China Sentences Bank Cracker/Thief to Death

Many submitted this brief Excite News item: two Chinese brothers pulled a $87,000 bank robbery by cracking the bank's computers. One brother talked and got off. The other got a death sentence. Slashdot reader malroth commented, "Now MAYBE theft of $87,000 constitutes a crime worth execution in China, but i find it hard to imagine. This is sheer speculation, but i presume that what ticked off the Chinese judiciary was the hacking part of the crime."

Comments

Re:Chi-Com barbarism should surprise no one.

[Stonehand]

Socialism. Again, it's no more Communist than, say, those who worship Minerva as God can claim themselves to be Christian (which has also been tried...).

Chinese communism stemmed out of nationalism and disgust with the corrupt ruling regime; it's no coincidence that Lenin and Mao both strengthened their followings during wartime suffering. It was never a worker's revolution; heck, China was not heavily industrialized beforehand -- hence the 5 Year Plans in an attempt to build up heavy industry.

Government ownership by the few Party members -- that's Socialism. Communism would require vast party membership encompassing the entire proletariat, with shared production -- and that has never been done on even the scale of Soviet Russia, let alone the PRC.

The Evil of Capital Punishment

[lohen]

Capital Punishment is, to my mind, an ineffective policy that causes needless suffering. This is merely a case of it being used for an exceptionally petty crime. The principle, however, holds true whatever the offence. The flaws with capital punishment are basically as follows: Vital evidence may not come to light until after the individual has been executed, therefore making the jurisdiction guilty of killing innocent people. Even with the US's hugely complex and drawn out appeals system, this has been shown to occur over there with a significant frequency, and most other countries take less time and effort over it. Capital Punishment has yet to be shown to limit the offences which it punishes upon institution. Therefore it is just as effective to lock the felons up, and killing them is wholely unnecessary. Somebody has to be employed to execute the condemned man/woman. Basically, the legal system paying people to kill defenseless individuals. In the US, where extensive appeals procedures are in place, it often costs more to kill the criminal than to lock him/her up. Juries might be more likely to find guilty people innocent if they know that by finding them guilty they may be killing them. To sum up, capital punishment is unethical, expensive and unfair. In my firmly held opinion, it serves only to satisfy the bloodlust of those who consider themselves 'righteous'.

Re:"Making examples" of people should be illegal.

[Zoltar]

Agreed. Let the punishment fit the crime. This is a noble statement that probably any sane person would agree with.

Now... If the puishment for going 10 MPH over the speed limit was 10 years in jail I would say that is totaly unfair. However if I choose to go 10 MPH over the speed limit then I had better be prepared to serve that sentence. In fact I would have to be some kind of a complete moron to exceed the speed limit by 10 MPH knowing that I'm gonna give up 10 years of my life.

To summarize my point: Yes the punishment should fit the crime; so don't commit the crime. It's really not that difficult.

Re:Law and Order in China

[rebrane]

This is absolutely wrong. While today's system of punishment in China isn't exactly the same as the one instated 2,200 years ago, it's damn near the same as the one a hundred years ago (Communist revolution was in 1949 for the history-impaired). (In fact, the modern Chinese 'bullet to the back of the head' is relatively humanitarian compared to the process of Leng T'Che, abolished in the 1900s, in which they would give the criminal opium to prolong his life and cut all of his limbs off.) Your single example is both uncommon and given the wrong emphasis. If it's even true, which I am not convinced of, the man will not have a particular normal life from now on. He will be unable to find a job due to the stigma from the tattoo on his face and will have to turn to either begging, working in an inner-city without governmental authorization (registration card), or stealing. In any case, he'll be arrested again and probably executed the next time. Nonetheless, in China, this is a 'very light sentence.'

To your last point: Would you say there are any 'wealthy and stable societies' which are not flatly Western? I can't think of any non-Western countries that have what you call a 'reasonable judiciary system,' which means that you should probably call it a 'Western judiciary system.' Maybe you think Western means reasonable, but this is a global forum.

$87,000 may be your ANNUAL salary...

[maroberts]

..but whilst there are a few wealthy people in China the average per capita income is extremely low, so it could probably be compared to stealing several million dollars in the US.

You also have to remember that a lot of countries look with repugnance on the US use of the death penalty. For example in Britain, murder has not been a capital offence since the 1960's and AFAIK we've even got rid of hanging for the treason, piracy and arson in HM dockyards, which were the last offences for which there was a capital penalty. Anyway I do believe that, whilst human rights should be an international issue, punishment of felony type crimes should generally be a national issue and up to the government concerned.

I personally don't know whether the death penalty should be used for any crime - on the one hand I think the death penalty should be an option for murder cases, yet on the other I am aware of the potential for mistakes in the judicial system. I think the US has the worst of both worlds, where it allows use of the death penalty, yet takes more legal time and money to execute someone than it would to use life sentencing instead.

Re:This is excessive.

[Stonehand]

If memory serves, it may have been at least partly an inside job -- i.e. at least one of the brothers was an employee.

The standard penalty for embezzlement over there is death, hacking or no. That's also common for large amounts of theft regardless of means.

Re:Chi-Com barbarism should surprise no one.

[MattXVI]

You can call it whatever you like. Totalitarian socialism, neo-Proudhonist Wankerism, I don't care. A socialist movement would vote itself into office. Communism is extreme, abrupt socialism that doesn't ask first before shitting all over a nation. Has it occured to you that perhaps socailism has changed since Karl Marx was hanging out at the British Library? Why is is that all of the governments the world knows as communist all act like the Chinese did? You are trying to pick a nit to make a minor philosophical point, while ignoring the fact that international communism as a political phenomena is not what you think it is.

fairly

[physic]

Actually, it is quite common to sentence
theives to death in China. Not that I condone
it, but citizens of China certainly aren't surprised by the sentence.

$87,000 is $87,000...

[retep]

Well I agree that if stealing $87,000 should be enough to get the death penalty then those crackers should get the death penalty.

But I don't believe in the death penalty. There is too high a chance of you getting the wrong person...

