Research On Questions Regarding The Limitation Of Death Penalty On Drug Crimes

Drug crimes has been widely recognized by the world society as oneof the three “cancers”. However, only a handful of countries apply deathpenalty on drug crimes. Due to the historical and practical reasons, Chinahas been strict on the drug crimes, and death penalty has been an importantmeasure for striking drug crimes. Nevertheless, the harsh punishment hasnot deterred the expansion of the drug crimes. The reality hasdemonstrated that the effect of using death penalty to deter drug crimesis not prominent. By deeply reviewing the practical facts of theapplication of death penalty on drug crimes in China, the writer raisesthe necessity of limitation of death penalty on drug crimes, and alsoraises the opinion that limiting the application of death penalty on drugcrimes is the practical choice on the pre-condition that death penaltyis retained by legislation. The opinion will be illustrated in four parts,by the use of typical cases.Party one: the legislation change of the death penalty on drug crimes.In this part, the writer introduces the legislation change in China onthe death penalty on drug crimes, and the regulations of drug crimes inforeign countries. By comparing China and foreign legislations on drugcrimes, the writer concludes that China legislation on drug crimes is in the contrary to the world penal law trend.Part two: the deep review of application of death penalty on drugcrimes. First, by introducing the practical facts of application of deathpenalty on drug crimes in China and analyzing the current issues in theapplication of death penalty on drug crimes, reveals the two fundamentalreasons for the overuse of death penalty on drug crimes: one is theprinciple of harsh punishment in criminal legislation, the other is thetheory of harsh punishment in the criminal judicial practice. Second, dueto the various issues in legislation and judicial practice, people arestarting to re-think about the death penalty on drug crimes and itsapplication, thus further the necessity of limiting application of deathpenalty on drug crimes: one is that it fits the needs of protecting humanrights to limit death penalty on drug crimes；two is that it complies withthe criminal policy of “less killing, discreet killing” to limit deathpenalty on drug crimes；three is that it is also in line with the principleof sentencing compliance with crime to limit death penalty on drug crimes；four is that the death penalty is not efficient in deterring the drugcrimes；five is that death penalty is limited on the prevention of drugcrimes。Party three: the practical choice of application of death penalty ondrug crimes. At current stage that death penalty on drug crimes is notabolished, the practical choice is to limit on death penalty on drug crimes,which is illustrated mainly from three perspectives: uphold both strictpunishment and lenient treatment criminal policies, integrate theprinciples of crime by law and sentencing in compliance with crime,achieve the unite of legal effect and social effect. First perspective,from criminal law general principles, correctly understand the conditionsof application of death penalty in China criminal law, comprehensivelyconsider the sentencing conditions of the drug crimes cases, includingbut not limited to joint crime, legislative and discrete conditions on lenience. Second perspective, from criminal law distinctive principles,accurately hold the standard of application of death penalty on drugcrimes, strictly control the application of death penalty on the crimeof transporting drugs. Third perspective, illustrates the expansion ofapplication scope of the suspension of death penalty and not simplyapplying laws on specific groups of people, to achieve the unite of legaleffect and social effect.Part four: detailed thoughts on the application of death penalty ondrug crimes. Based on the reality in China, the writer raised some detailedthoughts from legislation and judicial practice perspectives on thelimitation of death penalty on drug crimes: first is to establish thejudicial theory of light and discreet sentencing; second is to legislatesome of the discrete conditions; third is to enhance the application ofproperty penalty.