To kill him or not? – The case of Wang Binyu
Author(s): Xinsong Wang
Posted: 2005-9-30
Source:
Source date:2005-9-30
Number of hits:4179
When rule of law is challenged by social justice, so too is the Communist Party of China (CPC)'s legitimacy attenuated by public opinion. The case of Wang Binyu illustrates this point. The case has invoked heated debates in the Chinese media and on internet forums, and further discussions were recently banned by the government.
Four people killed
The 27-year-old Wang Binyu is a rural migrant worker from Gansu province. He suffered from many of the same obstacles that face the estimated 100 million rural migrants in urban China, including low pay, lack of medical insurance, minimal safety protection, poor living conditions, scornful attitudes from the urban class, etc. Yet no problem proved more unbearable than a withholding of wages owed. Wang was owed more than 5,000 yuan ($616) in back pay by his employer, Wu Xinguo—a contractor for a power plant factory in Shizuishan city of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Needing to pay for his father's leg surgery, Wang asked Wu for the owed wages in May. Wu initially denied his request but was later obliged by the local labor bureau to return Wang's wages within five days. Returning from the labor bureau on May 11, Wang found his factory dorm locked by Wu Hua, the foreman of Wang's work team who often cursed and oppressed Wang. With no place to live, Wang went with his brother, Wang Binyin, to Wu Xinguo's residence to ask for some of the money Wu owed him. Unfortunately, he went with a knife. Wu Xinguo called Wu Hua to help persuade Wang to leave. Wu Hua then called his father-in-law, Su Wencai, brother-in-law, Su Zhigang and his wife, Su Xianglan for help.
The argument quickly escalated into a scuffle when Su Wencai slapped Wang. According to Wang's trial testimony, he was beaten by Wu Hua, Su Wencai and Su Zhigang before he pulled out the knife and attacked the four. Upon seeing Wu Xinguo's wife, Tang Xiaoqin, Wang attacked her as well. At that point, Wu Xinguo fled—Wang gave chase but was unable to catch him. He then returned to the site and attacked Wu Hua, Su Wencai, Su Zhigang and Su Xianglan repeatedly, killing the four. Tang Xiaoqin survived but was severely injured. Wang and his brother then left the scene, throwing the knife in the nearby Yellow River. Later that night, Wang surrendered to a local security bureau branch. On June 29, he was convicted and sentenced to death by the Intermediate People's Court of Shizuishan.
While the second hearing by the Supreme People's Court of Ningxia is still pending, widespread public debate over the incident has emerged. Many of these debates have focused on broader social issues: the greed and selfishness of employers, the lack of social security for migrant workers, the failing institutions of rule of law in China, etc. But almost all viewpoints focus around one question: Does Wang deserve the death penalty?
Debates
Few of the debates have focused on the actual facts of the incident. Killing four people and severely injuring another, all with a knife prepared in advance, gave the judge sufficient evidence to sentence Wang to death. The defense attorney argued for leniency—he pointed out that Wang's actions were driven by passion and rage, as he has been bullied and humiliated by Wu Xinguo and others over a period of many months. In addition, Wu repeatedly refused to pay Wang his owed wages, inciting further anger and frustration. Though Wang did eventually seek retribution, he surrendered to authorities on his own and admitted his crime, pleading guilty. For the prosecuting attorney, however, none of these arguments was enough to restrain him from seeking the death penalty.
The reactions of the public were rather tilted toward Wang. Most debates focused on issues of morality, social justice, government responsibility, rule of law, etc. Some argued that Wang's situation mirrors hundreds of thousands of other migrant workers in China. On the one hand, they argued, the law is often manipulated by the rich and the powerful at the expense of migrant workers' rights. On the other hand, these workers have little knowledge of the law and how it can be used to protect their rights. Wang and his companions suffer from China's worst living conditions while working the hardest. They are forced to deal with greedy and malign bosses who not only refuse to pay their already-low wages, but treat them ruthlessly and savagely. "Any person put in Wang's situation would resort to violence," claimed one netizen on our Chinese website.
While arguing in Wang's favor, many commentators have also raised complaints about problems with the rule of law in China. Listed below are several translations of comments left on our Chinese website by those objecting to Wang's death penalty sentence.
"Some people argued that the death penalty was meant to maintain the dignity of law. What a joke! Today's law is soft to the powerful and hard to the weak. As an instrument used by the powerful to deal with the weak, what dignity dose it have? Wang's death penalty only means that the weak in today's China must endure humiliation and mistreatment, even though the most basic rights of labor are not protected. Anyone trying to fight back will be killed."
"Wang was forced to fight against those who exploit and tread on the poor. He is not wrong. What is wrong is the current law and legal institutions that failed to protect Wang when he was in need. He had to protect himself. Why in our socialist country, in which workers and farmers are the masters, can we not protect the poor who have been poor for 50 years? Why is the law always tough on the poor? Who is wrong?"
