** In the 90s of the last century, the image of the execution of death row prisoners in our country. In the picture, several deceased people are lined up and brought out of the car. They stood on the side of the road with signs with their names and crimes on their chests.
They had just been taken out of the public trial and sentencing meeting to be executed. After the police officers checked their identities, they heard an order, and gunshots rang out, and several prisoners fell forward.
This is the case of executions in China in the last century. So, how is the death penalty carried out in other countries?
China's Death Penalty History: From History to ModernizationAs one of the oldest civilizations in the world, the death penalty has had a significant impact on different historical stages in the course of thousands of years of history.
Since ancient times, China's death penalty has undergone many evolutions, and with the progress of society, China has paid more attention to the protection of human rights while seeking the warning role of the death penalty. In the social environment of ancient China, the death penalty was seen as a powerful tool for maintaining institutional governance and social stability.
Historical documents such as the Records of the Historians and the Book of Han show a rich and diverse landscape of death penalty enforcement and related legal systems. In feudal society, the harsh death penalty highlighted the supremacy of imperial power, such as the coexistence of the concept of "appeasement by virtue" and "power by punishment", which affected many aspects of the execution of the death penalty.
In some dynasties, such as the Tang Dynasty, the imposition of the death penalty had to be reviewed by the "Three Divisions" to ensure the fairness of the punishment. Despite the institutionalized scrutiny, the practice was heavily influenced by the social, cultural, and power dynamics of the time.
In the past and modern Chinese history, from the abolition of "Ling Chi" at the end of the Qing Dynasty to the frequent wars and chaos in the ** period, and then to the execution method after the founding of New China, they are all closely related to the stability and unity of the country and the construction of the rule of law.
Behind this change, it shows the continuous progress of China's penal civilization. However, in the period of frequent wars and separatism, the death penalty has become a tool in political struggles and warlord melees, and individual rights and the concept of the rule of law have not been fully respected.
After the founding of the People's Republic of China, although shooting was the main method of execution in China, before the establishment of the Criminal Code, the public trial and public judgment conference was still the main mode of trial, and the condemned prisoners were often shot on the spot after being tried by the law and the people.
During this process, police officers will carefully check the identity and name of the condemned prisoner, and the medical examiner will collect the body after the prisoner's death. These changes reflect the progress of China's penal civilization and respect for individual rights.
In 1997, the revision of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China represented a major turning point in China's modern death penalty system. The current revision strictly stipulates the types of crimes to which the death penalty applies and the definition of persons with criminal capacity, stresses the importance of justice in trial procedures, and all death penalty cases need to go through the trial supervision and death penalty review procedures of the Supreme People's Court.
In practice, the State's respect for the right to life and its cautious attitude towards the death penalty are also reflected. In recent years, lethal injection has become the main form of execution, with the aim of minimizing the suffering of death row inmates, showing a more humane side.
At the same time, China** has also opened up the trial process of some death penalty cases, improving transparency and showing the trend of progress in the rule of law. So, how do foreign countries deal with the death penalty?
The death penalty: from antiquity to modern times Since ancient times, the death penalty has existed in many civilized societies as the most severe form of punishment. In places like ancient Babylon, Rome, Egypt, and China, it was often used to punish felony crimes such as **, treason, and so on.
For example, the Hammarbi Code of Ancient Babylon details the capital offenses and the manner in which they are executed. In the Roman Empire, more brutal methods of execution, such as crucifixion and throwing into a lions, were more brutal.
Although the death penalty was widely used in that era, the manner in which it was carried out and the scope of its application were extremely barbaric and lacking in clear regulations. In medieval Europe, large-scale witch hunting campaigns led to the burning of a large number of innocent women at the stake.
In addition, the trial process is often linked to political and religious powers, and lacks scientific basis. By the time of the Enlightenment, controversy over the death penalty had emerged. French thinker Voltaire and British philosopher Bécrea, among others, began to advocate penal reform, arguing that the death penalty was unnecessary and ethically problematic.
In the 20th century, despite advances in technology and civilization, the death penalty remained the focus of global controversy. The importance attached to human rights by various countries, the scientific and humanistic nature of punishment, and the adjustment of international relations have all prompted in-depth reflection on the rationality of the death penalty.
In the 19th century, the issue of the death penalty was widely debated in England. In the 20th century, the two world wars brought people a deep reflection, and the value of life and the concept of resistance to violence became more deeply rooted in the hearts of the people.
