The Death Penalty for Foreign Drug Offenders in China: Legal Protection and Equal Treatment

China has been under international pressure for the death sentences meted out to foreigners for drug-related offenses. Domestically, the sentencing of foreign offenders is perceived to be too lenient compared to that of the natives under similar circumstances. We discuss the due process protections in processing foreigners charged and convicted for capital drug offenses within the context of international law. Further, to empirically assess the sentencing of such cases, we use a sample of 192 cases including both offender groups to examine the role of citizenship status, case characteristics, and defense arguments on the outcome of either an immediate or suspended death sentence. Findings indicate that foreign offenders raise different defense arguments compared to that of native offenders; but citizenship status does not play a key role in the multivariate model; rather the number of defense arguments accepted by the court and the processing time help predict the sentencing outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Similar content being viewed by others

The Abolition of the Death Penalty in Southeast Asia: The Arduous March Forward

The Death Penalty in Singapore: in Decline but Still Too Soon for Optimism

Defenders at Law: Assessing the performance of legal defense on Drug Trafficking cases in Brazil

Explore related subjects

Notes

All three regulations were initially adopted in 1998 but were amended later. The most recent amendments were made in 2012 to comply with the newly amended CPL. Our discussion is based on the most recent and current amendments.

The 1998 Interpretations required the offender to cover the translation fees themselves. Nevertheless, this requirement was abandoned in 2012. In judicial practice, the translation fees are normally paid by the court or the legal aid center.

Since January 2015, the GIPC has started publishing its release rate of court judgments, the available release rates were 84.4% for 2014 and 85.2% for 2015 correspondingly (available at http://www.gzcourt.gov.cn/cpws/qktj/index.html, last visited on December 6, 2017). Unfortunately, the overall rate does not differentiate civil cases from criminal cases.

By December 2017, we noticed that the GIPC had already changed its database and nothing could be searched any more regarding death sentence judgments. We are not sure what triggered this change. We have in possession the original data of the 192 cases, available for inspection upon request.

A diagnosis of the drug amount indicated a highly skewed distribution, with most offenders carried an amount less than 2 kg. Among a few data transformation options (e.g., logarithm), we opted for an ordinal level of variable which provided the best model fit.

Due to the fact that the cases in our sample were all decided before 2016, we cite the SPC directive on drug crime in 2000. There was a newer version published in 2016 that is currently in use (SPC 2016).

The term “unintentional” refers to the situation where the defense denied the charge that the defendant committed intentional drug offenses, including arguments such as (a) the defendant did not commit the offenses, (b) the defendant was not aware of the hidden drugs, (c) the defendant did not know what he took was drugs, (d) the defendant did not join the criminal behavior, and (e) the drug offenses were committed by someone else.

Different from Table 4 which uses all cases in each group as the denominator, proportions in Table 5 are calculated with the accepted cases divided by the number of cases with such arguments presented in each group.

Additional analysis is conducted to examine if different continents (Africa, Americas, or Asia) where the defendants are from may have an effect on the outcome. None of the continent indicators matter in the analysis.

Guangzhou Procuratorate vs. Livinus Chinyelugo. No. 114 (2011) [hui zhongfa xingyi chuzi, 穗中法刑一初字第114号], adjudicated on May 24, 2011. Available at http://openlaw.cn/judgement/f0322fa1e33a4158af2109e2e13c6fe1?keyword=+%282011%29.

