Law Faculty website
FACULTY OF LAW BLOGS / UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
DPRU Blog submissions
Studying Chinese Netizens’ Opinions on Death Sentences
Author(s)
Bin Liang
Professor of Sociolog y, Oklahoma
State University
Posted
11 January 2022
Time to read
5 Minutes
Recently published by the University of Michigan Press, our new book (co-authored with Dr. Jianhong Liu from the University of Macao),
titled Chinese Netizens’ Opinions on Death Sentences: An Empirical Examination, examined Chinese public opinion on the death penalty
through the lens of Chinese netizens’ (Internet users) comments on 63 capital cases in 2015 (with a total of 38,512 comments). Compared with
the rich Western literature, empirical research on this subject is still extremely limited in non-Western nations, including China. As the state
which carries out the most executions worldwide, China has never conducted a national poll on citizens’ opinions toward the death penalty (let
alone conducted a referendum), although it often claims “overwhelming public support” as a major justiccation for its retention and use of the
death penalty. This post provides an overview of this study, setting out the methodology utilised in the research, the key issues that were
addressed, and the main lessons regarding Chinese netizens’ views on capital punishment.
Unique methodology
Based on a content analysis of Chinese netizens’ opinions about China’s death sentences, our study provides the crst in-depth examination of
what Chinese netizens think about various death sentences and executions in China, and how and why they favour or oppose such sentences
and executions. Methodologically, our qualitative data cll a signiccant gap in studies of Chinese public opinion on capital punishment, and
complement previous quantitative survey studies in this celd.
Given the impracticability of conducting a nationally
representative survey in China and other weaknesses associated
with survey studies (e.g. survey questions often lack specicc
contexts and only tap into respondents’ general and abstract
opinions, while their opinions are subject to change given
different circumstances), we turned to a forum of public
comments (the website sina.com.cn) from which we collected
netizens’ comments on news articles about death sentences in
China. As the cases reported were real, concern about articcial
manipulations in previous survey and vignette studies was no
longer an issue in our design.
Though not a nationally representative sample, Chinese
netizens serve as a better representation than samples utilized
in previous studies in the country. The China Internet Network
Information Center (2021) reported that the total number of
Chinese Internet users had reached 1.01 billion (71.6% of China’s
total population) by June 2021, and 99.6% of users access the
Internet via mobile phones. This high level of Internet usage
enables interested netizens to participate in our study. While
geographical restriction was often a major limitation in past
studies, data in our study covered all 31 provinces in mainland
China and Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Unlike survey
respondents who might not have a real interest in death penalty
issues and/or are ‘forced’ to answer questions that might not
otherwise be on their mind, netizens in this study shared their
opinions voluntarily, reducing potential problems of some
methodological issues such as the social desirability bias. In
addition, netizens’ interactions (i.e. exchanges of netizens’
comments) allow us to examine the potential effect of a unique
form of public discussion and deliberation. Such online public
discussions and deliberations cll a signiccant gap in
contemporary China, as people still lack meaningful alternatives
to voice their opinions and concerns about sensitive issues such
as the use of the death penalty in the non-virtual world.
Key issues covered
Organized in ten chapters, our study examined a number of key issues. First, we started with basic but fundamental questions including what
Chinese netizens commented on (i.e. the diversity of their comments), why they supported or opposed death sentences (i.e. the rationales of
netizens’ opinions), and how they responded to each other (i.e. netizens’ interactions). Second, we focused on variances of netizens’ opinions
and examined how their opinions might have changed given different circumstances such as crime types, characteristics of defendants and
victims, legal procedures, and media reporting. Third, we paid particular attention to netizens’ evaluation of China’s criminal justice system
and its professionals, and discussed how netizens’ opinions were embedded in China’s social, systemic, and structural problems. Last but not
least, we critically examined the rationality of netizens’ opinions based on Jürgen Habermas’s ‘communicative rationality’ framework.[i] As
Chinese netizens’ comments were made in specicc cases, readers of this book would be able to contextualize netizens’ discussions, and learn
lessons and draw conclusions about the commonalities and the uniqueness of China’s practice compared with other jurisdictions. The
authenticity of our empirical data – from 63 death penalty cases with a total of 123 death sentenced offenders, covering 11 different types of
capital offences – boosts the quality of this study and allows readers to gain a glimpse of the actual situation in China’s practice of the death
penalty.
