By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Fan Weiqu and Xu Jiajin, perpetrators of deadly attacks in Zhuhai and Wuxi respectively, resulting in a combined death toll exceeding 40, were executed on Monday. Fan, driven by divorce-related anger, used his car to kill at least 35, while Xu, fueled by academic and professional frustrations, stabbed eight to death. These “revenge on society crimes” prompted President Xi Jinping to call for preventative measures. Both death sentences, handed down in December, were swiftly carried out following Supreme Court approval.
Read the original article here
China recently executed two men for committing what are described as “revenge on society crimes,” deadly attacks fueled by anger and frustration. These acts highlight a complex issue: the misdirection of intense societal anger leading to horrific violence. It’s a tragic outcome, reflecting deeper societal problems rather than simply individual failings.
The execution itself raises questions. While some view it as a just punishment for heinous crimes, others question its finality, particularly regarding the possibility of future evidence emerging. The irreversible nature of capital punishment is a significant concern, especially given the potential for mistakes or manipulated evidence, even in cases seemingly clear-cut. The system, despite aiming for indisputable proof, remains imperfect, raising ethical concerns about the potential execution of innocent individuals.
Some argue that life imprisonment, while potentially expensive, offers a chance for rehabilitation, even if unlikely in some cases. Yet, the concept of “humaneness” in this context is debatable. Keeping someone alive in prison might seem humane, but for many, the suffering inflicted on victims and their families demands a commensurate response. For some, it’s not about vengeance, but about ensuring the perpetrator can never inflict further harm. The focus shifts from the abstract notion of humaneness to the concrete reality of the lives destroyed.
The comparison to mass shootings in other countries, notably the US, is stark. Similar motivations – anger, frustration, a sense of being ignored or marginalized by society – seem to drive these perpetrators. This suggests a universal element to these events, transcending specific political or social structures. While the methods and targets might differ, the underlying causes might share common roots, reflecting broader societal problems rather than unique national characteristics. The fact these events occur across diverse societies suggests that solutions must address deep-seated issues rather than simply focusing on surface-level differences.
The nature of these attacks also highlights the ingenuity of those intent on violence, even in the face of restrictions. The individuals involved in these “revenge on society” crimes found ways to inflict mass carnage, regardless of the absence of easily accessible firearms. Knives, vehicles, or other readily available weapons proved equally lethal. This underscores the enduring challenge of preventing violence, regardless of specific weapon regulations.
However, the Chinese government’s direct and unambiguous terminology regarding these attacks, classifying them as “revenge on society crimes,” is a notable contrast to some other nations’ approaches that often skirt around the underlying causes. This forthright description may assist in identifying and addressing root problems. It forces a confrontation with the issues leading to such violence. While this transparency might not solve everything, it’s a starting point for more productive conversations and potential solutions.
The fact that these perpetrators were apprehended immediately at the scene seems to alleviate some concerns regarding misidentification or lack of evidence. However, the inherent fallibility of the justice system remains a constant concern. No system is perfect, and the risk of executing an innocent person, however small, remains unacceptable for many. A nuanced approach is required, acknowledging both the severity of the crimes and the ever-present potential for error.
Ultimately, the case highlights the persistent challenge of addressing societal anger and frustration, and the complex questions surrounding capital punishment. It underscores the need for a multi-faceted approach that addresses the underlying societal issues driving such acts of violence, while also acknowledging the limitations and potential flaws inherent in any justice system. The debate around capital punishment will likely continue, with differing perspectives weighing the pursuit of justice against the inherent risk of irreversible error. The discussion must move beyond simple pronouncements of retribution towards a deeper exploration of prevention.