No honor amoung theives

[root_dev_X]

OK, now this just makes me sick. They two crackers were _BROTHERS_, and one of them still ratted the other one out. Is there no hope for the underground community? It's bad enough when hacker goes against hacker, but brother against brother? that's just sick. ... and i blame it all on the AOL kiddies ;P

This is excessive.

[dodobh]

So now stealing becomes a capital offfence? Much as I would like to severe punishment for *crackers*, I don't think that the death penalty is going to work. And his brother was let off for turning state witness? How many years is he going to spend in prison? Capital punishment should be reserved for murder (and maybe rape) but not for simple stealing. Even Islamic law is not as bad as this. You merely lose your hand.

Re:This is excessive.

[AlphaHelix]

One school of thought thinks that criminals must be punished as much as required so that they are corrected or something.

Hm, very "insightful." There are, in fact,
three different justifications for typical penal systems, as I was just discussing with my girlfriend last night.

Preventative: If I perpetrate this crime, I will be forced to do something unpleasant, so I will not perpetrate this crime.

Rehabilatative: I committed a crime, so now I am in this program that will teach me that my ways were bad, and give me a chance a a new life.

Punitive: You committed a crime, and now you'll pay for it.

The major reason for most of the confusion about our penal system and whether certain types of punishments are justified is that our constitution and our laws do not make it clear which of the above is the aim of our penal system, and, in fact, nobody knows. Some examples:

• Proponents of the death penalty generally think of it as preventative. Opponents of the death penalty think that it's primarily punitive. Letting the parents of a slain child watch as the killer is executed strongly argues that it's punitive.
• The state of New York charges some absurdly high cost for long distance calls from state prisons, like $1.25 a minute or something. Is it right to exploit inmates like this? That depends. If the punishment is preventative, then sure, it's fine. if it's rehabiltative, then it's not. The widespread use of the word "correctional facility" implies that it's intended to be rehabilitative, but the explotation of prisoners for slave labor implies otherwise.
  • 
    * mild mannered physics grad student by day *

Re:This is excessive.

[MattXVI]

When has stealing NOT been a capital offense in China, and a host of other countries? I'm (certainly!) not defending them, but this has been the norm there.

Of course, this isn't as bad as when Pol Pot (A Communist revolutionary) killed all the people he could find in Cambodia who wore glasses because he wanted to eliminate the "intellectuals" from his country. That would be "News for Nerds!" You might think this is just ignorant savagery, but he studied Political Science at the prestigous University of Paris, Sorbonne.

Re:This is excessive.

[warlock]

First of all, I don't believe in the death penalty. Over here (Greece) nobody was sentenced to death for decades, and the last couple of them are serving for life instead of being executed.

However, one must distinguish between the two schools of thought when it comes to punishment:

One school of thought thinks that criminals must be punished as much as required so that they are corrected or something.

The other school of thought thinks of sentences are more effective if they're used as means to make people think twice about comitting a crime.

I'm not gonna argue about which is better or which increases the happiness/lawfullness quotient of a society, but consider this example:

Illegal parking is a Bad Thing. Usually you merely get a ticket for a few bucks or something, right?

Now consider Illegal parking in front of a fire exit or something. Is it sufficient to merely issue a parking ticket to that offender? If a fire occured on that building, many people could die simply because he decided that he could ignore the sign and risk the lifes of other people until he got his job done across the street or whatever.

Followers of the secnod school of thought would probably propose very radical punishment for such a crime, say 5 years or someting. This of course doesn't make sense to the followers of the first school of thought, since its to severe a punishment (unless a fire really occured and people really died because of the offenders negligence)

Now, assume that the law said that if you park in an area designated specificaly as a fire exit and thus block it, you'll be sentenced to no less than 5 years, fire or no fire.

You'd be a bloody fool and asking for it if you parked there, and deserve to do 5 years. Extreme laws like this can save lifes, since I fail to imagine a moron go what the heck, I'll park here, I might get 5 years for that but so what. In that light, severe penalties (defined by law) aren't fascist - they serve a purpose.

So, don't think of punishment just as a *correctional* measure for the criminal, but think of it as a *proactive* measure to reduce criminal activity.

I mean, would you consider stealing 87,000 bucks while in China now? Hell no!

Think.

-W

Re:This is excessive.

[EAVY]

I mean, would you consider stealing 87,000 bucks while in China now? Hell no!

Would you consider murdering somebody in the USA? No way! But... there's a problem: Criminals usually believe their plan is safe and they won't be caught. As long as you expect to be caught, you will be careful not to do something stupid. But once you're absolutely sure about pulling off the coup, the punishment is often forgotten since it's expected that it can't apply in your case.

Take software piracy: No matter if it's legally okay or not, it's illegal, and there are severe penalties. Do they prevent it? No, pirates always assume they won't be caught! I think this is a similar situation, I'm not saying it's justified, though.

And remember negligence: It won't save anyone, but draconian punishment could ruin someone who simply forgot or overlooked something, punishment should be appropriate instead of excessive.

The death sentence is barbaric

[The Mayor]

IMHO, it is *always* wrong to put someone to death, regardless of the reasons. I understand that society must make rules (laws) to keep some semblance of order. I understand that society must punish those that violate the rules. However, the death sentence is, quite simply, not a form of punishment. Punishment implies that the person will (hopefully) change as a result of the punishment. The death sentence is, quite simply, a vindictive action. There is no element of punishment in it.

Oddly enough, the US is one of the few nations in the "first world" (sorry if this terms offends--I'm not sure how else to state it) that still has capital punishment. When we see an issue like this from China, it should be used as a wakeup call to show how barbaric we, ourselves, are (that is, we in America).

Re:The death sentence is barbaric

[Stonehand]

No.

Changing is rehabilitation; punishment includes vengeance and deterrence, as well.

The judicial system basically is an immune system; there are folks who may be reformable, but there are those who are definitely, completely, utterly, beyond redemption -- and some of these will even admit it and *ask* for capital punishment. It is unrealistic to believe that all criminals can be changed for the better... and at that point, it is more reasonable to eliminate the threat, permanently.

