Death Penalty: The Fine Line Between 'Law Working for the People' and 'Law Working Against the People.' Where does it lie?

It is common knowledge that even today, some countries still legalize the death penalty due to their so-called reason for deterring their people from committing crimes. They believe the legalization of such cruel punishment would 'scare' and thus prevent their people from even considering participating in wrongdoings in the first place, helping them ensure public order. In other words, they believe it is an act of 'law working for the people.' But is it? Have they also considered it an obvious act of violating those people's human rights? If that is the case, is it still acceptable to call it a 'law for the people,' or should it be called a 'law against the people' instead?

China is one of the few countries that still implement this law. In fact, they have been labeled as "the country with the most death sentences and executions." According to World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the country has executed 8,000 people yearly since 2007, accounting for around 90% of the total number of global execution. 

Despite their continuous defense that it is for the purpose of achieving public order, there is no denying that this is a clear act of human rights violation done by the Chinese government itself to their own people. To put it another way, this is a law approved by the government to give them the right to physically, mentally, and emotionally torture their own people - people who supposedly they protect - from the second they are sentenced until the second they are executed. This is where the dilemma lies and why legalizing the death penalty is very controversial, no matter what their justification for implementing it may be. 

Regarding this, Article 5 of the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) has clearly stated that such an act is strongly prohibited by declaring that "No one has the right to inflict torture or to subject anyone else to cruel or inhuman treatment." This clearly communicates that the Chinese government cannot legalize such an act despite their high position in society as law-enforcement officials. However, unfortunately, as we know, they have not been successful in doing so.

This is very disappointing because, as a permanent member of the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) and as a member of the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council), they should have been the flagbearer of states implementing the UDHR, not the other way around. 

Now that we have come to a mutual understanding that the act is strictly prohibited and a violation of people's human rights, especially according to the UDHR, we can see that this law is working against the people, not for them. If the government's aim were to implement a law that was genuinely working for the good of the people, an alternative would have been used instead, most importantly, one that does involve taking away someone's life, such as life-long imprisonment. 

Implementing life-long imprisonment, or what people usually call 'life without parole,' will certainly have the same effect on society, which, again, is to achieve public order. It will certainly prevent people from even having the initiative to commit wrongdoings, as they would not want to spend the rest of their lives in prison without having the slightest chance of release. Not only does it deter society in general from doing what they believe as crimes, but for those already convicted or believed to have done wrongdoings, this also serves as a better way to "punish" them as it does not involve taking away their lives.

Even though one might argue that life-long imprisonment is essentially the same as sentencing someone to the death penalty, as it also limits their rights in terms of what they can or cannot do during their time in prison, however, taking away someone's life is so much crueler, and there is always the risk that they may be sentencing or executing an innocent person, which very unfortunately, has happened quite a number of times in China. 

This can be seen in the Nie Shubin case, an innocent villager from Hebei Province who was executed on the conviction of raping and murdering a woman despite there being "unclear" and "insufficient" evidence, as later on confessed by the Supreme Court. A similar thing also happened to Zhang Yuhuan - the longest-serving wrongly convicted person in the country who was jailed for 27 years - on a conviction that he killed two boys in Touling village after finding them dead. 

These are only two of the many cases where their own Criminal Justice System has done them an injustice, sentencing them to the death penalty for something someone else did and knowing that while they are bearing the punishment, the actual perpetrator is still on the loose. Imagine how sad, angry, and hopeless those people would feel.

 Imagine how their family and loved ones would feel watching their family being executed for something they believe deep down that their loved one did not do. It simply is unfair for the person and also for their family to experience such a loss. After all, who are those people to be given the authority to decide who gets to die and who does not? Isn't it not our part, as humans, to have a say in life and death matters? 

To conclude, legalizing the death penalty in China is not an effective means to create public order and, without a doubt, should be abolished. It simply is not right for the government to utilize its power in deciding who gets to live and who does not to help them do their job in achieving social order.

Alternatives should have been used instead, such as life-long imprisonment. This method will certainly have the same effect on society but without the following consequence of creating a moral dilemma and violating people's human rights. Furthermore, many people might argue that legalizing such a cruel punishment is simply not our part, as humans, to have a say on; thus, all the more reason why such a law should be abolished.