References

• Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law & Society Review, 31(4), 789–822. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Allen, R., Levenson, J., & Garside, R. (2003). A bitter pill to swallow: The sentencing of foreign national drug couriers. London: Rethinking Crime and Punishment. Google Scholar
• Banks, J. (2011). Foreign national prisoners in the UK: Explanations and implications. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 50(2), 184–198. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bohn, L. A. (2003). Understanding the imposition of capital punishment on foreign nationals in the United States as a human rights violation. Wisconsin International Law Journal, 21(2), 435–468. Google Scholar
• Chin, K. L., & Zhang, S. X. (2015). The Chinese heroin trade: cross-border drug trafficking in Southeast Asia and beyond. New York: NYU Press.
• China Food and Drug Administration. (2004). The Convert ratio for illegal drug, in Gao G. (ed.), Drug Crime, Trial Theory and Practice [Dupin fanzui: Shenpan lilun yu shiwu], pp. 581–588. Beijing: People’s Court Press. http://www.docin.com/p-1245606625.html. Accessed 17 Dec 2017.
• Condon, C., & Melle, G. L. (1998). Capital controversy: Is it acceptable to execute foreign nationals? ABA Journal, 84(1), 36–37. Google Scholar
• Cruz, E. H. (2010). Competent voices: Noncitizen defendants and the right know the immigration consequences of plea agreements. Harvard Latino Law Review, 13(1), 47–66. Google Scholar
• Daugirdas, K., & Mortenson, J. D. (2014). Contemporary practice of the United States relating to international law. American Journal of International Law, 108(2), 322–325. Google Scholar
• Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). (2017). Foreign Nationals and the Death Penalty in the US. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/foreign-nationals-and-death-penalty-us#Nationality. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Demuth, S. (2002). The effect of citizenship status on sentencing outcomes in drug cases. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14(5), 271–275. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fleishman, M. (2003). Reciprocity unmasked: The role of the Mexican government in defense of its foreign nationals in United States death penalty cases. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 20(2), 359–407. Google Scholar
• Gan, C. (1987). Law Yearbook of China [Zhongguo Falv Nianjian]. Beijing: Law Press. Google Scholar
• Guangdong Higher Court. (2003). Opinions on the standard of quantity and sentencing for drug cases [Guanyu dupin fanzui anjian youguan shuliang liangxing biaozhunde cankao yijian], effective on 17 June 2003.
• Hartley, R. D., & Armendariz, L. F. (2011). Border justice? Sentencing federal narcotics offenders in southwest border districts: A focus on citizenship status. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(1), 43–62. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center (JIDPIC). (2016). List of defendants who are under sentence of death in Japan. http://www.jiadep.org/Chart-DeathRow_files/page481_1.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Jin, L. (2015). Prosecuting foreign defendant [Gongsu Shezui Waiguoren]. Fangyuan Magazine, 2, 14–18. Google Scholar
• Joseph, J. (2006). Drug offenses, gender, ethnicity, and nationality: Women in prison in England and Wales. The Prison Journal: An International Forum on Incarceration and Alternative Sanctions, 86(1), 140–157. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kautt, P., & Spohn, C. (2002). Crack-ing down on black drug offenders? Testing for interactions among offenders’ race, drug type, and sentencing strategy in federal drug sentences. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 1–35. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kendall, W., & Siracusa, J. M. (2013). The death penalty and U.S. diplomacy: How foreign nations and international organizations influence U.S. policy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar
• Li, J. (2012). Discussing the manage system toward foreigners based on foreign criminal [Cong Waiguoren Shezui Qingkuang Tanxi Waiguoren Guanli Jizhi]. Nomocracy Forum, 1, 284–290. Google Scholar
• Li, L., & Tian, H. (2016). Annual report on China’s rule of law [Zhongguo fazhi fazhan baogao]. Beijing Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.
• Li, L., & Tian, H. (2017). Annual report on China’s rule of law [Zhongguo fazhi fazhan baogao]. Beijing Shehui Kexue Wenxian Chubanshe.
• Liang, B., & Lu, H. (2016). The death penalty in China: Policy, practice and reform. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Liang, B., Lu, H., & Taylor, M. (2009). Female drug abusers, narcotics offenders, and legal punishment in China. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 133–141. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Liao, R., & Du, G. (2011). Analysis of foreign criminals and its strategies in Guangzhou area [Guangzhou Diqu Waiguoren Fanzui Qingkuang Fenxi ji Duice]. People’s Procuratorial Semimonthly, 19, 68–71. Google Scholar