A traditional example is espionage by an illegal. In ideological or mercenary cases, in contrast to those resulting from blackmail or perhaps false-flag duplicity and manipulation, a trusted individual has made a conscious decision to betray his people. Not only that, but he must maintain this deception, willingly; and instead work against those who would help him -- sometimes for periods of decades. Ideological agents in particular often fail to be repentant in the slightest...

The extremity of the punishment is noted. That is why, unlike numerous other nations, the US system of justice has a large number of safeguards. In particular, the system is relatively open to the public for observation, and invites random people to serve as jurors. To corrupt the entire system of judges, jurors and police is difficult; there are simply far too many. In addition, appeals are permissible, to the point where prisoners on death row have appealed on the grounds that they have been on death row for over a decade -- largely because of their appeals.

Has it ever gone wrong? Yes, and it will again; but in exchange, the most unrepentant and incorrigible are prevented from repeating their crimes on others; given that there ARE such people, and will be, some price *will* be paid -- death penalty or no. The main question is by whom.

And don't bother using loaded arguments like "barbaric". Emotion has no place in rational discussions. Using the word "wrong" would make you seem more reasonable.

What about per capita executions?

[ToastyKen]

It's hardly fair to say China has the most executions since it's got over 1/5th of the world's population.

Perhaps it'd be more fair to count PER CAPITA executions? I would be surprised if China still ranks first then.

Re:What about per capita executions?

[Stonehand]

Erm, they probably still do -- in numbers, and in ruthlessness. They normally don't allow one to, say, appeal for 10+ years if they decide to shoot you; and celebrity fan appeals don't mean squat -- as they shouldn't. For instance, according to the "Death Penalty Information Center", an anti-DP site, the total number of executions in the US from 1976 to 1998 reached 500. That's 22 *years*. See their report for details... that's a vastly lower per-capita rate.

Remember that this is a country which essentially celebrated the UN Anti-Drug Day by executing narcotics traffickers. Life has a significantly lower value there.

Following this logic

[Dacta]

You're right, it's not a deterrent. None whatsoever. Because of this, I feel that they should be put to death. I dunno, I'm still not saying kill all bad people, but maybe, one chance. If after threat of death they are still committing crimes, then they should be put to death.

Now, since you have already been in jail (ie, had your one chance), next time you break the speed limit and are caught, you will die, right?

Oh... it would only apply to violent crimes I hear you say.

Okay, you drive round a corner, and accidently hit a kid in the middle of the road.. you're okay, right? But what if the kids father runs out waving a gun? He's going to shoot you - what do you do? Drive off? That's hit and run - and there are witnesses. You die!!!! Okay.. you're going to stay. You talk to the guy and try and calm him down - there's his kid lying on the road and you're there saying "It's going to be okay" he's crying, he's waving this gun around... you try and sit him down, and he (being distressed) thinks you're attacking him. Bang! The gun goes off, and he's dead. Manslaughter.. you die.

Imagine none of the gun stuff had happened, but the police had proven by the length of the skid marks you were driving too fast. You die.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work like "one chance and you're out". Life isn't a game of quake - taking someone elses life is a very bad thing, always, no matter what they have done.

In case you hadn't guessed, I'm not a supporter of the death penelty. Since you people over in the US are so enthusiatic about it, I'm not going to argue with you about it for really, really bad crimes. But One strike and you're snuffed? How anyone can even think that and claim to be civilised is beyond me.

Moderators... do you're worse. It's not meant as flamebait, but I believe strongly in this and I'm prepared to burn some Karma on it...

Re:Death?

[Issue9mm]

If by some criminals, you mean only the most hardened - here's the kicker. They generally fall into two categories:

A: Those that don't have any concern for their own life, or

B: Those that don't think they'll ever be caught.

In either case, the death threat isn't a deterrent.

You're right, it's not a deterrent. None whatsoever. Because of this, I feel that they should be put to death. I dunno, I'm still not saying kill all bad people, but maybe, one chance. If after threat of death they are still committing crimes, then they should be put to death.

Martyrdom I don't think is that big a factor. At least not in my experience. Most people I know, sane or otherwise are wanting to or even willing to get themselves killed for a cause. Yes, there are a few, but not most. And probably not too many in this country (America).

What an increadibly American world view.

[Dacta]

This kids are probably kept in stone cells, with no electricity. They are fed once a day if they are lucky, and have already been beaten.

The one who is going to die will probably be killed before the new year, especially if there is some rich foreginer who needs his organs.

They don't get phone calls, and they don't get visits. They will be shown on TV saying how bad they were, and then the one who dies will be lead out and shot.

You do realise that if someone needs his coronas (sp?) they shoot him in such a way it doesn't damage his eyes?

There is one organ that can only be trasplanted (normally) if both people are still alive... so the guards are directed to shoot him in the head, but in a location where the bullet passes between the lobes of the brain (I think that is how it works). Anyway, then the doctors remove the organ, and the guy is left to die.

Even if what you said was supposed to be a joke, it's not real funny.

If you were serious, go and help amnesty international.

People are killed for much less...

[debreuil]

Having lived there for a few years, just wanted to point out that people are killed for much less. I watched the 'trial' of a ring of tv theives in Xinning, 3 men two women, all found guilty. Not suprising given that there was only a prosecutor present. Anyway, they don't actually kill people in public. They parade then around town for awhile, and then shoot them in the back of the head one by one somewhere else.

Everyone seems to figure this guy was killed because it was a computer crime, but in reality the only reason anyone is shocked is that it was a computer crime. Computer people somehow figure if they steal with a computer it they should be let free. Mostly because they use computers I would guess.

Anyway, dont be too alarmed, per capita Texas is smoking the PRC, and per capita incarceration is much lower there too. In fact the crime rate in general is way lower. I actually spent a few weeks being detained there without being raped in a shower or becoming a junkie. The death penalty is just as stupid on this side of the ocean, don't kid yourself.

Re:Chi-Com barbarism should surprise no one.

