China’s Head of FDA Equivalent to be Executed
May 29th, 2007
Several weeks ago we had some nice discussion on whether the death penalty was appropriate for the business people in China who knowingly sell or export poison food, fake infant formula, toothpaste, pet food, etc.
See, e.g., comments 3 and 4 to Lindsay Yoshitomi’s recent good post, Counterfeit Drugs.
See yesterday’s NY Times — “China Sentences Former Drug Regulator To Death.”
This poor chap made the mistake of letting bribes get in the way of doing his job.
Should we adopt this Chinese approach in the US? E.g., when our public officials really blow it like this, its off to the firing squad for them?
Would this encourage or discourage people from taking public office; and is that a good or a bad thing?
Lindsay, if you could make public policy with the wave of your hand (similar to what our US Supreme Court can do via a majority opinion), what would your ruling be on an issue like this, and why? And would such a policy be “executable” (pun intended) from a practical and political standpoint?
May 30 Addendum: I just came across this post on OMB by Lonnie Hodge on this same topic that adds some good meat to the above discussion.
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, Beijing, China, Misc.
20 Comments Add your own
1. Bonnie Morse | May 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
While I do believe capital punishment should be used in certain situations, I do not think it needs to be threatened against every US public official. Part of the beauty of America is that there are multiple punishments based on the severity of the crime. From civil to criminal penalties, public officials face many forms of punishment depending on their actions. Simply executing an official because they were corrupt would go against the very fibers of America’s justice system.
Part of me feels that Zheng Xiaoyu’s death will be a quick fix to a large problem. Such strict punishment helps China gain credibility as a country that will not tolerate behavior that endangers the public (or pets for that matter). But will it “solve” the food contamination problem? Who were the firms that were able to so easily bribe Xiaoyu to ignore the food and drug regulations? When does building “guanxi” cross the line into bribes, and how does China stop this? I think these questions need to be addressed if China is to truly regain its credibility in the food industry and stop further corrupt practices.
2. Christopher Arena | May 29th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
My first reaction to this article was that the death penalty was a little harsh, but after further review, I think the punishment fits the crime… off with his head. If he is responsible for the deaths of possibly thousands of Chinese citizens and hundreds of people world wide, then he needs to be severely punished. And I agree completely with Bonnie’s comment above. Dam right they are sending a message that this sort of corruption won’t be tolerated. I applaud the courts decision and am happy to see the support of a very democratic agency that was created only 9 years ago. Through his execution they are setting precedent and probably deterring other public officials from acting in the same way. Much like cheating is college leads to expulsion from a university, not a F in a class, but a get the $%@# out of our school.
Relating this same sort of punishment to American agencies would be quite difficult. I don’t think you could ever convince the current or future Supreme Courts that Chinese agency leaders’ punishment, fit his crime. However, if we were able to convince the court that the punishment fits the crime, it would set a very powerful precedent.
3. Peter Thelen | May 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I find myself torn on this issue. On one hand, I can understand this punishment as this official has done very serious harm to the integrity of the Chinese government and economy at large. However, the Chinese drug companies’ offenses are just as if not more egregious, and this government official should not bear all of the blame for their actions. Bribing government officials while producing toxic drugs to make a quick buck is deplorable, and it speaks volumes about the status of business ethics in China and the world in general.
Capital punishment would never be adopted to deter this kind of behavior in the U.S., nor do I think it should be. First of all, the U.S. government is far more transparent than the Chinese government and public activism and involvement is prevalent. It would be difficult for a U.S. official to take it as far as this Chinese official did. In addition, such a steep punishment for “white collar” crimes would discourage people from running for office for fear of inadvertently becoming involved in corruption. Public office is already unattractive (low pay, high visibility, loss of privacy, utterly bureaucratic) that America’s best and brightest have little interest in it these days. We need to think of ways to attract better candidates for public office rather than attempt to discourage a few bad apples.
