China Executes Briton Akmal Shaikh Despite Appeals for Mercy
British citizen Akmal Shaikh was executed by Chinese authorities yesterday for smuggling heroin. As reported earlier on CDT, the case was regarded as controversial given Shaikh’s family’s claims that he had a mental illness and had been manipulated by a gang into smuggling the drugs.
From the New York Times, read about Britain’s condemnation of the execution, and China’s defense of its actions:
British officials had pressed the Chinese courts to consider Mr. Shaikh’s history of mental disturbance and to allow an independent evaluation of his mental state. But China’s highest court, the Supreme People’s Court, rejected a last-minute appeal from the family and British officials and allowed the execution to go ahead as scheduled.
Two of Mr. Shaikh’s cousins, Soohail and Nasir Shaikh, who travelled to China to visit him in prison and make a last-minute plea for clemency, said they were “astonished at suggestions that Akmal himself should have provided evidence of his own fragile state of mind,” according to the BBC.
China defended its handling of the case at a regularly scheduled press conference at the Foreign Ministry in Beijing, The Associated Press reported. “We express our strong dissatisfaction and opposition to the British accusation,” said Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.
In a statement released after the execution Tuesday, the court called drug crimes “serious criminal offences” that deserved severe punishment.
Xinhua has published the opinions of Chinese law professors who also defend the execution decision:
“According to China’s Criminal Law, the death sentence given to him is legitimate and it has nothing to do with human rights concerns,” said Wang Mingliang, professor of criminal law at Shanghai-based Fudan University.
“Some Western countries also retain capital punishment, and its existence does not equate to a lack of human rights,” Wang said.
Xue Jinzhan, professor of criminal law at the East China University of Political Science and Law, also in Shanghai, said the administration of the death penalty related to a country’s history, culture and other conditions.
China strictly enforced the law without discrimination in handling the case, Chinese legal experts told Xinhua.
“It’s human nature to plead for a criminal who is from the same country or the same family, but judicial independence should be fully respected and everyone should be equal before the law,” Xue said.
Roland Soong of ESWN has a collection of articles pertaining to the controversial case. Read also coverage from the BBC.
account
POSTED COMMENTS: 5 Responses
He was given a death sentences without a proper hearings and trials. he should be examined carefully through expert medical team about his mental disorder. communist usually carries death sentences without any proceudres.
This man, a foreigner in England, was subject to sovreign laws on PRC. Gay Gordon Brown and his wrecking crew have only the immigrant vote in sight when they condemn PRC. Two weeks from now, it will not be mentioned.
The international community should realize by now that China do not change in the face of pleading for mercy. China understand one thing, and one thing only: power. The only way the international community can make China change is by force: financial, military, diplomatic, communication, etc. The international community must tell China what sanction will be implemented if they don’t follow the program. There is no use asking China to show mercy. It is not a merciful nation. It is a nation that only understand power – power it yields and power other nations yield.
That’s the only way to deal with a soulless society.
Bravo, China you did the right thing. Remember the Opium War. That kind of humiliation MUST NEVER repeat again. Chinese law must be strictly enforce.
My two cents: the guy is a victim of the internet. Now that the majority of the Chinese public can read about this in the Western media online, there is really no way the Chinese media could have kept quiet about it – or the authorities worked out a deal behind closed doors. Not without risking the anger of their own population and getting the opium war card pulled on them. This is one of those cases where domestic public opinion clearly outweighs international public opinion. Once the news was out there, the decision had very little to do with justice or injustice, right or wrong. It was a simple choice between temporarily cooling down Sino-British relations or losing legitimacy at home. From the point of view of the CCP, killing the guy certainly was the better strategic choice.