Zheng Xiaoyu was executed this week. The former head of China's food and
drug administration lost his appeal to the Supreme People's Court, according
to the Times of London, "in an unusually swift legal process clearly
intended to warn other Communist Party officials that those found guilty of
corruption will not be spared."
Zheng had allegedly received bribes in exchange for approving dangerous or
otherwise sketchy drugs. One fake antibiotic has been linked to at least 10
deaths in China, and that appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming the charges are true, few should weep for Minister Zheng.
Zheng's execution received ample coverage around the world. But, as best I
can tell, there has been next to no outrage about it. Major news outlets
that usually have human rights groups and death penalty opponents on speed
dial seem content to treat this as a business story or as a window into the
otherworldly realm that is China.
The silence over the obvious implications of Zheng's execution is both
conspicuous and telling.
Haven't we been told for decades - with reams of statistics at the ready -
that the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent?
So why are so many people willing to accept the Chinese government's
position that Zheng's execution is a necessary tool in combating corruption?
Are Chinese bureaucrats some subspecies of human being uniquely susceptible
to this sort of suasion? Or is it that American murderers are uniquely
immune to such threats?
My guess is that the comparative silence over the Zheng case can be chalked
up to tactical considerations. There are so many more politically useful
death penalty victims. Wasting a lot of time on Zheng would be
counterproductive. When transparently guilty serial killers and child
murderers are executed, death penalty opponents rarely pound the table as
loudly as when guilt is less clear-cut or when the convict in question is
more politically convenient.
Continued... |