I thought I saw this post, then could not find it.

China is portrayed as a behemoth in the US, but it is a very fragile society that could be reduced to the kind of anarchy that prevailed prior to WW II. I think the US war planners know all about it.

I do not think killing top governmental administrators is going to change gilded age business practices in China. As its citizens become wealthier, they will also become more susceptible to the ravages of unscrupulous capitalists. I hope they can create a regulatory regime without tearing apart their society.

I think this is very cost-effective justice. Rather than what we do in the US, which is tie up the courts by prosecuting hundreds of thousands of regular people who are committing mostly "small-potatoes" crimes (like nonviolent drug offenders), it is better for the courts to focus on a few individuals whose crimes affect large numbers of people.

Corrupt public officials, polluters and corporate mass-poisoners, corporate fraudsters, insider traders, and other white-collar criminals spring to mind immediately as the most obvious candidates.

Simple but elegant.

But I'll settle for impeachment.

But severity of punishment should not be confused with an effective system to prevent future lapses.

It shouldn't even be confused with an attempt to do so. Finding and harshly punishing a prominent figure is a way that authoritarian regimes "demonstrate" that they are doing something about a "problem", even if they are doing nothing substantively about or, even, actively engaging in it at the highest levels of the regime.

One of the most important reasons we have due process protections in our Constitution is to protect society from this kind of "look, we're doing something" display and provide real accountability for the government.

And as Jeremy Bentham noted, and Foucault riffed on, a system to ensure certain FEAR of punishment is even better than ensuring certain punishment.

Yeah, I read a different version of this earlier today, and it disappeared... I had wondered if "surity" was a word.

When I taught in China in 1983, we used to see posters with red check-marks on them--meaning someone had been convicted of a crime and executed. Once we even saw a group of condemned men being driven around Guangzhou in a flatbed truck with cops using bullhorns to describe the crimes for which these guys were about to be shot.

Despite another quarter-century of such executions, some Chinese are still willing to literally risk their lives to get rich. So much for the old saying we also learned in China: "Kill the chicken to scare the monkeys."

Shame Scooter could not have been tried there, if they execute for accepting bribes, what do they do for treasonous lying under oath?

The effects might not be long lasting, but for the time being, I bet the corrupt local officials who allowed criminal manufacturers are not sleeping very soundly. This could have a real impact on encouraging rule of law, esp. in the hinterlands.

If the Chinese central government can follow this up in a year or so with the conviction and execution of a hundred more similar corrupt officials and long sentence/execution for maybe 1,000 criminal manufacturers, then they might be onto something more.

I have no sympathy for who sell or approve the sale of poisonous medicine and contaminated foods. The vast majority of the Chinese people approve of better oversight on food/pollution/medicine.

Good news:
Durbin pulled the trigger on Cheney's "double-secret branch" claims:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/10/senate-panel-cuts-off-funds-for-cheneys-office/

Actually they're good -- as long as the release a second official into the wilderness. They shouldn't have any more problems with contaminated drugs or foods.

And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats

Is that sort of like the ring toss at the carnival? I wonder if that's how the Chinese do it.

Astrid, I think the problem is that there are no oversight officials.

Those who do exist probably have no funds or equipment to look for melamine in wheat gluten.

cmdicely: It shouldn't even be confused with an attempt to do so. Finding and harshly punishing a prominent figure is a way that authoritarian regimes "demonstrate" that they are doing something about a "problem", even if they are doing nothing substantively about or, even, actively engaging in it at the highest levels of the regime.

Over here we have photo-ops and Freedom Fries in place of substantive action. The Chinese approach, while no more effective, at least sounds more entertaining.

One of the most important reasons we have due process protections in our Constitution is to protect society from this kind of "look, we're doing something" display and provide real accountability for the government.

Exactly. And when due process is violated, the whole system is in the trash.

The most shocking thing I have ever observed in the United States is how the Bush Administration managed to chuck due process with the support of a substantial base. I’ve lost a lot of respect for a lot of people. They don’t understand our constitution, even at an intuitive level. And they don’t seem to care to understand or respect it.

One thing a free press and open political process does is expose corruption. Accountability creates efficiency by uncovering and punishing wrongdoers who cannot rely on their status as government officials for protection. Authoratarian governments like China's invariably suffer from a total inability to police internal corruption, since internal investigations are a threat to the power structure. There is no "internal affairs" or GAO or subpoena power from political opponents. Rather, you have enforcement agencies from other countries (like the U.S. FDA) investigating wrongdoing and the Chinese government flopping around spastically to pretend it has control over the situation.