In 1965, the United Kingdom passed legislation to halt executions for a limited period of time. With the evolution of social attitudes and feedback from legal practice, the United Kingdom completely abolished the death penalty in 1998 through the Bill of Rights, which marked a new level of respect for human rights in the United Kingdom.
In North America, Canada officially abolished the death penalty in 1976, which is not only an important recognition of human rights, but also the result of decades of public opinion polls and legal changes on the death penalty in Canada, which fully reflects Canada's respect for and protection of human rights.
In the United States, however, the debate on the death penalty is multifaceted. The U.S. federal government has not abolished the death penalty, and each state has the authority to decide whether or not to carry out the death penalty within its jurisdiction.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the current method of carrying out the death penalty was unconstitutional"Prevent cruelty and abnormal punishment"Article. However, some states have reinstated the death penalty by amending laws and adjusting the way they are carried out, while respecting the Constitution.
In post-war Germany, reconstruction encompassed not only the economy and society, but also morality and the rule of law. Germany's complete abolition of the death penalty in its post-war legal system reflects a deep respect for human rights, dignity and the value of life.
In contrast, Japan retains the death penalty. Although the death penalty is rarely carried out in Japan, its legitimacy and existence are still seen as a tool for maintaining social justice and order in some major criminal cases.
Globally, the issue of the death penalty goes beyond the legal realm and involves multiple dimensions of morality, ethics, society and international relations. Whether or not there will be mistakes in the death penalty will depend on the improvement of the level of social civilization, the strengthening of international cooperation, and the in-depth promotion of the concept of the rule of law.
New Copy: William Dues's Journey to Life and Death: The Harsh Reality of an Electric Chair Mistake William Dues, a young American who was sentenced to death in 1946 for a crime of **, reveals a serious question in the execution of the death penalty: Does a wrongful execution constitute a double danger or an unduly cruel punishment?
In 1946, Douese underwent his execution in the electric chair, but due to a malfunction in the electric chair equipment, he survived despite the suffering of electric shocks.
A year later, Duez was brought to the electric chair again, and although his lawyer insisted that another attempt to carry out the death penalty violated the Constitution's prohibition of cruelty and extraordinary punishment, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by a vote of 5-4, and Duez died in the second execution in 1947.
Duès's case provokes deep reflection on the ethics of execution. When a death sentence fails, does the re-execution constitute a double danger or an unduly cruel punishment?
This is an issue that requires in-depth discussion and reflection by society.
In 2009, Romil Brooklins of Ohio, USA, tried to execute by lethal injection, although the injectors spent two hours searching for a suitable vein, but were unsuccessful.
Eventually, the governor pardoned his death sentence and extended it. However, despite his temporary survival after the failure of the first execution, Brooklyns' fate did not change as a result, and he faced the death penalty again in 2020 and was eventually executed.
His case sheds light on the technical and ethical challenges that may be faced in carrying out lethal injection, and has sparked widespread discussion and questioning about this method of execution. In 2014, Joseph Wood of Arizona was similarly faced with the dilemma of being executed by lethal injection.
The execution lasted well beyond the expected 15 minutes and lasted nearly two hours, during which Wood struggled and had difficulty breathing on several occasions. Although he eventually died, the case has reignited controversy over the humanity of the way the death penalty was carried out.
The two-hour execution process has aroused widespread concern and discussion in society, and more questions have been raised about the morality and humanity of the execution.
Critics accuse the long and painful process of the death penalty as a clear violation of constitutional principles prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Wood's case raises questions about the different combinations of drugs used in various states in the United States and their efficacy.
In 1983, John Evans of Alabama suffered three electric shocks in an electric chair and still did not die. After the first shock, doctors determined that he still had signs of life, and then he suffered in the second and third shocks, respectively.
The incident has raised deep questions across the country about the morality of the death penalty and the use of electric chairs. In John Evans' case, although he died after three electric shocks, the process was extremely painful and brutal, and thus became a key point of contention in the use of the electric chair.
For opponents, Evans' death is a stark demonstration of the brutality of the electric chair; Proponents may argue that this is an appropriate punishment for serious offenders.
Regardless of which side he is on, Evans' case has sparked a social debate about the morality of the death penalty and how it should be executed. These examples have become important cases in the history of the development of the death penalty.
After reading the above cases, what do you think about the death penalty in various countries? Feel free to leave a message in the comment section to share your views.