Predictors of Death Penalty Views in China: An Empirical Comparison Between College Students and Citizens

Abstract

China’s current Criminal Law has 46 death-eligible offenses, and China executes more people than any other country in the world. However, there is a lack of study of attitudes toward capital punishment for specific offenses, and no death penalty view comparison between college students and regular citizens in China was found. This study was taken to address these limitations. Using a sample of 401 respondents from Zhejiang, China, in 2016, the present study found that more than 72% of respondents favored the death penalty without any specification of crime types. Level of death penalty support differed by various specific crimes. As expected, relative to college students, general population citizens were more likely to support capital punishment. Both groups had the highest death penalty support for murder. The study also revealed similar and different reasons behind death penalty attitudes between college students and regular citizens.

Keywords

death penalty views college students citizens China capital punishment

Not only is the People’s Republic of China (henceforth, China) a capital punishment–retentionist nation, but it is also believed to execute more people than all other nations combined (Griffiths, 2016). Nonetheless, survey data on the death penalty are generally not available to the public in China, and no empirical research of death penalty views appeared in English language journals prior to 2004 (Jiang, Lambert, Wang, Saito, & Pilot, 2010). Starting in 2004, several high profile wrongful conviction cases such as Sun Wangang, She Xianglin, and Zhao Zuohai were reported in the Chinese media (Liang, 2015). These wrongful conviction capital punishment cases generated heated debates among Chinese criminal justice professionals, the general public, and scholars. Within China, legal and philosophical arguments about the death penalty have increased (see Yu, 2015 for a review), but there is still little empirical research on major reasons to support or oppose it. Meanwhile, outside China, scholars have a growing interest in studying Chinese capital punishment. Besides historical and legal investigations of the death penalty in China (see Liang, 2015, and Lu & Miethe, 2007 for reviews), scholars have also conducted empirical studies on death penalty views (see Jiang, 2015 for a review). These studies have examined a number of reasons to support or oppose capital punishment, such as deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation (Jiang, Lambert, & Nathan, 2009; Jiang et al., 2010; Jiang & Wang, 2008), wrongful conviction/execution (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2010; Jiang & Wang, 2008), crime severity, crime prevalence, fear of crime (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2010; Jiang & Wang, 2008; Liang, Lu, Miethe, & Zhang, 2006; Qi & Oberwittler, 2009; Wu, Sun, & Wu, 2011), barbarity (Jiang et al., 2010), confidence in government (Jiang & Wang, 2008), and victimization (Liang et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2011).

Although the above studies provide insights about death penalty views in China, they have several limitations. First, the 1997 Criminal Law in China had 68 capital offenses, and the latest (2015) version of Criminal Law has 46 death-eligible offenses. As such, there was a reduction in the number of death-eligible sentences. There have been only four surveys of the attitudes toward capital punishment for specific offenses, and most of these studies were before the change in the number of death-eligible crimes. Three of the studies (Jia, 2005; Kuang et al., 2010; Oberwittler & Qi, 2009) are descriptive, while the fourth used regression analysis (Qi & Oberwittler, 2009). Second, there are six studies that used multivariate analyses of predictors of death penalty views in China, and only three studies (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007; Jiang & Wang, 2008) included three or four of these variables: deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation. Three studies (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2007; Jiang & Wang, 2008) included wrongful conviction/execution, one study (Jiang & Wang, 2008) included confidence in government, one study (Jiang et al., 2010) included barbarity, and two studies (Liang et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2011) included victimization. This indicates past studies have considered a limited few factors when exploring the reasons for level of death penalty support. Third, among the 13 empirical investigations of China’s death penalty views reviewed by Jiang (2015), four included noncollege student samples. Fourth, there is no comparison between college students and regular citizens on their level of death penalty support and reasons for supporting or opposing capital punishment. This study was, therefore, undertaken to address these limitations. The focus of the present study was to explore (a) the support levels of the death penalty for different types of offenses including murder, other violent crimes, and property crimes; (b) the predictors of death penalty views and (c) whether college students and regular citizens differ in the level of support for capital punishment; and (d) whether the predictors of their death penalty views differ.

