (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that @2601:483:4A00:91F0:8B9:4B34:9457:9462: and @Ketchupedia: have been involved with replacing proper content with fake info. There might be others, but those were the two accounts I could associate with the current problems. RhinoMind (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you included Ketchupedia and 2601:483:4A00:91F0:8B9:4B34:9457:9462 as vandals, who corrected the texts based on the source provided, but not include 85.230.63.246, 2601:8C0:4080:23D0:848:BF07:8F72:9D7E, and 2601:8C0:4080:23D0:A443:2D4E:943:C011 (range of 2601:8C0:4080:23D0:0:0:0:0/64, and restored by Jerm) who blanked reliably sourced material, and reverted another user Esiymbro as a vandal when they helped restored it? What's going on here? Are you attempting to shoehorn a POV dispute under a guise of a "vandalist attack"? ShelteredCook (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was the one putting up the info in the first place. Long ago.(1) And with more than adequate sources. As far as I can see the sources are exactly the same as I put up, but Singapore was changed to Thailand. And United Stares was added. This is not backed up by the sources at all. I don't understand how you could defend this fake stuff.

China's use of capital punishment (per capita) can not be likened to Thailand at all. And certainly not to the US, which is totally out of the question. And none of it is backed up by the sources provided (of course). It is made up stuff. RhinoMind (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(1) See the 3 May 2020 edits/additions.

I've looked at the sources Rhino. Both the Reuters source (for some reason, its an article about capital punishment in Japan, not China) as well as the Washington Post's source do not mention any other country, and it borders on WP:OR. Instead of bickering about country comparisons, it's best not to have them at all, and keep the original phrase that involved Iran. ShelteredCook (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Table / Statistics

Would be nice if a table could be used to show the change per year here. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)