[elflord]

I am not clear on which leftist policies China are embracing. The fact that they are ultra "big government" may make them totalitarian but not leftist. They certainly aren't leftist in the sense of striving to distribute wealth equitably ( actually, the biggest class-bigots I know are CHinese ). Their criminal justice policy is more like a hard line right policy ( kind of like a conservative judge's ideals on a very bad day ) than a leftist policy. There is a clearly defined class heirarchy, and a corrupt government hell-bent on keeping most of the nations wealth in the hands of a few. They do not have labor laws that protect the rights of their working people. Overall, I find it very hard to see what they have in common with any government that could legitimately call itself "leftist".

As for "communist", I believe you are confusing this with the word "totalitarian". They are becoming more and more like a capitalist totalitarian nation ( much like Singapore is today )

Remember the USA?

[Dacta]

Remember Vietnam, Dictators in South America, Dictators in Africa?

Remember the experiments done with exposure to Nuclear radiation?

Remember how the Iran/Iraq war was kept going for seven years beacuse the USSR was worried about Iran, and the USA was worried about Iraq?

BTW, we here in Australia sometime have a Socialist govenment.

France, Sweden and England all have or have had socialist govenments.

Socialist Communist!

Different perspectives

[Noel McK]

I was a grad assistant several years ago, and we all had cubicles in a large common area. The mainland Chinese grad assistants were absolutely abhorred that they had to worry about theft in their cubicles. One Chinese student said to me "In China I could leave everything on my desk all day and never worry about coming back and finding it stolen. If someone stole my calculator and got caught, they'd be shot in the head." He was proud of this and felt it was the "right" way. It was interesting that he was as disgusted by theft as I am by capital punishment.

You are probably right.

[Spazmoid]

The death sentence is more than likely because the govenment is scared of anybody putting hacking (or cracking in this case) skills to malicious use. The chinese government is of course communist and keeps MUCH inorfmation that they want the public to have no access to. Hell the don't even want the public to know it exsists.

As for the punishment of death, it is probably more merciful than life in some cold, starved, wet, cramped, abusive dungeon that they dare to call a prison. If you think our prison system is bad check out China's or Turkey's. Death is more than likely an easier way to go.

Sorry if this double posted.. I am on a really crappy connection.

Re:You are probably right.

[MattXVI]

Talk about having no clue. What the Hell is this True Communism? Have you ever seen one? Has a government ever employed one? NO! No more than a government could employ a True Capitalism. It's funny, you call your imaginary Communism "REAL", and you call the Real Communism (all the ones that have actually existed) imaginary. I think you are the troll.

Prisoner's dilemma

[pi31415]

I wonder whether, if neither brother had talked, the appeal would have been sucessful. If so, this looks like a classic instance of the prisoner's dilemma being acted out in real life.

I expect that they got death because they stole from a state bank. They didn't have much choice, since (almost?) all banks in China are run by the government, but had they instead stolen from an american or other foreign bank, I bet that they'd have gotten off more lightly.

The punishment probably did not have much to do with the fact that it was a computer crime -- rather the Chinese government probably saw robbing from them as close to treason.

A bank robber by any other name.

[SetupWeasel]

You shouldn't assume that just because something that seems excessive happens to a hacker in China of all places that it is because that person is a hacker.

Last time I checked China is still communist, and communist countries have been known to do rather nasty things for rather insignificant acts (like protesting in Tienniman (sp?) Square for instance). You have to remember that Chins is a whole other country.

Re:A bank robber by any other name.

[MattXVI]

Okay, then, smartypants. Why does Communism always end up being run by an evil dictator? I give you Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro.. do you want more? And all the other ones whose names we don't associate with widespread evil were just as bad on a smaller scale. A little invasion of Afghanistan here, a little rebellion in Angola and Ethiopia there... Go ahead, spring to the defense of Communism if you can name one benvolent regime that has employed it. It is not a "common misconception", it is an historical fact!

Re:A bank robber by any other name.

[MattXVI]

Well, I could say Catholic monasteries, too. But like kibbutzim, they are entirely voluntary, small, and not really autonomous regimes at all.

Re:Crimes against the state...

[Stonehand]

They'll shoot you for tax evasion, and about 67 other offenses, at least.

Literally.

See Amnesty International's report on the death penalty in China.

It is most emphatically not the computer aspect.

Crimes against the state...

[alexhmit01]

As it was a Chinese State Bank (I doubt that there are privately owned banks in China, but with the SEZs, Special Economic Zones, I have no idea, and haven't really kept up), it was a crime against the state.

In a Communist Nation, is there any greater crime that stealing from the state? As everything is owned "by the people," his robbery was a crime against the people of China. That, arguably, is a capital crime.

In a Western Nation (private ownership), when you steal from someone, there is a criminal and civil element. Ultimately, you stole from a single individual, and while the state has a vested interest in protecting people from each other, it isn't the victim, which warrants a lesser penalty.

In a Communist Nation, everyone is supposed to work towards the common good. Someone betrayed that trust by taking from the community instead of contributing to it. Arguably, that warrants the death penalty.

Mostly playing Devil's advocate here,
Alex

P.S. I don't advocate the Communist mindset, but I'm giving my view on how you have to treat the crime based upon that philosophy. I realize that China does not live up to the Communist ideals, but I'm going to assume that it writes its laws with them in mind.

Re:Crimes against the state...

[MattXVI]

Well, in the US you can't get anything but time in Federal Prison if you a) Rob millions from a federal Reserve bank, b) steal from a military base, or c) steal anything from any other government organization. These are all owned "by the people". All such thefts would have been from "the community".

Re:China and extreme tactics

[MattXVI]

I don't know if China does that, but that cannibal Communist dictator from Uganda.. Oh what's his name.. Oh It was Idi Amin. He was a bastard.

Hacking scares opressive gonvernments!

[RNG]

I really doubt that the amount of money involved has anything to do with them passing the death sentence. Consider that China is a country where an all-powerful elite (the communist party) has access to all resources. If you look at most other (post)communist countries, corruption is rampant and reaches into (the) high(est) levels of government. While I'm no great expert on the Chinese situation, the little I hear about this seems to point at the fact that China is as bad (corruption wise) as all/most other (post)communist countries.