4. Athena Schwartz | May 30th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
It’s always hard to read death penalty and say “woohoo!” I also agree with Bonnie though that there are crimes which definitely deserve the death penalty - and like Chris said, if you’re responsible for multiple people’s deaths because you wanted some extra cash, good riddance.
This story reminds me of a story my husband’s grandfather once told me. He used to travel to Iraq for work and said that he witnessed an execution of drug smugglers on television at the airport. When he commented to an Iraqi sitting nearby,
”that seems a little harsh”, the Iraqi replied, “well, we don’t have a drug problem”. Although it is important for China to crack down on these kinds of problems, there’s a fine line between justice and extreeme for the death penalty and I hope that in their incredible growth, they don’t get carried away.
5. Derrik | May 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Based on how our judicial system currently works, I cannot say that the death penalty should even be a consideration for punishment in ANY circumstance. We have a system that doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about who actually did what, and what a “fair” punishment should be. Instead we have a system that supports the one who has the sneakiest lawyers on their side. Most (not all) lawyers, police officers, and judges do not care about what actually happened in a court case, they simply care about winning, and winning as big as they can. I have been a personal witness to a number of cases where cops, lawyers, and witnesses have stood up, under oath, and lied or bent the truth in order to slap the defendant with as harsh of a penalty as they can possibly obtain. With this kind of corruption existing in the U.S. judicial system, I can only imagine that it is as bad or worse in China. Therefore, although the crime committed here is pretty severe, I don’t believe the death penalty is the answer. Until we have a perfect structure that is free of corruption and seeks the truth, no judicial authority should have the power to take someone’s life. Additionally, I don’t know how many of you have visited a state penitentiary before, but I would certainly prefer death than life confined in one of those boxes, let alone in a Chinese prison.
6. Kerry Huang | June 1st, 2007 at 8:24 pm
The Chinese government is using this execution as an example to show the world that the government is superficially “doing something.” I do not expect to there to be that many more executions of government officials and it does not resolve the underlying problems. If the government institutes a harsh punishment consistently (like Singapore) then a change might come about.
I’m not sure that the US should adopt this Chinese approach. The US does need tougher laws for white-collar crimes since it seems that once the scandal dies down, a politician is not longer “tainted” and can find a well paying job easily (or run off to a foreign country).
7. Jared Samarin | June 1st, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I have always been a proponent of capital punishment as the sentence for the most eggregious of crimes. However, I think that I have a hard time agreeing with such a punishment for bribery and deriliction of duty. To sentence this man to death seems to be a quick judgement that is meant more to pander to the global stage than to bring justice to those harmed.
With response to utilizing such punishments for similar offenses perpetrated within the United States I honestly do not see our Supreme Courts accepting such a policy ever. This policy if activated in the States would possibly make some think twice about becoming involved in the public sector, but I would hope that the proportion that were prevented from participation would be pretty small.
In reality though I think that the Chinese courts may have acted hastily in sentnecing Mr. Zheng to death. I believe that the more important perpetrator of fraud who must be stopped is the manufacturers of these drugs, and Mr. Zheng could have become a resource in the fight against these cowards. Understandably, we want to cut the head off of the monster, but what if this is not the head, not the root cause of a much larger much more dangerous problem? I would hope that this punishment is an action of justice but can’t help but fear that it may be a diversionary tactic to maybe lift the microscope off of now vulnerable Chinese food and Drug industries.
8. Chris Carr | June 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Derrik,
Thanks for your comment. Let me push back, just a bit.
I know and understand, more than you can imagine, your frustration. One of my sisters, an MD, and one of my brothers, a rancher, loathe … really, really loathe attorneys (and all those “activist judges” …. until, of course, they need an attorney or such a judge to help their own cause.
Mark Twain once said:
“We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it — and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again — and that is well; but she also will never sit down on a cold one anymore.”
Two questions:
1. What do you think he meant by this and why do you think I note his quote in response to your comment on judges, attorneys and police officers?
2. Relatedly, how big was your sample size (”n”) in forming your statement about judges, attorneys and police officers? If, for example, it was less than 25, 50 or 100 for each, which I assume is the case, doesn’t a data set need to be of a reasonable size before one can form “any” conclusion about such a class or subset of people?