• Liebman, B. L., Roberts, M., Stern, R. E., & Wang, A. Z. (2017). Mass digitization of Chinese court decisions: How to use text as data in the field of Chinese Law. 21st Century China Center Research Paper No. 2017–01; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14–551. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2985861.
• Light, M. T. (2014). The new face of legal inequality: Noncitizens and the long-term trends in sentencing disparities across U.S. district courts, 1992-2009. Law & Society Review, 48(2), 447–478. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Light, M. T., Massoglia, M., & King, R. D. (2014). Citizenship and punishment: The salience of national membership in U.S. criminal courts. American Sociological Review, 79(5), 825–847. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Liu, Y., & Xiao. J. (2010). New characteristics of drug crime in Beijing [Beijing Dupin Fanzui Anjian Chengxian Xin Tedian]. Beijing Superior Court. http://bjgy.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2010/06/id/876717.shtml. Accessed Dec. 1, 2017.
• Logue, M. A. (2009). “The price of being Mexican”: Sentencing disparities between noncitizen Mexican and non-Mexican Latinos in the federal courts. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31(4), 423–445. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lu, H., & Bin, L. (2008). Legal responses to trafficking in narcotics and other narcotic offenses in China. International Criminal Justice Review, 18(2), 212–228. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Macfarlan, T. & Willams, S. (2016). Colombian beauty queen, 23, is sentenced to 15 years in prison for drug smuggling after being caught carrying cocaine inside her laptop. The Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3709103/Colombian-beauty-queen-23-sentenced-15-years-prison-drug-smuggling-caught-carrying-cocaine-inside-laptop.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• McKie, K. L. (2003). Executions and apologies: The US, international law and right to consular notification. Critical Criminology, 11(3), 199–215. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Murphy, S. D. (2004). ICJ decision regarding Mexicans on death row in United States (contemporary practice of the United States relating to international law). American Journal of International Law, 98(2), 364–368. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the us federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285–314. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Office of China National Narcotics Control Commission. (2017). Annual report on drug control in China. http://jhak.com/grwz/20170125.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2018.
• Orrick, E. A., Compofelice, K., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Assessing the impact of deportable status on sentencing outcomes in a sample of state prisoners. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39(1), 28–40. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Pan, X., & Qing, Z. (2011). A study on foreigners’ crime in Guangzhou and the prevention system [Guangzhou waiguoren fanzui yu fangkong jizhi yanjiu]. Zhengfa Xuekan, 28(5), 84–88. Google Scholar
• Pidd, H. (2009). Akmal Shaikh’s harebrained business schemes and dreams of pop stardom. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/28/akmal-shaikh-execution-china-mental-illness. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Qing, Z. (2010). The reasons and strategies on drug crime involving foreigners. Journal of Fujian Police College, 24(6), 52–56. Google Scholar
• Quigley, J. (2001). Pressure from abroad against use of capital punishment in the United States. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 8(1), 169–179. Google Scholar
• Scalia J. (1996). Noncitizens in the federal criminal justice system, 1984–94. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. NCJ-160934.
• Schiffman, H. S. (2002). The LaGrand decision: The evolving legal landscape of the Vienna convention on consular relations in U.S. death penalty cases. Santa Clara Law Review, 42(4), 1099–1136. Google Scholar