As such the dollar amound involved is not a big deal. If it were, a large number of Chinese officials would be very scared (of course they have their connections, but you get my point). What probably scared the Chinese (govt.) was that hacking is not only a threat to their fincancial system but much more: Hacking is (in their eyes) a threat to national security. In countries like China, an amazaing amount of (seemingly trivial) things are classified as state secrets. Hacking has to potential to attack this secrecy at the core and distribute whatever (sensitive) data world wide at the press of a button. It challenges the supreme access/control of the elite (communist party) over the flow of information; a bit No-No in the eyes of this very elite. No, governments do no like you divulging their secrets and China, having the type of government they do, is almost certain to be one of the countries most pissed off by this ...

In an ideal world, there would be no secrets. In our world, (if you're in the wrong place) you get shot (or at least thrown into jail (if you're lucky))for divulging (so called classified) information ... welcome to the 3rd millenium ...

China is worlds largest executioner

[Anonymous Coward]

[From FHM magazine...] Apprently in 97, they executed a 1,876. Capital offences include pig theft & VAT receipt theft. One women was killed for sticking thorns into the buttocks of passing cyclists.
Also, they are killed in public, with crowds of 20,000. "[They are] shot in the back of the head - to service the rpadily growing shoot-to-order organ tranpslant business."

Nothing New

[Coward, Anonymous]

China has sentenced two crackers to death for stealing $31,400 from a bank. China executes a lot of criminals. For those who haven't seen the videos, they hold mass executions where there are around a hundred prisoners on their knees in a field with a guard behind each of them, they are all shot in the head simultaneously.

Re:Can you back this up?

[MattXVI]

Do you read the Hong Kong newspapers? I read the Far Eastern Economic Review, which is their Wall Street Journal - A paper of record. They have published many stories about the extraordinary severity of the criminal justice system in China. Go to the library.

Even worse than their summary execution, arguably, is their vast sytem of Logai, which are miserable torture and prison camps. This is their version of the Gulag, for those of you who read Solzhenitsyn. People are sent there to be worked to death, so that we in the US can buy cheap Made in China shoes. You can be sent there for life if you do so much as go to Mass at a Church that is not State-sponsored. Do you want a source for that, too? Harry Wu, a high-profile Chinese emigre who tours the US showing his photos of the Logai and telling about his experiences there as a prisoner, where he saw men tortured and executed for such crimes as being a Catholic priest.

Hacking out of jail.

[Money__]

They'll have plenty of time to think about what they've done while they spend there days waisting away in a jail, while trying to smuggle in an acoustic coupler that fits the payphone in the visitors lobby.

They'll be thinking about there offences against the state while they hack a palm III port to talk to the acoustic coupler.

They'll have all the time in the world to ponder there wrong doing while they fake email headers in a spam campain protesting there imprisonment.

They'll have time to think about it, as they email news agencies world wide(/.) calling attention to there plight.

They'll feel sorry for the offence against the people while world-wide public distain for there 'false imprisonment' builds into protests in the streets.

Under presure from the grown public protest, they'll be released and become heros to the hacker comunity in China.

Re: Things aren't so bad now

[Zopilote]

From someone who has spent enough time in China to say with a fair amount of certainty, things are much better in China now. Sure, during the Cultural Revolution of the 60s and 70s there was bizarre, cruel and extremely oppressive treatment of those who disagreed. But now even the Chinese themselves call those the "ten years of chaos" when no one was safe. Since Deng Xiaoping came in and brought the government to a more sane and moderate position, there has been a lot more freedom and many prisoners unjustly condemned were released (not all, unfortunately). The 1989 incident in Tiananmen Square was the beginning of a bit of a swing back to the extreme left, but lately things have been getting better again.

What is to keep China from going back to another Cultural Revolution? Well, no one would buy it anymore. The Cultural Revolution happened because so many people made a personality cult out of Mao. Mao's dead, and people cynicism toward Marxism is at an all-time high. The only reason China stays as far left as it does is because there are still many old-thought rulers in power. As they are replaced by younger generations, you can be sure things will continue to improve in China.

Things aren't all fine and dandy in China. But compared to twenty years ago, the Chinese feel very free. And it's only going to get better, I think, although perhaps making one step back for every two or three forward.

As for being thrown in prison for attending a non-State church, that happens only rarely. It is not official policy to do so, but unfortunately the policy is vague enough that some local Party leaders who are militant atheists interpret the policy to fit their own dislike for religions. That too is improving as education is spread about the official policy on religious freedom. Ideally, the policy itself would be more clear, but it is not likely to be changed in the near future.

"Islamic law" correction..

[TurkishGeek]

Even Islamic law is not as bad as this. You merely lose your hand.

There is no such thing as "Islamic law". The Holy Koran is not a law book. The thing that's being called "Islamic law" by non-secular Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran) is a merely a bunch of terrible laws, conjured by some mullahs based on their false interpretation of Koran. It is more of a repressive tool rather than a law-i.e. adultery is a crime in so-called "Islamic" Saudi Arabia, yet male members of the royal family can easily build huge harems by importing European models without any punishment. You can easily, legally and safely hire a prostitute in a posh Iranian hotel by simply arranging a "mu'ta", a temporary Islamic marriage made up by Iranian interpreters of Koran.

Koran is interpreted differently by secular Islamic countries and their law system is devoi of any references to Islam.


--

BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.

Re:"Islamic law" correction..

[TurkishGeek]

Wow..This is the second reply this week from a celebrity, my posts got replies from both Michael K. Johnson and now you. Just wait I get the attention of Alan Cox and ultimately Linus..

Seriously though, I am a Muslim but I have been raised in the most secular Islamic country in the world, Turkey. This might have shaped my notion of Islamic laws and the Shari'a.

Secular Muslim societies may choose not to use the Shari'a as the base of their legal framework, but that doesn't change the fact that such a base exists. Devout Muslims in secular socities will still recognize the Shari'a and consider themselves bound by the requirements the Shari'a places on individuals, even if they are living in a society which doesn't adhere to the Shari'a's communal rules.