9. Derrik | June 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
I understand why you bring up this quote in response to my comment, I have obviously been scared with bad experiences with folks from all of the above mentioned professions, and therefore I now have an initial inclination to have distrust in their motives. I know that I shouldn’t base all my knowledge off of my relatively small amount of experience, but with my sample size, poor and dishonest behavior has been displayed by these folks nearly 100% of the time. In fact if I were placed on a jury right now I would take the defendants word over anyone else’s, because of this. Mark Twain would tell me not to take this experience and generalize others from it, which I do agree with to a point. However, on the other hand, if one snake bites you, you’re better off assuming that all snakes will bite you than thinking some might be friendly. Unfortunately, most citizens (jury members) have not encountered the dark side behind the court system and think everything said under oath is true.
There was a case back in my home town where a kid who just graduated high school ran from the police and a rookie cop driving the squad car crashed and killed his partner while in pursuit. Now a reasonable court system would charge the kid with evading an officer and hold the driver of the squad car responsible for killing his partner. But no, they called the rookie cop a hero and charged the kid with murder of an officer, trying to put a life sentence on him. Another case involved a business owner who was personally was charged with manslaughter for a worker being killed in an avalanche on the jobsite. This business owner happened to run a non-union operation, and was personally informed that if he would just join the union all his problems would go away. I could go on and on about cases like this that all involved unethical behavior and abuse of power from authority figures. Getting into the civil side of our court system, it almost becomes laughable. Take a look at these “Stella Award” (www.stellaawards.com) winners. If anyone should be hung here, it’s these people. Lawyers that take on cases like this are nothing more than leaches on society. Sadly, we as MBA’s have to watch out for these parasites, because the more successful you become the more of them will cling to you and suck you dry.
I am not claiming that everyone involved in these professions are bad people, in fact I know there are at least a few out there with good intentions. But I truly do believe that the nature of these jobs naturally calls for people with questionable ethics. With the abuse that goes on in the system, these people simply should not be given the power to take someone’s life.
10. Chris Carr | June 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Derrik,
Thanks for your comment.
A black letter rule of the law we learn early in law school is a rule that was passed quite some time ago by the legislature — not the cops, attorneys or judges.
It says, in effect, “if you flee from a cop, and someone else gets hurt in the chaos of the events in a cop trying to chase you down, you are responsible for that harm/injury because you are the bright guy who put those events in motion.”
For example, if I rob a bank, the cops show up, I flee, and during the shootout or car chase they miss me and shoot and kill and innocent bystander (or even another cop or they run over a bystander or even, as in your friend’s case, hit each other and kill another cop), I am on the hook for that death and will be charged with murder (and have to pay the victim’s family civil damages). The policy behind such a rule is … if you put a crime in motion, we/society are really going to make you pay — i.e., deterrence.
I can complain all I want about the fairness of such a rule, but the fact is, had I not been doing something I should not have been, that third party bystander would not have been killed in the first place.
So, part of me feels sorry for your buddy in high school; part of me does not. Bad decisions can have unforeseen and sometimes harsh consequences.
In any event, the legislature (i.e., the people via their elected reps and democracy) have spoken via the passing of this rule. I think your beef should be more with the legislature and voters, than judges, attorneys or cops.
Also, be careful about relying on the Stella Awards and how much weight you give them. Much of what is posted there tends to be pretty “Fox news-ish”, and is based more on urban legend than fact.
For example, did you know the judge in the McDonald’s coffee spill case was/is a self-proclaimed conservative Republican appointee to the bench, and he was quoted in the press after that trial as saying, “this was no runaway jury — I was there.”
Also, I actually use the facts of the McDonald’s coffee spill case (and some other urban legend Stella Awards cases) that were introduced by both parties at the trial and then ask students to vote as if they were a member of the jury.
