Problems Existing In China’s Application Of Death Penalty Of Homicide Crimes & Countermeasures

In view of China’s criminal policies of combining punishment with leniency, the restricted application for death penalty of intentional homicide is especially important. It is also of great significance for lowering the application quantity of death penalty in China’s criminal justice. There’re multiple problems in the death penalty applications including entity problems and procedure ones, in light of the existing intentional homicide cases.The entity problems are mainly embodied on the ambiguity of application standards for intentional homicides which gives too much discretionary space to judges. At the same time, the judges would tend to take the public will and public indignation as proofs of giving the death penalty. What’s more, the legal enforcements are not unified on detailed death penalty applications.The procedure problems are mainly embodied on the insufficient protection of the litigious rights of the criminal suspects or the defendants. Some death penalties are given with the cases’proofs not reaching the standards of death penalty. The exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence has not been adequately applied. Death penalties have not adopted strict burden of proof standards. Burden of proof allocation is not clear, etc.The reasons for these problems are as follows:Firstly, it is the reason of entity. The legislation is not scientific. The application standards of death penalty are not clear enough. Death penalty verdicts have not followed. The judicial officers’ qualities are uneven. Secondly, it is the reason of procedure. Forced confessions are still existing in spite of the official banning. It has been too late for the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence to be taken into the law. Judicial efficiency has been overly emphasized, while the case qualities are not guaranteed. The burden of proof allocation has not been given adequate importance to in criminal burden of proof.Targeting at these reasons, we should resolve them in the following aspects:First, the countermeasure in entity:Put forward scientific legislation, and redefine the application standards of death penalty. Treat the public will and public indignation properly. Implement judicial independence strictly. Improve the judicial officers’ professional qualifications and political qualifications ceaselessly. Second, the countermeasure in procedure:Utilize the exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence to realize "valuing material proof and defense while making light of oral confession". Adopt strict proof standards to restrict the application of death penalty in intentional homicides. Utilize clear burden of proof allocation to restrict the application of death penalty in intentional homicides.