For many who grew up believing that a murderer must pay with
their life, the execution of Qiu Xinghua, a Shaanxi farmer who
killed 11 people and seriously injured 2, was exactly what he
deserved.
The way the killings were conducted was simply too gruesome to
be recounted.
The merciless murders and robbery Qiu committed qualify him for
capital punishment under the country's criminal law, provided he
was not mentally ill.
Qiu's family and lawyer appealed for a judicial examination of
his mental status, citing allegedly abnormal behavior.
The court refused the appeal, saying Qiu was in perfect mental
health. Qiu was executed yesterday morning immediately after the
High Court of Shaanxi Province, the second-instance trial court,
ruled to uphold the first-instance court's verdict.
We are sorry that Qiu failed to live until the Supreme Court
takes over the review and approval of all death sentences, which
are now in the hands of local high courts, in three days' time.
We are sorry because the Shaanxi High Court may have missed an
opportunity to set a precedent of milestone significance in Chinese
criminal justice.
The jurisprudential importance of Qiu's case lies in the fact
that it brought up an essential aspect of due process that had
never been a topic of public interest.
The heated debates over whether or not a judicial examination
should be done for Qiu are enlightening, because they bring into
the limelight a less talked-about facet of the human rights
guarantee. This guarantee is particularly important for someone
facing a verdict of life or death.
Judges have every right to ignore the noises from outside the
courtroom and make their own judgments. We want them to be
independent.
Justice may have been done in Qiu's case. But it would be much
better had it been seen to be done.
Qiu's execution left an essential question without a convincing
answer was he or was he not mentally ill when he committed the
murders? With Qiu gone, we will never know.
The court's judgment about Qiu's mental status failed to
convince examination advocates. They are lamenting the judges'
failure to present professional medical evidence for their
statement.
Our current Criminal Procedure Law consigns the decision on
whether a judicial examination of the judgment is necessary to the
court. So the Shaanxi court does not have to feel guilty about
denying the appeal for such a check.
But it would be a great bonus if it had more persuasive backup
for the decision.
Law experts have actively involved themselves in the discourse,
believing such a check may cement the notion of due process.
The case should have been a fine starting point for refining our
judicial examination mechanism.
Let us hope that this debate does not evaporate in Qiu's
absence.
(China Daily December 29, 2006)