DEATH PENALTY
M: 3280 pia. Cap.
A Legco debate on the abolition of the death penalty prompted 12 editorials from nine Chinese papers during the week unde
under review.
The HK Economic Times disagreed with the abolition of the death penalty. Tin Tin Daily News and the HK Commercial Daily considered that the death penalty should be brought back as a deterrent to serious crimes.
The HK Times, Wah Kiu Yat Po and Ming Pao felt that after the death penalty had been abolished, heavy penalties should be imposed on criminals convicted of serious crimes. Otherwise, the territory's law and order would suffer.
The HK Economic Journal (27.6) felt that a motion in Legco to reinstate the death penalty would have serious political implications because this would aggravate contradictions between the British Government and HK people who supported carrying out the death penalty.
It would deal a serious blow to HK's administrative authority during the transition if supporters of the penalty blamed the deteriorating law and order situation in the future on the British and HK Governments, which ignored public views, the paper said.
In view of Britain's opposition and the fact that carrying out the death penalty would not help improve law and order, the paper fully agreed that the death penalty should be abolished.
Sing Pao (27.6) noted that councillors should not forget that constitutionally speaking, HK could not act against its sovereign state. On certain councillors' worries that the future SAR might abuse the death penalty, the paper said that these people were over-reacting.
Ming Pao (27.6) said that many Legco members who wished to contest the coming Legco elections had taken the opportunity to increase their popularity by speaking on behalf of the public. However, the majority of Legco members during the debate had not only considered public views, but also looked at the matter from a broader perspective.
Tin Tin Daily News (29.6) criticised Legco members for failing to take account of public opinion and passing a motion to abolish the death penalty.
The HK Economic Times (27.6) held that not implementing the death penalty did not mean that the penalty could be easily abolished. The paper agreed with Kingsley Sit's view that promoting the rights of robbers meant ignoring the human rights of the public.
The paper (29.6) felt that abolishing the death penalty would only benefit criminals.
The HK Commercial Daily (27.6) felt that although reinstating the death penalty would not immediately improve the territory's law and order situation, one should not deny the deterrent effect of carrying out the death penalty. The paper suggested that the consequences be carefully considered before any move was made.
Рин
143