Cal Poly, as you know, is a pretty conservative demographic in terms of jury pools, and, in each of the 5 years I have used the case study, in a class of 180 plus each in the Silo, and after hearing the evidence (not the Fox News report or version or the Stella Awards version) the students vote 9 to 1 in FAVOR of Stella, the grandmother; and they further note that had they been on the jury they would have awarded even MORE damages.
Mark Twain would have a hey day with the Internet and the Stella Awards.
That web site, in my view, really needs to focus more on the other 999 out of 1,000 cases that are litigated in the US (or even the statistical mean of those cases), rather than focus on the 1 outlier case out of 1,000 cases; and even then it tends to misrepresent most of what happened in even these arguably 1 outlier case out of 1,000 cases. Heck, some of the cases they cite never even happened or occurred.
McDonalds also could have settled the Stella case for the cost of her uncompensated medical bills and initial demand before the case was even filed — less than $5,000, yet, they declined.
Before trial, the court appointed mediator also advised them to settle the case for just about what the jury came in at on the compensatory damages item.
So, they went to trial, most likely against their legal counsel’s advice, rolled the dice, and the people spoke, and they got tagged for a modest jury award. Part of the jury award was for punitive damages, which is the jury’s way of saying, “you were a real jerk; don’t do this again.” The judge then adjusted the jury’s punitive damage award down, due to a recent Supreme Court ruling re: ratios, as one of the system’s many safety valve checks. The system, as imperfect as it is, worked.
I would not cry too many tears for McDonalds as a “Stella web site victim.”
11. Derrik | June 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Chris,
You’re right about the Stella website and I do not hold very much weight with it in justifying my arguments against the judicial system. In fact I just stumbled upon it only a few days ago. I simply referenced the site to illustrate how ridiculous people can be without going into too much detail here. I don’t know how many of those cases are actually true or not (they claim all of them are), but I have been around plenty of people who have been involved in situations not much different than the ones described on that website. I hurt myself on your property so I’m going to sue you, or I crashed my car into your SUV but you shouldn’t be driving one of those dangerous SUV’s anyway, so I’m going to sue you. The fact that you yourself even have to worry about the possibility of one of our leech parents suing you over something stupid their kid might do on this trip is disgusting. All I’m saying is that the same toothless idiots on these juries that keep funding leeches in these outrageous settlements are the ones deciding whether someone lives or dies. Now a decent lawyer, who is far more educated than the typical jury member, should have no problem manipulating any situation to convince a jury to provide whatever outcome they desire. When you throw in lying witnesses and public authority figures that are convinced that you are an evil person and will therefore do ANYTHING, ethical or unethical, to make sure you get screwed as hard as possible, we hardly have an outcome that justifies the crime. And yes, you’re also right that part of my problem is with the legislation, there should be a little more room for common sense when determining someone’s sentence. However, I don’t want to get too far off topic here, which is that we probably shouldn’t execute the Chinese FDA guy (and by “we” I mean “the Chinese”). Just feed him some of his fake infant formula and throw him in a dark hole somewhere, and that should suffice.
12. Chris Carr | June 4th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Derrik,
Be careful what you wish for.
One day, you will likely need the judicial system and one of those “leech lawyers” to represent you and come to your rescue. E.g., when your client or customer stiffs you on a large bill for a service your provided or a product you supplied …
My being worried about being sued by the parent of a student injured on this trip is not a bad thing. In fact, it makes me work harder to do an even better job. That type of encouragement for one to do their best work, rather than schlocky work (the norm), is one of the very functions of American tort law. And if the threat of having to pay damages encourages people to do their best work and act reasonably, why is that a bad thing?