This is right on. What I'm saying is that the content of Shari'a is highly subject to interpretation of the clergy. A devout Muslim only responsible for obeying what's written in the Koran plus Sunna, but even Sunna is not very clear. I doubt refusing the Shari'a as a replacement for law makes one an infidel.

To summarize, I agree with your points; Shari'a exists, and it's indeed used as the basis of all laws in non-secular Islamic countries. I don't believe it justifies the use of the phrase "Islamic laws" for Shari'a. Our religion has been associated with so many negative things over the years (seen any action flicks recently where the terrorist is not a Muslim or a Russian??) that I just could not stand hearing people believe that Islam orders the punishment of thieves by dismembering the hands. This is simply not true.

Thanks for the discussion, and good luck in your IPO. As if you needed any.
--

BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.

Re:"Islamic law" correction..

[tytso]

There is no such thing as "Islamic law". The Holy Koran is not a law book. The thing that's being called "Islamic law" by non-secular Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran) is a merely a bunch of terrible laws, conjured by some mullahs based on their false interpretation of Koran.

That's actually not so. Muslims believes that the Qur'an provides answers to all questions. Most Muslims (with the exception of the Shi'ites) believe that God doesn't give any man or human institution the absolute authority to interpret the Qur'an. Each individual believer is supposed to do that for themselves.

However, in a Muslim community, there are codified rules. The first Muslim commmunity relied on Muhammad for guidance. After he died, though, Muslim scholars spent several centuruies researching his life and his sayings in order to come up with the Sunna. (The Muslim tradition of scholarly research comes from this very intensive historical research into Muhammad's life.)

By the eleventh century, Muslim scholars had finished identifying and codifying the Sunna of the Prophet, and then mined the Sunna and the Qur'an to develope the Shari'a, which was a consensus opinion what one must do or not do in order to live in accordance with God's will.

All Muslims --- Sunnite and Shi'ite --- recognize the Qur'an and the Sunna. 85% of the Muslims on earth recognize the Shari'a as authoratative, and it is this code which is known as "Islamic Law" to most Westerners. These people are called Sunni, or "people of the Sunna". Shi'ite Muslims recognize an additional source of authority in addition to the Sunna, so their Shari'a code isn't exactly the same. But, there is such a thing as a code for individuals and societies to follow, the Shari'a, which is generally accepted and recognized by most Muslims in the world.

Secular Muslim societies may choose not to use the Shari'a as the base of their legal framework, but that doesn't change the fact that such a base exists. Devout Muslims in secular socities will still recognize the Shari'a and consider themselves bound by the requirements the Shari'a places on individuals, even if they are living in a society which doesn't adhere to the Shari'a's communal rules.

Yes, there will always be some societies where the rich and the powerful find ways to bend the rules. A devout Roman Catholic can recognize that some of the Popes in the past lead decadant lives, yet not lose faith in what a good pope can do for his followers. A patriotic American can still believe that the U.S. from of government is a good one, even despite the actions of a single president renting out the Lincoln bedroom. Just because some Muslim societies have had abuses doesn't mean that all of "Islamic Law" is bad.

Re:Only Pure Terror....Works!

[MattXVI]

You're very lucky there isn't a death penalty for stupid posts on Slashdot.

Gee, I wonder . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . how many of the shocked posts here are from libertarians and conservatives who applaud Draconian punishments in the USA . . . ?

If "an armed society is a polite society" (of which I am not at all certain, but that's another argument entirely), then that's because such a society has a potential death penalty for all manner of anstisocial behavior, right?


------------------------------------

Incidentally (this is somewhat off-topic, but I'd like to hear what people think of it), the most valid objection to the death penalty even in cases of the genuinely serious crimes where it's used in the USA (e.g. murder etc.) is that it's real hard to apologize afterwards if you got the wrong guy. But as it happens, the death penalty in the USA is applied only in cases where the crime is particularly horrific, which seems goofy. A more evil crime doesn't make any given suspect more guilty. It's a non sequitur. From what I've read, I've gotten a sort of anecdotal impression that the likelihood of the criminal committing similar crimes in the future isn't even a major consideration (IANAL: Hard data on this point is very welcome). Well, I can't see much sense in any of this. If you ask me, evidence of a very strong likelihood of repetition along with horribleness-of-crime should be required even to consider execution, and then once it's being considered, there should be a more stringent standard of proof required of the prosecution. Our legal architecture only provides one definition of guilt: "Beyond a reasonable doubt". IMHO that's not enough when you're going to kill somebody. For the death penalty, you should have to prove guilt beyond even an unreasonable doubt, beyond any damn trace or shadow of a doubt whatsoever. If you can't prove guilt with that degree of certainty, default to life in prison w/o parole. In some cases, we're more certain than in others. Demoting that to a boolean value is not a good idea when the punishment is irreversible. If you set your kids on fire and people see you do it, fwwht, off with your damn head. But not all cases are like that.

We already have a kludgey imitation of this with the appeals process, but we can clean up the implementation and save everybody a lot of money and time.


I'd like to see a rational discussion about this, but unfortunately China was mentioned and we all know what means on Slashdot. :(

Re:Gee, I wonder . . .

[Artagel]

As indicated earlier by a Greek poster, how you run your system depends on the result you want to achieve. China likes to solve societal problems. Whether that problem is drug use, political dissent, or organized exercise, vigorous(Westerners would say rabid), but not necessarily perfect responses are the order of the day. If you do not value individualized justice as highly as solving your social problems, this makes a lot of sense.

Anonymous Coward likes individualized justice. So do I. Also, I have no theoretical problems with the death penalty for murder and non-consensual sexual crimes (forcible rape, child molestation, but not statutory rape or incest). The problems all seem to be in running the system, and it isn't clear that we in the U.S. (despite our aspirations) make better decisions than the Chinese do in whether somebody did what they are accused of.

