We Interrupt Your Holiday for a Depressing Death Penalty Story
Interesting news has been almost nonexistent during this holiday interregnum (unless you live in Iran), but today we saw the end to the tragic, and highly publicized case of Akmal Shaikh, who was executed this afternoon.
Why the interest? Mr. Shaikh was a British national executed by the government of the PRC for drug smuggling. This was not just a petty infraction mind you, but a whopping 4 kilos of heroin that he brought into China. He claimed that neither the drugs nor the suitcase were his, but that he was carrying the bag as a favor to someone else. Yes, he used the old chestnut defense of “I don’t know how the four kilos of heroin got into that bag I was carrying.” Ouch. That even sounds weak in my paraphrase.
I don’t usually write about these sorts of criminal cases. I have no particular insight (I’m a corporate and IP lawyer) and they tend to be quite boring after a while. This case was no different except for the nationality of the defendant.
As you might expect, the British government was all over this case, petitioning the government here for leniency during and after formal proceedings and repeatedly calling for a reevaluation of Mr. Shaikh’s mental status.
Beijing has responded, of course, with the obligatory language that unfortunately always ends up sounding rather lame:
China’s legal experts yesterday urged foreigners to respect Chinese law and advised Western media to refrain from politicizing the issue of capital punishment in the case of a Briton convicted for smuggling drugs into China. (China Daily)
I’m a staunch opponent of the death penalty, as I’ve mentioned many times on this blog. My opinion has nothing to do with any particular moral position. I simply think that since taking someone’s life away carries with it such finality, that it should not be done unless the decision is absolutely foolproof (i.e. a standard much higher than, for example, the U.S. “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Because, as history has shown, governments make mistakes all the time when prosecuting capital cases, this suggests that we are nowhere near that “absolutely foolproof” standard and should refrain from killing people.
All that being said, I (mentally) winced as I read article after article over the past few days from outraged Brits ranting about China’s legal system. Many of these commentators know very little about the PRC criminal justice system, and even fewer are aware of the progress made over the past few years. One piece I saw from the BBC was a nice exception:
[T]he Dui Hua Foundation points out that the secrecy is preventing China from getting credit for what it describes as “considerable progress… in its reduction of the use of capital punishment”.
Two years ago China changed the rules to give the Supreme People’s Court final say over whether a death sentence is carried out or not. Before that it was lower courts that had the final say.
Dui Hua believes the number of people executed fell by at least a quarter in the year after the reforms were introduced. (BBC)
As we saw earlier this year with the Rio Tinto case, all of this is nationalistic blather. It probably wouldn’t have mattered what this guy did or what his mental state was. He was a British national, and therefore the government and the commentariat felt obligated to stick up for him and decry not only the specific case that led to a guilty verdict, but the criminal justice system itself. Seems to be some sort of rule of international politics.
I would be much more forgiving of the Brits, I think, if they were as vociferous in calling out “unfair” instances of capital punishment in other countries as they have been with the case of Mr. Shaikh. I know, there’s absolutely no reason why the Brits would chime in on an execution of a non-British citizen in a foreign country. I get that.
But it surely would bolster their credibility on this issue, in my eyes at least, if the British government came out with the usual “great vengeance and furious anger” the next time the State of Texas put someone to death with an IQ of 37 — they do this once every month or so. Or maybe at least some mild criticism of the Saudi criminal justice system?
By the way, I have absolutely no idea whether this guy was guilty or not, or whether he was suffering from the condition medical professionals refer to as “nutsy-bobo”. The folks who are “outraged” by the legal system here were pissed off that a psych evaluation was not ordered for Mr. Shaikh, even after his family claimed that he was bipolar.
The prosecutors/government spokesmen, of course, are saying that 1) some sort of medical evaluation was indeed performed during the Supreme Court review of the case; and 2) the evidence of a history of a mental disorder was insufficient to justify an examination anyway. In other words, his mental status was taken into account even though it was not indicated, and calls for a further review are not necessary. I assume that the family was asking for some kind of independent review.
I’ll end with a great quote I found in a LA Times article, which echoes my comments on the Rio Tinto case a few months ago. I’m glad some folks out there are paying attention to the historical context here:
“Westerners have a long and disreputable history of seeking exemption from Chinese law for their nationals engaged in drug dealing, going back to the Opium Wars of the 19th century,” said Christopher Stone, chairman of the Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “The Chinese cannot treat this convicted drug smuggler differently from others because he is a British citizen.” (LA Times)
That sums it up nicely from my perspective.