Would anyone have been punished if the poison tooth paste had only killed Chinese citizens? Of course not. It would have been covered up. Obviously. It's all a show for the trading partners. The lesson for corrupt Chinese officials: don't mess with the foreign trade that drives our economy. Which is kind of a no brainer when you really think about it.

Presumably, everything else is still okay.

Effectiveness of punishment: whatever. Can't we send the Bush administration to China?

Would anyone have been punished if the poison tooth paste had only killed Chinese citizens?

Or, for that matter, when people in Panama were dying last year. But when American puppies and kittens started dying, all hell broke loose. We all love the kittens but human life is a bit more important.

Brojo writes:

I hope they can create a regulatory regime without tearing apart their society.

The only way they can do that is having true rule of law. And the only they can do that is by going down the path of democracy. It won't happen under their current government.

astrid writes:

The effects might not be long lasting, but for the time being, I bet the corrupt local officials who allowed criminal manufacturers are not sleeping very soundly. This could have a real impact on encouraging rule of law, esp. in the hinterlands.

Doubtful. This is just trotting out the usual suspects - there is no rule of law in China, just like there was no true rule of law in Soviet Russia, Rome, or any other authoritarian regime. Don't apply what you learned in civics to the Chinese government.

We all love the kittens but human life is a bit more important.

That depends on whether they're young, white, blonde, American, European or some random person from somewhere else.

Kittens are way more important than folks in Sudan. You can measure it in inches of newsprint.

"As storied legal reformer Cesare Beccaria noted, a system to ensure certainty of punishment is a much more reliable stick than serendipitously harsh sentences."

To deter acts, you lower the "expected value" of the outcome (benefit minus cost). You can do that by either raising the *fine* for the punished, or raising the probability of *being* punished. Also relevant are individual risk aversion/indifference curves. Then there are also "neighborhood" effects (broken windows).

It's not true that raising the probablity of being caught is more effective at reducing the undesirable behavior. It might be, might not.

Not too unlike Texas - or Alabama - no?

China today has a sort of 18th century legal system, in which a handful of people are punished very severely while most get off scot-free. Draconian punishments are heavily publicized. The official doctrine is that such examples will send a chill through the countryside, scaring people into reform. But corruption continues unabated.

Here in the US, they would execute the poor sap at the bottom. Like with the poor fucks who went to prison for Abu Ghraib while Rumsfailed got off scot free.

Anyway, I have to say "Exactly!!"

Bud Selig is a frickin arbitrary dictator. He screwed the pooch with the 1994 World Series and he looked the other way for over a decade while a good fraction of his players used steroids. Desperate to bring back fans, he happily raked in the money brought in by the juiced up batters and pitchers.

And who get's tarred an feathered? Some Irish guy in Cincinnati and a black guy in San Francisco. Oh yeah, that's oversight. Today, another player gets caught using steroids and they'll get a ten day suspension. Bonds uses before the league even bothers to have a policy (Me Selig, Me simple cave man, Me not understand this performance enhancing drug concept), never tests positive, and they want to throw him in jail. One wishes it was Selig who got booed everytime he showed up at a baseball game.

Is the point that if it were just "extreme law and order" that would be a good thing? Otherwise, why the "but" in the next sentence? I'm confused.

So the Chinese government wishes to look resolute, so they execute a reputedly corrupt government official for taking bribes. What kind of punishment for the bribers? Or, are they too necessary for the grand Chinese experiment with rapacious capitalism? Goverment officials, a dime-a-dozen; entrepreneurs, perhaps not as replaceable.

Anybody who has worked in American industry has probably seen the “Let’s not solve the problem, let’s just go ahead and figure out whose fault it is� strategy. It’s a good policy to if your goal is to cover your ass, not a very good policy if your goal is to solve the problem.

"And as Jeremy Bentham noted, and Foucault riffed on, a system to ensure certain FEAR of punishment is even better than ensuring certain punishment."

Sorry for the late comment but:

the problem here is not the EFFECTIVENESS of the approach. It is the opportunity for increased corruption as a result.

In a society where all are deemed "criminals" and only a small percent are "made an example of", the only logical approach is to keep your head down so you aren't chosen as the example. The most common choices for "examples" are those who irritate the state or members of the ruling party in ways other than their violation of the particular law.

Example: you take bribes. That's okay, you have a 1/1000 chance of seeing any punishment at all. But, if you ALSO criticize your local party leader, you suddenly have a 1/2 or 1/3 chance of seeing lethal punishment, even though the "official" story is that that criticism was allowed and not punished.

It is the chill on dissent and disobedience which the Chinese are after. This is NOT a system which should be promoted in free-thinking nations!