Should The Corrupt Officials Be Sentenced To Death?
——Experience of Tiger-Talk by Helvmai(阖闾一脉)
Last evening we went to the Temple of China's Century and participated in a TV program held underground. This program has a very special name called "Tiger-Talk", i.e. "一虎一席谈" by Chinese, which perhaps means "fierce debating".
The guests invited to Tiger-Talk consisted of three professional lawyers, a professor from Law School of CUPL (China University of Political Science and Law), an official who was the Director of Commission for Discipline Inspection of Wuhan Province, and another two experts in law. Prof. He Bing is a famous teacher in our university, and that's why we were given the chance as audiences.
There's a very special requirement in Tiger-Talk, i.e. the audiences should not sit still and just listen carefully. Everyone is given a round plate in hand looked like a little "fan", of which printed "Approve" on one side and "Object"on the other. Any of the audiences is encouraged to wave the "fan" to raise any questions or express any opinions, whether in approve of it or not. But it is one of the Host's privileges to give you the very chance to speak it out, after all, the guests of honor in the debate undoubtedly take the leading roles, just like every other TV debates.
We now turn to the Host, who could be considered as the most active and crucial part as the debate went on. You can just imagine that some guest was so enthusiastic and filled with anger that he didn't realize to pause, while some gentle guests couldn't cut in. Even some warm-hearted audiences had also talked too much. So a capable host should keep good order first of all. Not only to give everyone the fair chance to express, but also to control the situation and lead the debate smoothly into a wider scale and a deeper level.
They said this TV debate would be divided into two parts and broadcast on TV by Phoenix Satellite Television this Friday night, while the other part next Friday.
Now we start Tiger-Talk'topic for this time——Should The Corrupt Officials Be Sentenced To Death?
Prof. He: We should resort to death penalty as few as possible and as prudently as possible. But in current situation, we certainly have to kill them (少杀慎杀，但不得不杀!).
A Lawyer: Can it help to reduce the amount of corruption? It's not the individual, but the system which is corrupt. What we concern about is not the greed of human, esp. officials, but the system which initiate the insatiable desire for wealth and power. So in my point of view, it's actually a systematic problem(制度性问题).
The approval party didn't deny the problem of system, and thought that just to kill the corrupt officials can't solve this problem effectively. The best method is to develop a democratic political system, and restrict powers by check and balance. But there is still one thing should be considered, that is, this specific crimination had resulted in not only a tremendous lost of state-owned property, but also uncountable suffering of people's possession and even lives, just as the case of Zheng Xiaoyu(郑筱萸案). If we wouldn't kill them, we can't realize the Justice, release the victims' pains, which ended up lose the people's support.
A victim, who survived by fortune after five years medical care, also attended the debating. When asked how to deal with this controversial problem, he replied after a pause: "Kill (them) without mercy!"(杀无赦！)
An official, who was the Director of Commission for Discipline Inspection of Wuhan Province, was invited and shared his 20 years' experience dealing with the corrupt officials, and he said the most important thing is instruction and prevention(教育和预防). Some corrupt officials who have immunity from death are also good living materials of education.
It’s very dramatic that both sides of the debate deeply doubted about this method. The opponents insisted it's the system itself to blame and what we need to do is to "kill" the system and transform to a democratic and legal society. But the supporters thought that it's a far way to achieve. Even in the near future, it's still difficult to abolish the death penalty. To execute the corrupt officials was the last resort responding to our people.
During the debating, just as what I have said, the audiences always swing the little fan, and express their precious views.
One who came from the Law School of Renmin University of China raised a question: "What do you want to get and what have you actually got by kill them all? Why you resort to death penalty, which is so inhuman?" And he suggested that we could punish them by laboring for a lifetime in stead of the capital punishment, and the former might be even bitterer and more effective!
What he said was immediately attacked by a student from Law school of CUPL, who replied: "My fellow student, not ask what we want to get, but ask what the victims and people have got! Provided laboring for a lifetime is even bitterer, then I wish to choose death penalty."
After four hours' fierce debating with several breaks, the issue is still being unresolved. But it's much clearer that systematic problem is one thing, and the necessity of death penalty is more or less another thing.
By Helvmai, 2007．6．12
Revised, 6. 16