Main lessons
Collectively, a number of lessons can be drawn from this study. First, Chinese netizens’ opinions displayed a great degree of diversity on the
range of topics covered (the breadth), the diverse views covered in each topic (the depth), and the variances of netizens’ opinions given the
different circumstances of cases. Chinese netizens are not afraid of sharing their opinions online, sometimes with very bold and critical
statements. In cases involving unpopular governmental policies (e.g. birth control policy, real estate demolition and relocation policy), they
explicitly expressed their rejection and even lent majority support to capital offenders in some cases. Such bold voices and opposition suggest
that government claims of “overwhelming public support” are misleading and fail to represent the nuances of netizens’ true opinions.
Second, the inouence of Chinese culture is apparent in the majority of netizens’ opinions. Concepts such as sharen changming (a life for a life)
and “killing one to deter a hundred” heavily inouenced netizens’ support of death sentences. The inouence of such traditional culture is what
makes China “Chinese,” and it may pose obstacles to further reforms of China’s use of capital punishment (e.g. reduction or abolition). Third,
netizens’ comments and discussions are embedded in contemporary Chinese society and reoect their opinions about existing social problems
and systems, such as their concerns about rising crime rates and public safety, rampant corruption, problems of the healthcare system,
widening social inequality, privileges enjoyed by governmental ofccials and the wealthy, and the fairness of the judicial system.
Fourth, our study presented a unique opportunity to examine the rationality of Chinese netizens’ discussions and deliberations online – a key
component missing from past studies. Applying Habermas’s communicative rationality framework, we identiced both elements of rationality
and irrationality in our study. Major examples of irrationality include personal attacks, cursing, calling for legal punishment of innocent people
and forgoing legal procedures, and various forms of discrimination. These examples failed to meet the Habermasian standards due to the
nature of netizens’ behavior in violating contemporary moral and legal norms (e.g. calling for punishment of innocent people), based on oawed
reasoning (e.g. discriminatory remarks), or carrying disruptive and damaging effect on the communication process or the consensus-building
outcome (e.g. personal attacks, cursing, discrimination). In contrast, the case comparisons and constructive suggestions by the Chinese
netizens presented good instances of rational arguments. It is through case comparisons that netizens questioned fairness and equity in
contemporary Chinese society and brought in different perspectives from other nations. In making suggestions, destructive ones intended only
to vent would fail the test of Habermas’s rationality, but constructive ones intended to stimulate netizens’ communication and help them reach
consensus would prevail. Given the nature of anonymity without face-to-face interaction, online discussions presented an open platform for
netizens to express their opinions (almost unregulated) and vent their feelings (uncontrolled). How to guide Chinese netizens to better utilize
this unique platform of public opinion continues to be a challenge, especially when other viable channels to participate in public discussion
and debate are lacking in China.
Bin Liang is Professor of Sociology at Oklahoma State University. Further details about Professor Liang and Professor Liu's book can be found
on the University of Michigan Press website here.
[i] Jürgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action (Vols. 1 & 2) (Beacon Press 1984/1987).
Share
@OxfordLawFac
On Youtube
Our blogs are written by individual contributors and so
consist of individual opinions and viewpoints which are
not necessarily the views of either the Faculty of Law or
of the University of Oxford.
Privacy Policy
Contact
Accessibility Statement
Cookie Statement
Contact us
The Faculty of Law, University of Oxford,
St Cross Building,
St Cross Road, Oxford OX1 3UL
Enquiries: See contact emails
Contact Us
Data Protection
University of Oxford
Non-Oxford login
Oxford Login