The news is on the homepage of every major news website, even on the SUN, the British tabloid. I had thought it should not be some major news! The LA Times article tells the reason. Nationality makes big difference.
One more reason why I despise nationalism.
As always, Stan, you serve it up with guts, intellectual consistency, and ample nuance. Kudos.
Stan, you and I share some (though not all) of the same concerns about capital punishment, but I agree with your point. Far too many of those who take issue with the outcome of this case are doing so based on faulty knowledge of the case, of Chinese law, and of China generally.
A number of great points. For me the hypocrisy illustrated by the fact that we rarely find such outcry when the “State of Texas puts someone to death with an IQ of 37″ is particularly telling. There’s one thing I have difficulty with, however – what is the difference, in terms of “finality”, between the death sentence and a genuine life sentence (of the kind they have in the US, not like the 15-20 years this often means in the UK), practically speaking?
Thanks for a well considered and well written post.
I, too, stand against the death penalty yet wince when I see Americans and others condemn China without looking closer to home for examples of inhumanity.
While not excusing executions, anywhere, I would like to see Americans spend their energy opposing executions in, say, Texas before concerning themselves with other countries.
Brits, of course, can speak from higher ground. Still, I would like to hear more from them about human rights in oil-rich Saudi Arabia or Burma. China jurists are at least, so far as I can tell, making progress. (SO not excusing human rights abuses here!)
While it’s de rigueur for governments to go to bat for their citizens arrested in other countries, it’s important to be objective and fair when criticizing that country’s legal system.
Again, I appreciate your adding thoughtful comment on these events.
Stan,
You are right that nationality has made a significant difference here just as it did with Stern Hu from Rio Tinto. I similarly dont like how exposure can turn upon a person’s nationality.
However, I would suggest that this is also a question of national sovereignty. Where citizens of other countries are involved, national sovereignty arguments are less clear (although eventually always respected). It is difficult for countries (as France found out last year) to lecture other countries in respect of the treatment of their own citizens, particularly in respect of their treatment under that country’s justice system.
I will say that I am prepared to exploit anything, even nationalist sentiment (which I simiarly abhor), to prevent the use of the death penalty.
Interesting article. I agree with most o what you say. I have to correct you on one thing. Texas, while it has it’s problems, does not execute someone with an IQ of 31 every week. It’s per capita death penalty rate is still well below China’s.
Correction of myself: Texas’ death penalty rate is well above China’s. Yes, we have issues.
Well it is alas (or not) one of the things that the memosphere is primed to respond to “one of us” being killed by “one of them”.
Wait until it happens to an attractive female – then you’ll really see some fireworks. I’m not sure that this is a purely British proclivity – or even a Caucasian one… but we’ve got it. In buckets. It’s how we react. It’s in our memetic-genes. It sells newspapers. Everyone’s got an opinion.
As to respecting Chinese law… I’m afraid not. Respect is something that you get when you stop trying to rule by fear. And that means no death penalty.
I believe the problem is lack of transparency which means it is not certain whether due process was followed. Here is a take on the affair worth considering:
http://siweiluozi.blogspot.com/2009/12/thoughts-in-reaction-to-execution-of.html
I don’t understand your irritation. Who would you realistically expect to make representations on behalf of a British citizen abroad – the Dutch? You can’t be suggesting that every national government should make representations on behalf of every citizen of the world on an individual basis every time they get into trouble, otherwise the whole thing’s invalid, surely? Also, the British government has always lobbied on behalf of British citizens on Death Row.
So the Chinese system of justice has improved by western standards therefore we must refrain from criticism lest they sulk and return to their bad behaviour? What are they, two-years-old? Now I’m wincing.
The Chinese can do what they want to drug smugglers – whether for some form of nationalistic payback for wars in the 1800s, or for more pragmatic reasons – it’s their country. It’s just that in this instance there has been – whether you decided to look into it or not – a large amount of very persuasive evidence that this man was not a willing drug smuggler, but a mentally ill, deluded mule.
Of course nationality came into the equation – unfortunately for the Akmal Shaikh, it looks like his nationality counted against him.
Apparently, in the eyes of the Chinese Supreme Court, the defense failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove insanity. Shouldn’t that end the debate?
Stan, be fair to the State of Texas! It’s got lots and lots of BAD boys that do extremely BAD things…:)
The death penalty is kind of mechanism that suppose to deter the next criminal from going out there and doing something bad. Yet , these methods are faulty and do not produce real “incentives” to stop criminal activity. While i also do not beleive in the death penalty, other countries do. When traveling to/living in such places, observe their laws or pay the consequence. What ever passport you carry, it should be observed.