If one views these comments as overly passionate or emotional, there are legal professionals who argue for Wang from a legal perspective.
Gao Yifei, a law professor at Southwest University of Political Science and Law, has published many articles in mainstream newspapers and on the internet in support of Wang. His basic argument is that there is a difference between the verification of facts and the determination of the sentence. There is no doubt that Wang deserves punishment based on the facts of his crime. But Article 232 of the Criminal Law says that those convicted of murder may be sentenced either to death, to life in prison, or to more than ten years. The law states that the judge should make the decision based on the specific circumstances of the crime. As China lacks a jury system, Gao further argued that public opinion ("public rage" and "public emotions"), morality, and legal theories and principles should all be legally factored by the judge ("同情"对死刑裁量的影响——再谈王斌余案). Gao also introduced the legal concept of "Expected Possibility". This allows the Criminal Law to observe, based on human sense and emotion, the reasons for which certain behavior is conducted. Because Wang was continually humiliated by his superiors, and because he had no protection from these humiliations, violence appeared to him to be his only means of protecting himself. Although he certainly deserved punishment for his crime, Gao and others argue that it is inhumane to sentence him to death. They have called for a less severe sentence in the second hearing (对王斌余判处死刑违背法理).
Others have argued that law cannot be made up of rigid rules, but must protect social justice. One reason public opinion favored Wang Binyu is that the law did not protect Wang when his rights were being violated, yet it immediately condemned him when he stood up for himself. This "dramatic" change has made many people lose respect for the law. If law loses its moral foundation, it will not work and the system will collapse (法律"合法"须有道德基础支撑).
Some members of the public went even further, arguing that the government's legitimacy is shaken when the law protects the wealthy over the poor and weak. They cited the 2003 case of Liu Yong, a gangster from Shenyang who organized numerous crimes causing dozens of deaths and collecting 700 million yuan through violence and coercion. After he was sentenced to death in the first trial, a group of 14 top law professors and lawyers in China were invited to submit a "Professional Evaluation of Liu Yong's Case" to the Supreme Court in support of Liu. Liu's sentence was then changed to a stay of execution. Although a later review again gave him the death penalty and he was executed, people were amazed to see that top law professionals would stand in support of this abhorrent killer. At the time, it made people speculate about how professionals get paid to do such things. Now people are wondering where those professionals are and why they haven't submitted a recommendation letter for Wang.
Some have argued that what really caused Wang to kill others is the absence of justice in the society. As one commentator claimed:
"If the boss did not delay Wang's paychecks, if the local court protected Wang's labor rights, if any of those bureaucrats could maintain justice, then Wang would not have killed anyone."
He further asked, "How many more Wang Binyus are suffering from this sort of humiliation in our society? If all of them kill people, what is going to happen to the society? The CPC is a party for the Proletariat and is a pioneering team for the class of workers. It is also the governing party. But why can't the CPC come out and maintain justice?"
"If Wang Binyu is killed, then the government is turning the citizens of Wang's social class into its enemies."
"If Wang Binyu is sentenced to death eventually, the dark night will become darker. Wang will live in the mind of every migrant worker in China forever."
Some even compared Wang's case with General He Long's brave action 90 years ago. Unwilling to bear the government's unreasonable tax on salt trade and violent policy of detaining dealers who refused to pay the tax, He, then a poor farmer, led his companions with cleavers to kill the taxation officials and save the detained dealers. Some 30 years later He became one of the most prestigious military generals in China, and was a member of the CPC leadership that governed the country. "Our Great Party educated us that Chinese law up until that point had not protected the rights of the poor….the revolutionary party (CPC) aimed at protecting the rights of the poor by recruiting those poor people who dared to take swords and guns to fight against the government and the wealthy." Observing Wang's case, "did the revolutionary party decide to apply the rule of law today and confess it was wrong in the past to encourage those farmers to resist by killing?" "Killing Wang means that China regresses 90 years."
Despite the passionate opinions from the general public, some scholars reflected on the case from an institutional perspective. Lu Xueyi, China's preeminent sociologist, argued that Wang's case is part of a larger problem with the household registration system (hukou) and the social status and benefits of migrant workers in general. "Migrant workers are urban workers but are not allowed to be urban residents; they are peasants by their registration but they work in cities." They are in an ambivalent position caused by today's policies. Meanwhile, Wang's court testimony is shocking and distressing to read: "I know there are policies to protect migrant workers, but the policies are not implemented by the local (governments) and our rights are still not protected." Since migrant workers do not have an organized institution to protect themselves, they have no way to secure their rights as individuals
While these debates continue, all are waiting for the second hearing by the Ningxia Supreme Court and for responses from the government and policy changes in favor of migrant workers. What we have so far is a retrial with an unconfirmed date, and a clear and explicit order from the government to crack down on any discussions of Wang Binyu's case on the Internet and in the media.
Adam Heyd contributed to this article.
|