The present study not only advances knowledge about Chinese respondents’ levels of support for capital punishment and predictors of their death penalty views but also adds to the overall death penalty literature. The governments of both China and the United States (i.e., the Supreme People’s Court in China and Supreme Court in the United States) link the legality of the death penalty to public support for capital punishment (Bohm, Clark, & Aveni, 1991; Hood, 2009; Jiang & Wang, 2008; Yu, 2015). The comparison between student and resident attitudes toward the death penalty is also important in the field of death penalty research. As noted above, there is no such research in China. In the United States, one student–resident comparative study (Maggard, Payne, & Chappell, 2012) was found. Generally speaking, the comparison between student and resident attitudes toward the death penalty can reveal the “similarities and differences between the way that students and residents view the death penalty” (Maggard et al., 2012, p. 156). Furthermore, this type of research can help understand how education influences views of social justice and social science issues, in general, and views of the death penalty, in particular, because, on average, college students generally have higher education levels than residents (Maggard et al., 2012). The comparison between student and resident attitudes toward the death penalty can help understand whether the death penalty attitudes of certain groups are excluded in the formulation of death penalty policy (Maggard et al., 2012). In addition, given the pressure from the international abolitionist movement and other developments in China, Chinese government, legal scholars, and commentators agreed with this point that the death penalty would be abolished in the future or maybe in the far distant future. The length of the process depends on the country’s social and economic developments, people’s belief in retribution, and their perception of functions of deterrence, incapacitation, and the maintenance of order and stability of China (Hood, 2009). The comparison between student and resident attitudes toward the death penalty is helpful to understand the process because college students are generally younger than residents.

Literature Review

Before examining the reasons for the death penalty views in China, this section commences with a brief review of its death penalty development. Since the Xia Dynasty (2207-1766 B.C.), the government of China has used the death penalty as a punishment (Jiang & Wang, 2008). Because of its presumed deterrence, various governments in China have used capital punishment as a control mechanism to maintain and preserve state power and social order (Miethe & Lu, 2005). The current Communist Party government of China came into power in 1949 and continues to use the death penalty.

During China’s economic reform period, which started in 1978, crime, particularly economic offenses, increased. To maintain its economic and social order, the Chinese government enacted a second criminal code in 1997, which increased the number of death-eligible offenses from 28 to 68, including 18 focusing on economic or social order crimes (Wang, 2008). In addition, the Chinese government engages in several “strike-hard “ campaigns in the 1980s and 1990s to reduce crime, creating problems of torture, presumption of guilt rather than innocence, and lack of checks and balances among the police, procuratorate (prosecutor), and court (Liang, 2015). During this time, there was a significant increase in the use of the death penalty, which resulted in international criticism. The Chinese government amended the 1997 criminal code nine times because of problems and domestic and international pressure. These changes dropped 13 capital offenses, while keeping 55 offenses punishable by death (see Lu, Li, & Hu, 2015, for details). In 2013, the criminal code was further modified to allow for life without parole sentences in lieu of a death sentence. There are far more death punishable crimes in China than the United States, including for nonviolent economic offenses. What is not clear is whether support for the death penalty among Chinese citizens varies by types of crimes.

Reasons to Support the Death Penalty

While there are a variety of factors that likely influence the level of death penalty support, they can be grouped into three primary categories of reasons to support the death penalty, reasons to oppose the death penalty, and individual characteristics.

Deterrence

Under the deterrence ideology, harsh punishments deter criminal behavior. Deterrence can be general or specific. Under general deterrence, society punishes an offender to prevent others from committing a future crime (Bedau, 1997). Specific deterrence refers to the effectiveness of punishment on the offender’s future criminal behavior once released from government control. As capital punishment means the offender is not released but executed, specific deterrence is not applicable for supporting capital punishment. The deterrence effect of capital punishment, therefore, refers to the general deterrent effect. Empirical studies in the United States usually reported that the death penalty does not reduce crime rate; nevertheless, belief in deterrence is often found to be a predictor of support for the death penalty in the United States and China (Bohm, 1987; Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang & Wang, 2008; Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2008; Zhang, 2008). Many in China still hold the position that capital punishment deters others from similar wrongful behavior (Jiang, 2015). Therefore,

Hypothesis 1: Belief in general deterrence would be positively related to support for the death penalty among Chinese citizens.

Retribution

Retribution is a long-held ideology for punishment in general and capital punishment in particular in the United States and China (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Jiang et al., 2009; Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004; Miethe & Lu, 2005). Under this ideology, people who took a life forfeit their life, and as such, capital punishment is seen as just (Radelet & Borg, 2000). Retribution is a reason given for supporting the death penalty both in the United States and China (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Jiang et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2010; Jiang & Wang, 2008; Lambert et al., 2004).

