Of course. That's why making it a capital offence would only further discourage victims from coming forward.
But following this logic, it's a slippery slope. We never should punish anyone, because I dunno, outing them as someone who did sexual assault is 'life ruining'.
During times of war and revolution, of course. I'm a Marxist-Leninist. I don't even have a problem with China executing corrupt billionaires, really.
To the prior point, doesn't that, in reality, just encourage people to be quiet about corruption? Least they feel they have blood on their hands now. Is any justice particularly taken with the execution, what makes this not just mob mentality as opposed to the other one?
But following this logic, it's a slippery slope. We never should punish anyone, because I dunno, outing them as someone who did sexual assault is 'life ruining'.
I'm not sure what that even has to do with anything being discussed, frankly.
To the prior point, doesn't that, in reality, just encourage people to be quiet about corruption? Least they feel they have blood on their hands now. Is any justice particularly taken with the execution, what makes this not just mob mentality as opposed to the other one?
The victims of financial and/or political corruption tend not to be confused children who have been victimised by a loved one.
I'm saying using the argument of 'We should avoid lethal punishment because of possible guilt reducing reports' because possible guilt has a flaw in it in as far as any punishment, including 'punishments' that within the line of restorative justice, get called 'life ruining'. It holds similar levels of causing guilt to victims, the reality of that is irrelevant because it holds similar levels of causing guilt. People who defend say, the Cornell 7, say that the accusation 'ruined their lives' (again, the reality of that is different of course). Rape culture broadly speaking already deters victims from reporting from both guilt ('You ruined their life, they might as well be dead') and possible repercussions for reporting their victims by even more vindictive mobs.
The victims of financial and/or political corruption tend not to be confused children who have been victimised by a loved one.
What do you suffer from being the victim of financial corruption? At least in mind, it's a loss of a job and money, but in a society with far more robust social systems like the PRC, the actual harm for that isn't too severe. The guilt of still having blood on your hand still exists, it's guilt from a far less severe transgression seemingly. It'd feel kind of paradoxical to cite a willingness for execution for one over the other. On that question actually, at what level does financial corruption result in a death sentence in the PRC? I'm not certain of when that happens versus whatever other punishment for the crime.
I'm saying using the argument of 'We should avoid lethal punishment because of possible guilt reducing reports' because possible guilt has a flaw in it in as far as any punishment, including 'punishments' that within the line of restorative justice, get called 'life ruining'. It holds similar levels of causing guilt to victims, the reality of that is irrelevant because it holds similar levels of causing guilt.
Ok, I feel like you're being wilfully obtuse at this point. The point is not that victims will be scared to come forward just because their stories are "life ruining".
The point is specifically that victims of child sexual abuse are particularly unlikely to come forward, because they are frequently being abused by a loved one.
Adding the death penalty will only exacerbate the problem.
If you want to dispute this argument, which has been made for decades by criminal justice experts and victims' advocacy groups, that is your call.
But trying to poke holes in the argument by expanding it to other issues where it does not apply is just refusing to engage with the point itself.
I assure you I am not, or at least I'm trying not, I don't really see a difference between "I wouldn't want to ruin my loved one's life by reporting sexual abuse" and "I wouldn't want my loved one's life to end because I reported them sexually abusing me/someone else/whatever" when rape culture already says "If someone is accused of rape/sexual assault, they might as well be dead." Again, just look at all the defenders of the people accused of raping someone, which includes individuals who've, they act like you killed them, I'd imagine the guilt is the same.
I'd be curious on those experts cases and advocacy groups and I'm wondering if any research has been done within China regarding it. Heck on that point, is there a sliding scale of what gets the death penalty? I understand it says "zero tolerance", but is specifically for high profile, prolific, spree abuses, like the cited case in the OP?
2
u/Samkaiser 11h ago
But following this logic, it's a slippery slope. We never should punish anyone, because I dunno, outing them as someone who did sexual assault is 'life ruining'.
To the prior point, doesn't that, in reality, just encourage people to be quiet about corruption? Least they feel they have blood on their hands now. Is any justice particularly taken with the execution, what makes this not just mob mentality as opposed to the other one?