It’s actually very common for life imprisonment sentence (无期徒刑) to change to x number of years imprisonment (有期徒刑) for people who are well-connected.

Perhaps the most high profile case is Tian Wenhua, the CEO of Sanlu Group whose infant formula erupted into a major scandal in China and worldwide (due to timing with 2008 Beijing Olympics) that resulted in 300k cases of infant toxicities and 50k cases of hospitalization.

In 2009, she was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2011, due to good behavior, the sentence was changed to 19 years of imprisonment. In 2014, reduced sentence by 1 year and 9 months, and in 2016, another one and a half year of reduced sentence. At this rate, she will be released in 2027. (read the linked wiki above)

Corruption is extremely rampant in China, especially at the local level. Xi has been fighting corruption for the past 10 years and it just never ends. Like, literally never ends.

As I understand it, the "deferred death penalty" like this is more like a very stern warning paired with other penalties, and gets used for corruption cases that didn't actively kill people. So, say, a factory owner that negligently cut corners and ignored safety standards that subsequently killed workers or poisoned consumers would just get executed, while someone taking bribes without lethal consequences just gets prison time and a "no seriously be on your best behavior and don't even hint that you'll ever do crimes again" warning.

There are way too many names, numbers, and other specific details for any AI to have all of that right.

curious now how they carry out the executions

bigamy

surely this cant be a capital crime lmao

In fact, I don't even understand what the logical argument(s) for the death penalty are?

Outside of special circumstances (guerilla war with no capacity to imprison someone, critical prisoner who will be imminently recovered by reactionary forces due to military advance, etc.), none I'm aware of. By definition, I think if you have the stability and resources to carry out an extended legal process for the death penalty then you don't need it because you can imprison someone instead.

As far as I know, the death penalty is often not carried out in cases like this, and instead commuted to imprisonment. It would be better to abolish it altogether.

I think you have to do it with these people because otherwise once they get out they're going to form the backbone of the bourgeois forces aiming to overthrow the country. And unlike the proles they have a whole different skillset and set of knowledge that makes them far more dangerous to your country than a violent prole.

In fact, I don't even understand what the logical argument(s) for the death penalty are?

China has a population of over a billion people; even light corruption can harm tens of thousands of people as evidenced in a case mentioned somewhere here that led to 50,000 infants being hospitalized; the worse the corruption, the more and more people who are harmed, and the lighter the sentence, the more likely people will mentally balance whether they're fine in engaging with corruption vs a light sentence they may receive. Studies have even shown that punishing the wealthy is more likely to deter crime from their class than it does with poorer people (so there's data proving it works). China has a billion people, and even light corruption can destroy the lives of millions.

Being against the death penalty at this point would be more a personal aversion than a reasoned stance.

What are good reasons for killing anyone? There are lots, and thats the problem with being anti death penalty. Personally I dont find the death penalty suitable for low quantity crimes of murder, but should someone who has killed, 80 people, children even, like Anders Breivik be allowed to survive and even engage with the society he committed the crime in? I dont think so, nor should a person who knowingly condemned 500 people to an early grave through cancer and the like for thousands of dollars. I think these people have fundamentally forgotten and thrown away their humanity for their own sake, and you cant have a society where that is acceptable.

I agree comrade. For what it's worth, I find arguing from outcomes easier than from logic. For example 4% of inmates in the US Death Row are innocent, which is 1 out of 25 executions. A clear failure. It's also incredibly expensive and lengthy for the appeals process, which also drags out the time spent in prison anyway. It also doesn't meaningfully deter the crimes it punishes, as both the US and China can attest.

The real question is how can we make corruption (and other such crimes) systemically impossible so people cannot do the crime.

Like presuming innocence for the accused, we must also start from the basis that everybody can be rehabilitated.

"fiscally socialist, socially conservative"