China law system is up and coming, far from the dilapidated system that people from other countries believe. In the the end, I think your last statement in this article sums it up, “The Chinese cannot treat this convicted drug smuggler differently from others because he is a (X) citizen.” Yet , it is still in need of improvement.
Then there is this mental stability argument. Again, I don’t know if we can expect every country to hold the same values of what to do with mental stability or how to conduct evaluations. It is a country by country culture experiment. Rich nations, are able to stand back and take this into consideration. As a poor nation, it simply does not get the same amount of consideration.
Memo to Jamon:
Stop calling China “poor.” It used to be poor. It’s not poor anymore. It’s perhaps not as rich as your country (wherever that is), but it’s not poor.
http://tinyurl.com/death-in-china
@daleandersen – really? Have you visited? (if you’ve just been to Shanghai, that doesn’t count). Would you consider Swaziland, or Namibia to be poor countries? In terms of GDP/capita they’re more or less the same as China. The GDP/capita of a province like Guizhou is equivalent to Malawi’s. How do you define poor?
About ten years ago a Dutch national was hanged in Singapore for smuggling a lot of heroin into the country. The Dutch Government had to protest but most people knew that such a protest would be in vain as Singapore upholds its own laws and is hardly impressed by threats from foreign governments. As far as I am concerned smuggling hard drugs into a country is a serious crime and knowing the history of China I can also understand why penalties are so high. This country has suffered tremendously under foreign state sanctioned drug trade.
In this case I do not see all that much difference. Unlike other countries where you will be on death row for at least a decade China executed its laws and the person relatively swift. Heroin kills many and if a country has strict laws against it so be it. The defense was talking mental illness but no conclusive evidence has been brought forward. If the man had a mental illness then that is very sad but I also read he ran his own business for many years in the US so he can not have been that weird.
The question we always ask ourselves is: “what if someone just put a couple of KG in my suitcase?” True, very true and a horrible thought but putting double standards between China, Thailand, Singapore or Malaysia is something I do not agree with.
I am sure the High Court has looked into this matter from all angles and the man being a British national must have played a role in the decision process. China is now arriving at a point where it can follow its own laws and does not have to bow for any other country in order to uphold them.
I am not a supporter of the death penalty except during war time. Especially when I hear the stories of convicts being released after DNA evidence clears them after xx years it is hard to imagine how one can survive being incarcerated so long while being innocent. However in this case if we would compare with other countries I do not see why the response to a Chinese execution would have to be different compared to e.g. Singapore.
Hi daleandersen,
Outside any coastal city in China, i think it is appropriate to say “poor” in relative comparison to other nation states. Are they the poorest ? no. Yet , a good amount of people still live in poverty in China. I am not arguing that China as a nation has a low GDP or in a dire state for resources to generate work. It hard to say that the majority of China’s population is not poor and other cities and towns are not underfunded.
I totally agree withe the death sentence. The media frenzy in britain is just that, nationalistic uproar that one of their citizen’s is being executed. Give me a break. This guy is not mentally ill. He had 4kg of a hard drug. You don’t acquire or transport this amount of drugs if you’re not completely sane. The drug lord wouldn’t trust a retard with million in drugs. I compliment the chinese judicial system for not falling for ridiculous excuses common in the west like mental illness.
It’s ironic britons are complaining, cause the drug proceeds could very well be used by islamic fundamentalists against britain.
Get off your high horse britain. Smoke your crack and herion in your own country.
Stan, I think you give much too short shrift to a serious argument that Shaikh did not have the appropriate mental capacity. You cannot just assume it is an excuse. As a matter of fact, he opposed his lawyer’s raising this defense, insisting he was perfectly sane. Does that sound like cooked-up excuse to you?
@ Brad Luo: “Apparently, in the eyes of the Chinese Supreme Court, the defense failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove insanity. Shouldn’t that end the debate?”
No, it shouldn’t. The defense was not allowed to introduce evidence of mental illness. Consequently, it does seem a bit unfair to justify the execution on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of mental illness.
@ adf: There is no claim that Shaikh was retarded. There is a claim that he was deluded. There is ample evidence suggesting that he had serious mental problems. Cases like this can’t be resolved by armchair psychiatry conducted by amateurs on the basis of a few newspaper reports. The Chinese legal system recognizes incapacity due to mental illness; those protesting the death sentence are calling not for special treatment for Shaikh, but simply for a procedure contemplated by Chinese law.
Yes, I don’t know nearly enough facts of the case to come down on the mental capacity issue. The news accounts provide conflicting evidence, some of which is undoubtedly false.