Immediately after the initial applause for the proposal to cancel the death penalty for 13 crimes, mostly for non-violent acts, there are worries that a milder Criminal Law may send a wrong message to the greedy.

Given the rampancy of economic offenses, many hold the innocent hope that the death sentence is deterrence in itself, even though most public officials convicted on corruption charges have ended up escaping the death sentence.

A more pervasive concern now is that, with the capital punishment for these crimes possibly removed, corrupt officials will feel more secure and become more rampant. To many others, removing such a possibility is tantamount to assuring corrupt officials that "whatever you do, you will not die". That is simply unacceptable to those who hate the corrupt.

Should public officials be subject to different criteria here? Those reviewing the draft amendment, with the current version featuring no clause that singles out public servants, may be in favor of it. There seems to be good reason to support it as it is - all citizens should be treated equally under the law.

Still, we urge the lawmakers to keep one thing in mind - the rule of law at home has yet to become what it is generally supposed to be. This is a very important "Chinese characteristic" that we wish our legislators will consider in making their judgment. Considering the conspicuous imbalance between the powers and responsibilities of some public officials, it will not be unfair to place upon them a little more liability.

We see no harm in a differentiated solution here - keeping the death sentence for public officeholders and exempting the rest of our population from it for certain crimes.