• Supreme People’s Court (SPC). (1999). Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on the Issuance of “The Style of Criminal Litigation Documents” [Zuigao renmin fayuan guanyu yinfa “fayuan xingshi susong wenshu yangshi” de tongzhi], effective July 1, 1999. http://china.findlaw.cn/fagui/p_1/135290.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Supreme People’s Court (SPC). (2000). Interpretations on standards of conviction and sentencing issues regarding drug crimes [Guanyu shenli dupin anjian dingzui liangxing biaozhun youguan wenti de jieshi], effective on 6 June 2000. http://www.jincao.com/fa/02/law02.s07.htm. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Supreme People’s Court (SPC). (2013). Decision on the internet publication of court transcripts [Guanyu renmin fayuan zai hulianwang gongbu caipan wenshu de guiding], effective 1 Jan 2014. http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2013/11/id/147242.shtml. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Supreme People’s Court (SPC). (2016). Interpretations on the legal application issues regarding drug crimes [Guanyu shenli dupin anjian shiyong falv ruogan wenti de jieshi], effective on 6 June 2000. http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-19122.html, effective on 11 April 2016.
• The Japan Times. (2010). Japanese executed in China for drugs. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2010/04/07/national/japanese-executed-in-china-for-drugs/#.Wjl40FQ-eRu. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Topping, A., Watt, N., & Watts, J. (2009). Fury at China over refusal to pardon Briton. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/28/china-briton-akmal-shaikh-execution. Accessed 19 Dec 2017.
• Ulmer, J. T. (2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 1–40. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Vandiver, M. (1999). An apology does not assist the accused: Foreign nationals and the death penalty in the United States. Justice Professional, 12(2), 223–245. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wang G. 2013. Judicial strategies of handing foreigners’ crime in county level [Jiceng Jianchayuan Banli Waiguoren Fanzui Anjian de Sifa Yingdui]. http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-GJJC201308006041.htm. Accessed 17 Dec 2017.
• Wang, X. (2009). On the essential issues concerning consular notification [Lingshi Tongzhi Lunyao]. Science of Law, 6, 76–84. Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. J. (2003). International law issues in death penalty defense. Hofstra Law Review, 31(4), 1195–1211. Google Scholar
• Wolfe, S. E., David, C. P., & Spohn, C. (2011). Unraveling the effect of offender citizenship status on federal sentencing outcomes. Social Science Research, 40(1), 349–362. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wu, J., & D’Angelo, J. M. (2014). Unwarranted disparity in federal sentencing: Noncitizen crime as a social/group threat. Criminal Justice Review, 39(1), 58–80. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Xiong, M., Liu, S., & Liang, B. (2017). Criminal defense and judicial sentencing in China's death penalty cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390114. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Yu, Z. (2012). Criminal law responses to crimes committed by foreigners in China [Zaihua waiguoren fanzui de xingshi falv yingdui]. Social Science in China, 6, 134–150. Google Scholar
• Zhang, X., & Yu, H. (2006). Foreigners’ crime in Beijing in recent three years [Jin sannian zaijing waiguoren fanzui qingkuang guankui]. People’s Procuratorial Semimonthly, 13, 41–43. Google Scholar
• Zhuge, P. (2015). Law yearbook of China [Zhongguo Falv Nianjian]. Beijing: Law Press. Google Scholar

Statutes and Judicial Files Cited

• Criminal Law of PRC (CL) [Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xingfa], effective on 1 Oct 1997 [Revised in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, and 2015].
• Criminal Procedure Law of PRC (CPL) [Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xingshi Susongfa], effective on 1 Jan 1997 [Revised on 14 March 2012].
• Public Security Organs’ Provisions on Procedures Handling Criminal Cases (“Provisions”) [Gongan Jiguan Banli Anjian Chengxu Guiding] by Ministry of Public Security, effective on 14 May 1998 (Revised in 2007 and 2012).
• People’s Procuratorates’ Rules on Criminal Procedure (“Rules”) [Renmin Jianchayuan Xingshi Susong Guize] by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, effective on 18 Jan 1999 (Revised on November 12, 2012).
• Interpretations of the Criminal Procedure Law (“Interpretations”) [Guanyu Shiyong ‘Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xingshi Susongfa de Jieshi] by the Supreme People’s Court, effective on 8 Sept 1999 (Revised on 12 Nov 2012);
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), done on 16 December 1966.
• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), adopted on 24 April 1963.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. School of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA, 17057, USA Siyu Liu
2. Law School, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics (China), Chengdu, China Moulin Xiong
3. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA Bin Liang