Hypothesis 2: Belief in retribution would result in higher support for the death penalty among Chinese citizens.

Incapacitation

The ideology of incapacitation focuses on the elimination of an individual’s opportunity for crime via various governmental restraints on their actions (Miethe & Lu, 2005). In terms of capital punishment, incapacitation refers to the belief that executing a person will prevent him or her from killing again (Bohm, 1987). In addition, many people believe that life imprisonment, even without a chance of parole, does not actually mean life, and many convicted murders would kill again if given the opportunity (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997). In both the United States and China, some individuals indicate that they support capital punishment for the reason of incapacitation (Bohm, 1987; Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Jiang et al., 2010; Jiang & Wang, 2008).

Hypothesis 3: Chinese individuals who believe in incapacitation would be more likely to support the death penalty.

Crime severity

Crime severity refers to the degree that crime is seen as a social problem, and includes fear of crime. Arthur (1998) contended that “citizens who fear crime and regard crime as a major social problem are more likely to demand that punishment of crime should be more severe” (p. 133). Findings regarding the relationship between crime severity and attitude toward the death penalty are mixed in the United States. Some research found no relationship between the two variables (Arthur, 1998; Bohm, 1987). Other studies found an association of level of death penalty support with crime rate, perception of the crime rate, and/or fear of crime, with support for the death penalty (Baumgartner, De Boef, & Boydstun, 2008; Stack, 2003). As with the United States, the findings are mixed in China, with some studies reporting no significant association (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2010; Jiang & Wang, 2008; Qi & Oberwittler, 2009), while one study found a significant relationship (Liang et al., 2006). In China, there is a general belief that increasing crime is more likely to lead to more severe punishment. As such,

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of crime severity among Chinese citizens would be positively related to support for the death penalty.

Confidence in government

Capital punishment is a governmental sanction. Citizens who have confidence in government are more likely to support the imposition of the death penalty in the West (Soss, Langbein, & Metelko, 2003; Unnever & Cullen, 2005; Zimring, 2003). Only a single published study could be found that examined the effects of confidence in government and death penalty support among Chinese citizens. Jiang and Wang (2008) reported that the bivariate relationship between confidence in government and level of death penalty support disappeared in multivariate analysis when measures for deterrence, retribution, wrongful conviction, and crime severity were included. Nevertheless, the following was hypothesized:

Hypothesis 5: Confidence in government would be positively related to death penalty support among Chinese citizens.

Maintenance of social order

Some individuals contend that capital punishment is important for maintaining social order (Jiang et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2004; Maxwell & Rivera-Vazquez, 1998). The limited research in this area suggests that maintenance of social order beliefs are positively associated with death penalty support in both the United States and China (Jiang et al., 2009; Lambert et al., 2004).

Hypothesis 6: Chinese individuals who advocate for the need for social order maintenance would have higher levels of support for capital punishment.

Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation, sometimes called treatment, is the ideology that offenders can be changed through interventions (Lambert et al., 2004). “The ultimate goal of rehabilitation is to restore a convicted offender to a constructive place in society through some combination of treatment, education, and training” (Miethe & Lu, 2005, p. 22). Although this perspective is better applied to punishment in general, it is believed that people who support rehabilitation are more likely to oppose the death penalty than those who do not support rehabilitation (Jiang et al., 2007). “It is illogical to argue executing people treats them for the underlying causes for their criminal behavior” (Lambert et al., 2004, p. 5). Support for rehabilitation has been observed to be associated with lower support for the death penalty among both U.S. and Chinese students (Jiang et al., 2007).

Hypothesis 7: Support for rehabilitation should be negatively associated with support for the death penalty among Chinese residents.

Wrongful conviction

Wrongful conviction can refer to convictions that are procedurally flawed or convictions of people who are innocent of the crime or in cases when the crime never occurred. The legitimacy of the death penalty and attitudes toward capital punishment have long been tied to the issue of whether innocent people have been sentenced to death (Baumgartner et al., 2008). The issue of individuals wrongly sentenced to death was one of the primary reasons why, in 2007, China’s Supreme People’s Court required final review and approval authority for death penalty sentences (Liang, 2015). Studies have found that belief in wrongful convictions was negatively linked to support of capital punishment among U.S. citizens (Jiang et al., 2007; Lambert et al., 2004; Unnever & Cullen, 2005). Findings for Chinese citizens are mixed; two studies found an association (Jiang et al., 2007; Jiang et al., 2010), and two other studies found no association (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang & Wang, 2008). There has, however, been greater media coverage of wrongful convictions recently in China. As such,

Hypothesis 8: Belief in wrongful conviction would be negatively related to support for the death penalty among Chinese citizens.

