41. On Capital Punishment:For Whom Is the Death Penalty Intended?

Understanding for whom a nation's death penalty is intended reveals whom that nation serves.

When a specific group is virtually never sentenced to death, it can be determined that this group constitutes the ruling class, while other groups are the ruled. For instance, scholars and officials in the Song Dynasty were rarely sentenced to death, and officials in the Chinese Communist Party are likewise seldom sentenced to death.

When a particular group accounts for the highest number of death sentences, it can be determined that this group is the most severely oppressed. Examples include slaves under slavery and the poor under monarchies.

When death sentences in a nation are distributed so widely that they cannot be clearly attributed to any specific group, that nation is undoubtedly a democracy. Such societies lack a clear distinction between rulers and the ruled. Consequently, rulers cannot wield the death penalty to suppress the populace, preventing any single group from bearing an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of death sentences.

Regarding the question of whether the death penalty should be abolished, China presents a peculiar phenomenon: the group most frequently sentenced to death is precisely the one most vehemently opposed to abolition. Their rationale is simplistic: abolishing capital punishment would allow corrupt officials to act with impunity. This profoundly misguided argument reflects the outcome of China's longstanding tradition of stifling education. But under the current death penalty system, aren't corrupt officials already acting with impunity? With the death penalty in place, how many corrupt officials have actually been executed? Who is being executed today? Primarily the most marginalized citizens. The death penalty is reserved for the most vulnerable, yet these very people harbor unrealistic fantasies about officials receiving the death sentence. How absurd is this notion?

Should the death penalty be abolished? As long as murder or even more heinous crimes persist in society, the death penalty should not be abolished. If murderers can unlawfully take another's life, what justification is there for not taking the murderer's life? An eye for an eye represents the most fundamental and equitable form of punishment. Abolishing capital punishment would mean that no matter how heinous the crime, the perpetrator could never face execution. Without the death penalty, the maximum sentence would be life imprisonment—a situation where taxpayers must sustain the criminal throughout incarceration. How utterly absurd is this scenario? Taxpayers, as victims of crime, would not only fail to see criminals receive just punishment but would also be forced to support them. Moreover, since death is inevitable for all, why should a person guilty of heinous crimes not face death sooner? Therefore, from any perspective, abolishing the death penalty is wrong.

Retaining the death penalty does not equate to its abuse. As the most severe form of punishment, its use must be strictly limited. In every capital case, regardless of whether the defendant pleads guilty, a jury must determine guilt. Throughout the trial process, the defendant's right to a defense must be fully guaranteed, and wrongful death sentences must never be permitted.

In short, when confronting capital punishment, it is better to let a guilty person go free than to wrongly condemn an innocent one.