13. Derrik | June 4th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Yes, to a certain point the tort law does provide a benefit to society. For example if someone purposefully burns my house down or intentionally causes irreversible damage to me, then I can sue them, and rightly so. However, it has gone so far beyond its good use, that my sister can’t put up a volleyball net in her lawyer neighbor’s yard because he’s afraid someone might roll their ankle on his property and sue. My uncle can’t put a zip line in his neighbor’s tree, not because it is a visible nuisance, but because he’s simply afraid of being sued. I can’t walk across someone’s land to get to a secluded beach, because the owners are afraid of the liability. My cousin had to take a fort down in his fenced back yard because some kid trespassed, hurt himself and SUED him for it. It would cost me over 100 grand to purchase a Cessna aircraft, not because it’s a marvel of modern technology, but because so many people have sued Cessna that it costs the poor guys $20 to purchase a 10 cent bolt to make their planes. Yada yada yada, the list goes on and on. In fact any person or corporation that is even remotely successful will become a huge target for these “leeches” that I speak of. I may need a lawyer (not the “leech” type) to bail me out some time in my future, but it definitely won’t be used to unjustly screw someone out of money.
14. Chris Carr | June 4th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
In your view is there “any” redeeming value or benefit police, attorneys, judges, the rule of law brings to a society, and how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones, and who decides?
Check out Marc Galanter’s work, from the University of Wisconsin, on this topic. He employs solid research to combat and destroy these myths. He identifies propaganda leveled at the American system of justice, investigates its origins and conducts well-regarded research to find out if the assertions are true or false.
For example, here are just a few of his pieces …
Marc Galanter, Reading the Landscape of Disputes: What We Know and Don’t Know (and Think We Know) About Our Allegedly Contentious and Litigious Society, 31 UCLA L. Rev. 4 (one of his best pieces, in my view)
Marc Galanter, The Day After the Litigation Explosion, 46 Md. L. Rev. 3 (another one)
Marc Galanter, The Life and Times of the Big Six: Or, The Federal Courts Since the Good Old Days, Wis. L. Rev. 921
Marc Galanter, Lawyers in the Mist: The Golden Age of Legal Nostalgia, 100 Dick. L. Rev. 549
Marc Galanter, Predators and Parasites: Lawyer-bashing and Civil Justice, 28 Ga. L. Rev. 633
Marc Galanter, News from Nowhere: The Debased Debate on Civil Justice, 71 Denv. U.L. Rev. 77
Marc Galanter, Case Congregations and Their Careers, 24 Law & Soc’y Rev. 371
Marc Galanter & David Luban, Poetic Justice: Punitive Damages and Legal Pluralism, 42 Am. U.L. Rev. 1393
Marc Galanter, The Civil Jury as Regulator of the Litigation Process, U. Chi. Legal F. 201 (ditto)
Marc Galanter, Public View of Lawyers, Trial (ditto)
Gotta make sure your sample size (”n”) is more than 10 and they can’t be friends or family members due to the bias factor. If it’s several hundred or a thousand plus cases, then you may be on to something. In the meantime, heed Mark Twain’s advice, heed Mark Twain’s advice, heed Mark Twain’s advice …
15. Derrik | June 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Yes, I do see value in police, judges, attorneys, and the law, and I have mentioned that before. People should be protected from the evil doings of their peers. However, I do believe that the abusers of the system should be held more accountable for their actions, especially if they are police, judges, or attorneys. If I knew that by suing you for one million dollars for owning the property that rolled my ankle that I could potentially end up owing you one million dollars by the end of trial, I might rethink bringing my case. Or if a cop, who planted evidence on a defendant and lied in court in order to win a murder case, could end up facing a life sentence for it, instead of simply being slapped on the wrist or fired, we might see less deceit in the court room. This type of accountability would get rid of much of the ludicrousness that I have mentioned before. Jury members should expect absolute honesty out of these public figures, but from my experience, they have had no problem bending the truth in order to trick a jury into prosecuting to the full extent.
As for the Chinese legal system, I have not experienced it myself enough to generate a reasonable opinion. But as I mentioned earlier, from what I understand about China and their court system, it is probably as bad as or worse than ours. Therefore they should not be given the power to take another man’s life.
I have not read any of Galanter’s work, but has he found any of the assertions of the justice system to be true? Does he seek to find the truths about the American legal system, or does he only seek to find arguments supporting it?
