China watchers have probably seen several articles over the past few days reporting on the new policy that adopts lethal injection over firing squad. I would hope that most of you have given these boring treatments little attention.

Why the snub? First, unless you are a death penalty afficionado, the distinction between getting shot multiple times and being given lethal doses of chemicals is a fine one. Sure, if I had to choose, I’d go with the IV drip method, but I don’t think it would allay my fears over being executed all that much.

Second, why should we, or anyone for that matter, care that much about method of execution? I understand that in places like the U.S., anti-death penalty advocates have used method of execution arguments (8th Amendment arguments, to be specific) as a way to strike a blow against the death penalty itself. But let’s face it, even if the method of execution was flawless and painless, this would not sway public opinion one iota on the fundamental policy at issue. Maybe if the difference was lethal injection versus death by iron maiden or flaying, then it would be a bigger deal.

Third, in light of the above, consider what motivated the “reform” in the first place and why the news accounts have not put the latest announcement in the proper context. The death penalty/execution system in China has undergone some significant changes in recent years, most important perhaps being the current review process by the Supreme People’s Court, which may result in a much smaller number of executions nationwide.

OK, bottom line. China has come under fire for being a nation with a very high rate of executions per capita. Just for fun, I took the 2008 numbers and calculated a per capita rate, then I did the same thing for Texas, the latter based on the average annual rate of executions from 1976 to 2008. If my math is correct (doubtful on my best day, but what the hell), then China’s rate is about double that of bloodthirsty Texas.

The Chinese government, and perhaps the population as well (don’t know), still supports the death penalty, so they often find themselves on the defensive with respect to international opinion. I should point out that the criticism comes from different perspectives. The European objections are, in my opinion, quite principled as the death penalty has been outlawed there generally for a long time. On the other hand, I’m sure politicians in Texas would gladly point fingers at China’s death penalty system in order to deflect attention from their own record of executing minorities and mental deficients. (That last bit came out a bit more harsh than I intended, but if the shoe fits . . .)

Anyway, keep in mind that China’s death penalty reforms, perhaps including this latest one on method of execution, are aimed in part to “modernize” the system while retaining the sentencing option.

I do not, therefore, believe that there is some large constituency out there that was clamoring for a “humane” method of execution. For the most part, I take this as a cosmetic legal reform. Looks like progress, gives the government something to tell critics of the underlying policy, but the result is pretty much identical.

To put my personal cards on the table, I am against the death penalty in any country, no matter the legal system, the method of execution, etc. This is not a moral position (I’m a corporate lawyer, so my moral firmament is somewhat fluid, right?), but rather a very practical criticism. In the U.S. in particular, there have been many instances where the wrong person was executed (i.e. someone who was innocent of the crime in question). Once an individual is executed, that’s it. If a mistake was made, no amount of compensation will bring that guy back. Unless you can 100% guarantee that no mistakes will be made, I say prison is a much better option.

I understand that this lethal injection story was news, but without including some much needed context, the stuff I’ve read looks like an excuse to titillate readers who are into the ultra-violence.