Who's to blame. Look around when you are walking down the street. Many prosecutors know that the way to succeed politically is to score big in a popular capital case for gruesome crimes, whether or not the accused actually did it. This is not a erroneous perception -- look at high ranking politicians in your state and ask how many were prosecuters or attorneys general at some point. Also, it's the 12 people sitting in the box who often control the death penalty outcome.

Sure, funding for public defenders could swing things some, but its the voters who choose the prosectors, sit as jurors, and choose the judges either directly or indirectly. When it comes to the death penalty we do a pretty bad job. That, and executing people 20 years later after all the appeals isn't big-time deterrance.

At least I get the sense the Chinese are achieving what they are after. I don't have the same confidence that we are.

Death?

[Issue9mm]

First and foremost, I DO believe in the death penalty. I feel that fear of death can be the only cure for some criminals, and that oftentimes the prison system does such terrible job of rehabilitation, it would have been more cost effective to put them down in the first place.

A good example, however fictional it might be, is _The_Shawshank_Redemption_, in which the lead character Andy makes a statement something along the lines of "You know, when I was on the outside, I flew straight as an arrow, but I had to come to prison to learn how to be a criminal."

It may seem like a bad example, but for any of you that don't have any first-hand experience with ex-cons, or prison systems (I've been to jail, briefly, and had my share of run-ins with the law when I was younger, and almost a handful of my friends have been in a little deeper), it's more often than not the truth. Sending people with criminal mentality, often criminal by necessity (at least in their minds) into an environment predominately gang controlled and replete with organized criminal activities can be the WORST thing for them.

Now I'm not saying that they deserved the death penalty, I don't consider theft a capital offense, especially not electronic theft, in which nobody can "get hurt" physically, but in a Communist environment, the traditional goal is for people to work together, for the common goal of the people. In a sense it's like stealing money from your father so that you can buy a bike he might have bought you for Christmas had you not stolen from him in the first place. (Bad analogy, let's move on)

The biggest question in my mind would be the interrogation tactics used to convince one brother to rat out the other. Not all families are close, I understand that, but if I were close enough anyone to commit electronic crime with them, I would have to feel like I could trust them with more than my life. Maybe the initiator overlooked this, maybe he made a bad judgement call, perhaps. Not having any insight into the matter leads me to speculate a scenario with hot lights, hot pokers, and even hotter tempers belonging to Chinese officials.

True, I could be completely full of shit, but I don't know. If anyone knows better, let me know. I'm not above looking stupid, I promise.

Death penalty in China

[TurkishGeek]

My understanding is that one can get executed in China for almost anything committed against the state; or interpreted to be that way. I have read a story of two thieves executed because of stealing four lightbulbs from the landing lights of a nearby airport. Other posts have some interesting examples, too.

As for people being able to read this from China, I doubt it.
--

BluetoothCentral.com
A site for everything Bluetooth. Coming in January 2000.

Re: Things aren't so bad now

[MattXVI]

You are absolutely, totally wrong. It is very much State policy to imprison those who practice "non-approved" religions. In fact, many think the round-ups of members of these "house churches" have become steadily worse through the 90's. Have you not seen the old people being drug by their hair into police vans for meditating in the public square? For pete's sake this was even on CNN! You are spreading lies and making apologies for systematic destruction of basic human rights.

Let me suggest that, next time you are in China, you try to lead a peaceful gathering of some students in a large punlic area in support of the right to practice your own religion, or vote for your own government. Then you'll see how enlightened and open the Chinese government is. It does no good at all to say "This is better than the industrial revolution". I mean, try holding them to a slightly higher standard than that.

Re: Things aren't so bad now

[helarno]

*cough* CNN? Please. I've met the reporters of many of the major news agencies there and except for a few good people, the rest of them are pretty clueless and looking for sensationalism. Ask anyone who has lived in a non-US country and seen CNN coverage of any international event. You'll realize that they are very far off from reality.

On the other hand, I do agree that religion is controlled. The police pay special attention to them, just for control purposes. For the most part, as long as people don't do anything extreme, you will not be disturbed. I attended a few churches there, both for Chinese and foreigners. As long as you do not mix them (God forbid the foreigners corrupting the good local Chinese) you tend to be fine.

Life in China tends to be: Don't do anything to attract attention to yourself and you will be fine. You can have your religion, your business, your money, etc. Just don't try to make a public spectacle of yourself.

Oops!

[MattXVI]

Sorry I mean Cultural Revolution, not Industrial Revolution. hehe.

Law and Order in China

[w3woody]

First off, let's get two things straight about the Chinese legal system. They didn't execute hackers in China because China is "scared" of hackers, nor is it because China is some "evil communist" country who routinely puts people to death because they don't embrase our democratic form of government.

The Chinese civic system of punishments stems from the Chinese Legalist school of thought, a philosophical system which was instrumental in setting up the dictatorship of Ch'in in 221B.C., and in unifying China around the same time.

The cornerstone of Chinese Legalism is the accumulation of the power necessary to rule what (and is) the largest country in the world, using stone-age tools. Legalism's aim of controlling such a large mass of humanity (at a time when Plato was extolling the virtues of a city-state whose size never exceeded about 5,000 people) was done through a system of rigerous and intensive set of laws backed by generous rewards and severe punishments. In short, Legalism extolled the virtue of setting up a system of well-defined laws that everyone could understand, and dealing out severe punishments to those who violated the law.

"Legalism", while not as fully embrased by the Chinese as Confusianism and Taoism, does make up one of the three pillars of Chinese civic philosophy. It's been around for a couple of thousand years, and is the reasoning why littering (i.e., dropping a wad of paper on the ground) is punishable by prison time, and why thieves are routinely put to death.

You also have to keep in mind that our more "humanist" approach to punishment has only evolved in the last hundred years or so. It wasn't all that long ago when we in the west were dropping thieves into a 50-foot pit onto a stone floor and leaving them to rot without food or water. (In fact, the Hollywood image of a castle dungeon is rather inaccurate--most dungeons were nothing more than stone pit 50 or more feet deep where prisoners were literally dropped. The ones who didn't die due to the force of impact with the stone floor died for a lack of water.)