16. Derrik | June 4th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
My sample size is far greater than 10. Think about all the people who have been affected negatively by all the self centered leeches out there. Pretty much every American has felt the impact of these people. Why do you have to sign ten papers to risk your own safety in a terrain park at a ski mountain, or why do you have to wear a helmet? Why do 30 of us students going on this trip have to pay $1500 for a flight we could find on our own for $500? Probably because some lowlife creature got lost trying to find his class twenty years ago and sued his school over it. We all pay for one kid’s lawsuit. People that bring about absurd cases like this are not much better than terrorists. All it takes is one lawsuit to ruin it for everyone. All it takes is one bomb to go off in an airport to ruin traveling for everyone, and so on.
17. Bradford Anderson | June 5th, 2007 at 7:12 am
The benefit of such executions is that it prevents the offender from repeating the crime.
18. Chris Carr | June 5th, 2007 at 7:28 am
“Why do 30 of us students going on this trip have to pay $1500 for a flight we could find on our own for $500?”
My goodness.
Derrick, I know that Dr. Whitaker taught you that words matter.
Are you publicly suggesting that I or the school have somehow defrauded you? Please clarify.
Do you know China well enough to assume that we all just hop on Travelocity, buy our own ticket, and then meet in the bar in the hotel in Guangzhou for drinks, snacks and check in?
Don’t be silly.
My grandfather was right when he told me, “No good deed for people goes unpunished.”
19. Derrik | June 5th, 2007 at 7:51 am
No, I don’t blame you or the school for this. I don’t feel defrauded and it’s probably a very smart policy for the school to have everyone travel together. I’m just suggesting that if someone hadn’t sued in the past or if the school didn’t have to worry about being sued in the future for something a student brings on themselves, then a policy like this would not have to exist.
20. Chris Carr | June 5th, 2007 at 9:26 am
This discussion raises an interesting point and bigger issue.
There is nice stream of research in the economics and law literature that focuses on quality of product.
For example, is an $800 air ticket on an airline that can offer that price due to lax maintenance, little threat of litigation, etc. the same “product” as the $1,000 ticket to China because they pull out and test 1 plane out of every 10 to make sure it’s safe due to safety regs, the threat of litigation, those “leech lawyers” and the threat of a lawsuit, etc. Seems to me they are two different products.
Same situation for, e.g., toys. As a parent, I will gladly pay an extra $5.00 for a toy for my kid if it’s more safe and less likely to break and choke my 1 year old kid when she plays with it. I see the unsafe toy as not even an option or legit product.
Same when I had my house remodeled … I will gladly pay the more expensive contractor who charges me more because he will follow the building code and actually has a valid contractor’s license because he fears that if he does not he will be sued by me, over the one who won’t be as careful about the building code, is a renegade contractor with no license, but will charge me much less. Again, it seems to me we are talking about two different products.
So let’s personalize this and take it out of case study realm to see where the rubber meets the road …
I can try to put you on a flight in China from Shenzhen to Shanghai that charges less than the other airline we will take and refund you the difference; but, it’s a crappy airline with an absolutely horrid safety record of all airlines in China. I.e., we can let people/the market vote with their feet. If you poll your classmates and reach a clear majority decision that folks want to take the cheaper plane, with its really crappy safety record and higher probability of crashing, but hey, we can save a few bucks, let me know. If so, I can ask Paula to see if she can get those who vote “yes” on that domestic airline and flight. This could be true “learn by doing” (or dying).
For more background reading on this subject, by some experts who have looked at this issue closely, see, Regulation and Markets by Danliel Spulber (a classic), and Economics and Regulation of Antitrust by Kip Vicusi, John Vernon and Joseph Harrington (ditto). These are economists, not lawyers, who make the point and refer to sources/other studies that do the same, that by the above we are talking about two different products, and that in most cases consumers will buy the higher priced and more safe product where safety is an issue or concern (for nails or widgets, this may not apply); and that, therefore, the higher price for such products reflects the true market price whereas the lower price was a fiction from the get go that can’t be sustained.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed