滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[CHINA'S LONG ROAD TO DEATH PENALTY REFORM]
滕彪文集
·35个网评员对“这鸡蛋真难吃”的不同回答(转载加编辑加原创)
·Dissonance Strikes A Chord
·顺应历史潮流 实现律协直选——致全体北京律师、市司法局、市律协的呼吁
·但愿程序正义从杨佳案开始/滕彪 许志永
·维权的计算及其他
·我们对北京律协“严正声明”的回应
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(上)
·网络言论自由讨论会会议纪要(下)
·Well-Known Human Rights Advocate Teng Biao Is Not Afraid
·法眼冷对三鹿门
·北京律师为自己维权风暴/亚洲周刊
·胡佳若获诺贝尔奖将推动中国人权/voa
·奥运后的中国人权
·Chinese Activist Wins Rights Prize
·我无法放弃——记一次“绑架”
·认真对待出国权
·毒奶粉:谁的危机?
·不要制造聂树斌——甘锦华抢劫案的当庭辩护词
·“独立知识分子”滕彪/刘溜
·经济观察报专访/滕彪:让我们不再恐惧
·人权:从理念到制度——纪念《世界人权宣言》60周年
·公民月刊:每一个人都可能是历史的转折点
·抵制央视、拒绝洗脑
·公民在行动
·Charter of Democracy
·阳光茅老
·中国“黑监狱”情况让人担忧/路透社
·《关于取缔黑监狱的建议》
·用法律武器保护家园——青岛市河西村民拆迁诉讼代理词
·关于改革看守所体制及审前羁押制度的公民建议书
·仅仅因为他们说了真话
·再审甘锦华 生死仍成谜
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
·不只是问问而已
·甘锦华再判死刑 紧急公开信呼吁慎重
·就甘锦华案致最高人民法院死刑复核法官的紧急公开信
·我来推推推(之九)
·DON’T BE EVIL
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
CHINA'S LONG ROAD TO DEATH PENALTY REFORM

   https://www.amnesty.org/en/death-sentences-and-executions-2014/
   
   China threw out a number of death sentences in 2014, but is this a sign of real progress for the world’s top executioner? Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao comments.
   
   I co-founded the non-profit China Against the Death Penalty network in 2010 and have been involved in many death penalty cases. As a result, I know that acquittals are very rare in China’s flawed judicial system. So I was somewhat surprised that a number of death sentences and convictions were overturned last year.


   
   Hugjiltu, a teenager from Inner Mongolia, was one of them. He was cleared 18 years after his wrongful execution for murder.
   
   In Hugjiltu’s case, his family had tried for years to prove his innocence. In the case of Nian Bin, [a shopkeeper] who had been convicted of murder, it took three appeals and six years before the court ordered a retrial that ended in his high-profile acquittal last year. If this feels like a long time, the fact is the process typically takes far longer. I know of lawyers and family members who have gathered evidence and appealed for 20 years or longer, and who are still waiting.
   
   Playing to public opinion
   
   Despite these well publicized acquittals, I am still skeptical. These cases captured attention, but I don’t see them as progress – they are not signs of judicial or political reform. To some extent, the acquittals are aimed at appeasing public anger over miscarriages of justice. In reality, top leaders do not want meaningful change.
   
   Cases like Hugjiltu’s and Nian Bin’s reflect a problem with the whole judicial and legal system. Torture is strictly banned under Chinese law, but in practice it is very widespread. Police officers who use torture are rarely punished, and the evidence extracted by torture is used by judges even though the law forbids it. The main reason is that the judicial system is not independent. Another reason is that it is difficult for the media, which is controlled by the state, to report on cases of torture.
   
   A long way to go
   
   In China, any criticism of the State is highly sensitive. Human rights activists and lawyers have faced difficulties for speaking out on the death penalty. In fact, civil society as a whole in China is facing an increasingly shrinking space.
   
   Still, people are discussing the death penalty – mainly on the internet and through social media, which is difficult to fully monitor. People can also receive more information from outside China online, so as a result, more people are thinking about the issue. But because access to information is tightly controlled, most people still see the death penalty as necessary and do not support its abolition.
   
   China carries out the most executions in the world. In 2007, the Supreme People’s Court, China’s highest court, took back power to review death penalty cases. While scholars believe the number of death sentences has reduced since then, information on the death penalty is classified as a state secret, so no one knows for sure. We still have a long way to go.
   ----
   Teng Biao is one of China’s most outspoken critics of the death penalty. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at Harvard Law School.
(2015/04/02 发表)
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场