The principle difference between the United States and Chinese philosophy are threefold: first, our stated goal in punishing a criminal is to rehabilitate--this stems from the Judeo-Christian need for redemption. The Chinese use punishment not to rehabilitate but to set a harsh example to others who would break the law.

Second, as we are trying to achieve redemption of the criminal, we set punishments which "fit" the crime--a modified form of "an eye for an eye" where we make habitual litterers pick up trash, and make thieves pay back their victim. In China, as their goal is to set an example, they create punishments which indicate to the public how unacceptable the crime is. Thus, putting first time litterers in jail, or putting thieves to death.

Third, as we are a common-law country, our laws evolve as we struggle to find a balance between maximizing freedom and creating stability. This is because in the United States, we are a country "of the people" where citizens are presumed to have entered into a "compact" to get along with each other. In China, Legalist philosphy has authority stemming from a central figure, so their ultimate goal is not to balance freedom with cooperation, but to create stability and peace. Thus, even if you execute the wrong person for theft, it's okay--he set an example for everyone else.

Chinese Legalism has been around a lot longer than Karl Marx. And it's been around a lot longer than computer hackers.

Long live McCarthy'ism!

[DJ Cricket]

Communism is not evil, it is not a terrible thing. It is DIFFERENT and it's very hard to understand something this different when you live in a place like the United States. Just because they don't have the same basic freedoms as we do, doesn't mean they don't have anything. This man was sentanced to death because he commited a crime against someone in China, and in a communist state, that means he committed the crime against all of China.

Re: Things aren't so bad now

[MattXVI]

CNN and other news agencies recently showed members of a group of meditators brutally thrown into police vans for the crime of gathering in a public square. There were tourists and foreign journalists standing right there, but the Chinese cops drug them, mostly old ladies and men, some by the hair and feet, and threw them into vans. News agencies followed up on the story and found that many were sentenced to long prison terms in forced labor camps. It is a fact.

The Chinese government, like an other totalitarian regime, cannot abide any organized activity that is not controlled directly by the State. No computer clubs, no Churches, no gatherings, no political parties - unless authorized and controlled by the State. This is directly contrary to most fundamental human rights.

Re:hacking? ha! that's not it.

[helarno]

Depends where you are. In the smaller cities and rural areas, the economically depressed areas are no safer than a big US city. That's one of the reasons for such drastic punishments - you can't catch all the crooks but you can scare them really badly by making a few very public examples.

However, if you live in big cities like Beijing or Shanghai, they are mostly safe. I've walked those streets at any time, day or night, and been safe. Women walk the streets alone and feel safe. Most times ... it's true. None of my friends have actually had any petty theft, violent crime, muggings, etc occur to them. I've also gone travelling to a few of the other cities and never had a problem beyond a few conmen.

The only times I ever heard of a crime occuring was when a policeman got killed. For several weeks after, the city of Beijing was locked tight with police all over the place, everything being checked, etc. You can imagine that things like this don't happen on a regular basis.

Re: Things aren't so bad now

[MattXVI]

Yes, I have been to China and Hong Kong and, more importantly, have known many religious people from China. I am a physicist (used to work in HK) who now works in Washington, and there are many Chinese nationals working here who can attest to the repression of their government.

I don't think there's anything fuzzy or complicated about a country that rounds up harmless religious believers and puts them in forced labor camps. Your ignorance of the extent and severity of this is obviously willfull. You do a tremendous disservice to those who are unjustly imprisoned, some of them for decades. The Roman Catholic Church has several bishops who have imprisoned since the 70's. Numerous priests, nun, and lay people, and hundreds of Protestant Christians have been imprisoned and tortured for their faith. This continues up to the present moment, with no sign at all of abating.

There is incontrovertable evidence for this. The Chinese Government knows this. So why do you make excuses for them? Why do you apologize for this systematic policy?

Thank you for noticing the anti-communist tone of some of my posts. I happen to loathe communism. I have family members who died under communist regimes. There is no excuse for the mass slaughter of tens of millions of people. not to mention the incredible repression of so many more people.

I am aware that the world is not "black and white" as you say, and it's not like I would defend every action of my own government, or criticize every action of another. But one thing is clear - communism is one of the most destructive and deadly ideas ever to creep out of the leftist mind and poison the world.

Re:Chi-Com barbarism should surprise no one.

[MattXVI]

I think you don't quite understand what leftist and communism are. Leftism looks to the State as a sort of cure-all and control-all for everything. Leftism is atheistic and materialistic (in the sense of there being no 'transcendent' reality, or anything of value that is not economic in nature). Individual rights are suppressed in favor of 'community rights'. Equality is their God, since they are motivated primarily by envy. The great Leftist revolutions in history are the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and revolution in China.

A communist is a leftist with a stronger ideological bent, one who will use any means necessary (almost always brutal force hence the guillotine, the Gulag, and the Logai prison camps in China) to restructure society to his liking. He is necessarily totalitarian, since a gradual democratic approach to his ideal never happens spontaneously.

It's certainly true, of course, that many of the Chinese leaders are no longer True Belivers, and some regions have been allowed economic reform of a sort. It is very limited, though. For example, compare the Chinese banking system, or notions of contract law to those in a free economy. They are a long, long way from the economic freedom of someplace like Singapore. But indeed, if they ever come close, they will be much less communist than simply totalitarian.

Re:Chi-Com barbarism should surprise no one.

[MattXVI]

I have read a great deal of Communist literature, and capitalist as well, bucko - very likely more than you. Who on earth ever claimed the United States was a democracy? It is sort of a Republic (not at all the same thing) combined with a fluid aristocracy of wealth and (how many Senators were not millionaires first?).

Of course China is not a communist country in the sense Marx envisioned. I am my father's son, but I am not exactly what he had in mind. So what do you call it, then, when the government owns all capital and means of production? What do you call it when the labor theory of value is strictly enforced through taxation and regulation of pay scales? It is not enough to call it Totalitarian. (Chinese) communism is totalitarian, but is much more than that. Your understanding of the ideological roots of Chinese communism is apparently attenuated by ignorance.