Sadness

Emotions can play a role in death penalty support. Ellsworth and Gross (1997) pointed out that although emotions are important reasons for attitudes toward the death penalty, “hardly anyone has asked respondents questions that give them the opportunity to express their emotions directly” (p. 100). Lambert et al. (2004) found that when U.S. individuals reported being sad about executions, they were less likely to support capital punishment.

Hypothesis 9: Chinese individuals who feel sad about government executions would be less likely to support the death penalty.

Brutalization

Some individuals contend that the death penalty serves little purpose other than to show society’s cruelty and brutalization, and it sets an example of violence or using violence against violence. Some oppose the death penalty because it is wrong for government to take a life. Furthermore, they feel that responding to violence with violence can result in even more violence in society (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997). Lambert, Hogan, et al. (2008) found that college students in the United States who perceived capital punishment as a brutal sanction were less likely to support it. In studying level of death penalty support among college students from China, Japan, and the United States, Jiang et al. (2010) observed that those who believed capital punishment was cruel were more likely to oppose it regardless of nation.

Hypothesis 10: Among Chinese individuals, agreement that the death penalty was brutal would have a negative effect on level of capital punishment support.

Personal characteristics

Among U.S. citizens, personal characteristics, such as age, gender, and marital status, may be linked to level of death penalty support but tend to serve as proxy measures for other factors (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Lambert et al., 2004). The personal characteristics of age, gender, and marital status were included in the present study more as control than as explanatory variables. Race has commonly been found to be an important variable in many Western studies on capital punishment. China, however, is a racially homogeneous country; therefore, race was not included in the present study.

Differences between general population citizens and college students

There has been little research to determine whether Chinese general population citizens and college students significantly differ in their level of death penalty in general and for specific crimes, as well as whether they differ in their views on the reasons to support or oppose capital punishment. In the United States, those with more education, those who are more affluent, and younger individuals tend to be less supportive of capital punishment (Bedau, 1997; Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Lambert et al., 2004). Chinese college students tend to be younger and more highly educated than the general population. They also have a brighter economic future compared with those without a college education.

Hypothesis 11: Chinese general population citizens would have higher support for capital punishment in general and for specific crimes.

Further,

Hypothesis 12: Citizens would agree more strongly with the reasons to support capital punishment.

Hypothesis 13: Students would agree more strongly with reasons to oppose the death penalty.

Finally,

Hypothesis 14: The predictors of general death penalty support would differ between citizens and students.

Method

Participants

As there is little research comparing death penalty views between college students and citizens, the present study collected data from both groups. The data were collected from face-to-face surveys in the Zhejiang province of China in 2016. Based on our review of the literature, the survey consisted of questions about death penalty views, crime, the criminal justice system, and different forms of crime control. The survey included the views toward not only the death penalty in general but also capital punishment for specific offenses such as murder, rape, robbery, and property crimes. The survey was first pilot tested among college students and citizens in the general public. The interview survey was overseen by a researcher who had conducted previous surveys in China, and this scholar was assisted by three Chinese doctoral students and two Chinese master students, and these students had prior interview experience and were all trained on how to conduct the interview surveys. Although the survey research has been used in China since the 1980s, many Chinese citizens are still reluctant to participate in mailed or telephone surveys. Face-to-face surveys were conducted to improve the response rate. The following aspects were made clear to the participants: (a) who the researchers were; (b) the purpose of the interview, including that the results would be used for academic research; (c) the responses would be anonymous and the results would be kept confidential with no way to link responses with a particular participant; and (d) the survey was voluntary, nobody would be forced to complete it, and a person could stop at any time. A 32 GB USB flash drive was used as a token to encourage completion of the survey. A total of 210 students were approached, and 198 completed the survey. A total of 227 citizens in the general public were contacted, and 203 completed the survey. A total of 401 individuals participated in the interview survey, and the overall response rate was 92%.

Variables

Dependent variable

Death penalty support was measured using two items. The first was an overall item on the level of support: Please check only one of the below statements that best reflects your overall attitude toward the capital punishment: I am very strongly in favor of the death penalty (7), I am strongly in favor of the death penalty (6), I am somewhat in favor of the death penalty (5), I am uncertain about the death penalty (4), I am somewhat opposed to the death penalty (3), I am strongly opposed to the death penalty (2), and I am very strongly opposed to the death penalty (1). This question was adapted from previous studies (e.g., Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang & Wang, 2008; Lambert, Pasupuleti, et al., 2008). The second item asked level of death penalty support for specific crimes: Do you support the death penalty for the following crimes/offenses: murder, intentional injury resulting in death, drug dealing, sexual abuse of a girl under age 14, producing fake medicines, theft, corruption, rape of an adult woman, embezzlement, organizing prostitution, espionage (treason), and robbery? The answer categories were strongly oppose (1), oppose (2), uncertain (3), support (4), and strongly support (5). This question was adapted from Oberwittler and Qi (2009). The general question was used as the dependent variable in the regression analysis in the present study. The second type of question was used for the mean comparisons between students and citizens from the general population.

Independent variables

Deterrence was measured by three items: (a) “The death penalty is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment,” (b) “I feel that the death penalty deters others from committing crimes,” and (c) “The death penalty punishment is a powerful deterrent to crime.” These items were adapted from Jiang et al. (2009) and Jiang and Wang (2008). In a factor analysis, the three items loaded on one factor, and an index was created for deterrence using the factor analysis results. Retribution was measured by an index that was formed from two items: “I believe in the idea of an eye for an eye, a life for a life and as such support the death penalty for murderers” and “Society has a right to seek revenge on violent criminals.” These two items were used to measure retribution by Jiang et al. (2009) and Jiang et al. (2007). The two items loaded on one factor in a factor analysis, and an index was created using the factor loading scores. Incapacitation was measured by a single item from Jiang and Wang (2008): “Death is the ultimate incapacitation of a violent criminal.” Crime severity was also measured by a single item from Lambert et al. (2004): “Crime is one of the most serious social problems facing society today.” Confidence in government was measured by a factor formed from four items: (a) “The courts are fair in their decision-making when dealing with criminal defendants,” (b) “The courts treated all citizens fairly,” (c) “I have a favorable overall view of the courts,” and (d) “I trust the police.” The four items loaded on one factor, and an index was created using the factor loading scores. Maintenance of social order was measured by a single item from Jiang et al. (2009): “The death penalty is necessary to maintain law and order.” The items for the above variables were answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4), strongly agree (5).

Rehabilitation was measured using one item: “Since offenders can be treated, capital punishment is not needed.” Wrongful conviction was measured also with one item: “Innocent people are sometimes sentenced to death.” This question was used by Jiang et al. (2009), Jiang et al. (2010), and Jiang and Wang (2008). Sadness was measured by the following item adapted from Lambert et al. (2004): “It saddens me when a person is executed, regardless of the crime they committed.” Brutalization was measured by three items from Lambert et al. (2004) and Lambert et al. (2008): (a) “Executions set a violent example that leads to further violence in society”; (b) “When society executes an individual for a violent crime, it is responding to violence with violence”; and (c) “The death penalty serves little purpose other than to show society’s cruelty.” The three items loaded on one factor in a factor analysis, and an index was created using the factor analysis results. The above items were also answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Finally, variables for the personal characteristics of gender, age, and marital status were created. Gender was coded as women = 0 and men = 1. Age was measured in continuous years. Marital status was a dichotomous variable measuring if the participant was single (coded 0) or married (coded 1).

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive and comparative statistics of dependent and independent variables for the entire sample and comparative statistics of dependent and independent variables between students and general population citizens. The gender distribution of participants was 62% men and 38% women, with 59% of the students being male and 65% of the general public respondents being male. The overall mean age was 30, with a mean age of 39 for the general population citizens and 21 for the students. For the overall group, 42% were married, with 2% of students being married and 81% of the general population citizens. The majority (73%) of the participants supported the death penalty in some manner, with most supporting it somewhat (46%).

Table 1.

Descriptive and Comparative Statistics of Dependent and Independent Variables.

Variable	Entire sample					General population citizens					Students
Variable	%	M	Med	Min	Max	%	M	Med	Min	Max	%	M	Med	Min	Max
Death penalty support^a		4.88	5	1	7		5.17	5	1	7		4.58	5	1	7
1. Very strongly oppose	2.3					0.5					4.1
2. Strongly oppose	2.0					1.0					3.0
3. Somewhat oppose	4.5					6.5					12.7
4. Uncertain	13.6					11.9					15.2
5. Somewhat support	46.0					44.3					47.7
6. Strongly support	17.8					24.9					10.7
7. Very strongly support	8.8					10.9					6.6
Deterrence^a		0	0.10	−3.36	1.64		0.22	0.39	−2.49	1.64		−0.22	0.00	−3.36	1.64
Retribution^a		2.54	2	1	5		2.68	2	1	5		2.39	2	1	5
Incapacitation		3.74	4	1	5		3.79	4	1	5		3.69	4	1	5
Crime severity		3.26	4	1	5		3.28	4	1	5		3.24	4	1	5
Confidence in gov’t^a		0	0.20	−4.05	2.29		−0.13	0.14	−4.05	2.29		0.14	0.23	−3.66	2.29
Maintenance of order^a		3.93	4	1	5		4.00	4	2	5		3.84	4	1	5
Rehabilitation		2.38	2	1	5		2.36	2	1	5		2.41	2	1	5
Wrongful conviction		0	0.07	−1.92	2.06		0.08	0.05	−1.92	2.06		0.08	0.07	−1.92	2.06
Sadness		2.99	3	1	5		3.07	3	1	5		2.90	3	1	5
Brutalization^a		0	−0.16	−2.03	3.86		−0.10	−0.46	−2.03	3.32		0.10	−0.20	−2.03	3.86
Gender (male = 1)		0.62	1	0	1		0.65	1	0	1		0.59	1	0	1
Age^a		30.14	25.5	18	60		39.46	40	21	60		20.63	20	18	35
Marital (married = 1)^a		0.42	0	0	1		0.81	1	0	1		0.02	0	0	1

Note. % = percentage of cases; med = median value; min = minimum value; max = maximum value; confidence in gov’t = confidence in government; maintenance of order = maintenance of social order; marital = marital status. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. A total of 401 participants completed the survey, of which 203 were general public citizens, and 198 were students. The number of missing cases for each variable ranged from 0 to 9.

Based on the Independent t test, there was a statistically significant difference at p ≤ .05 between general population citizens and college students on the variable.

Results from independent t tests show that there was a statistically significant difference between college students and general population citizens in their views on several variables. Citizens were higher in their support of capital punishment than were students (80% vs. 65%). Citizens were also higher in their level of support for deterrence, retribution, and maintenance of social order as compared with students. Conversely, college students agreed more strongly with brutalization views than general population citizens. Students also had higher confidence in government agencies.

Table 2 presents the findings for level of death penalty support for different crimes. The vast majority (81%) supported capital punishment for murder. Espionage had the next highest level of death penalty support at 68%, followed closely by drug dealing (67%), sexual abuse of a girl under 14 years of age (63%), intentional injury resulting in death (60%), and production of fake medicines (57%). The other crimes all had levels of death penalty support much below 50%, in the following order: robbery (32%), organizing prostitution (32%), rape of an adult women (28%), embezzlement (24%), corruption (20%), and theft (6%).

Table 2.

Death Penalty Support Levels for Different Types of Offenses for the Entire Group, General Population Citizens, and College Students.

Crime	Entire sample						General population citizens						College students
Crime	1	2	3	4	5	M	1	2	3	4	5	M	1	2	3	4	5	M
Murder^a	1.0	2.8	14.9	47.5	33.8	4.10	1.0	1.5	11.6	43.7	42.2	4.25	1.0	4.1	18.3	51.3	25.4	3.96
Injury death	1.8	9.9	28.4	39.8	20.1	3.67	1.5	8.6	30.5	38.6	20.8	3.69	2.0	11.2	26.4	41.1	19.3	3.64
Drug dealing^a	2.0	12.7	18.3	33.5	33.5	3.84	1.5	7.1	14.2	34.5	42.6	4.10	2.5	18.3	22.3	32.5	24.4	3.58
Sexual child^a	2.3	14.5	19.8	34.6	28.8	3.73	2.0	10.7	19.4	33.7	34.2	3.87	2.5	18.3	20.3	35.5	23.4	3.59
Fake med^a	3.6	13.2	25.9	35.0	22.3	3.59	2.0	5.6	23.9	39.1	29.4	3.88	5.1	20.8	27.9	31.0	15.2	3.30
Theft^a	22.6	46.7	25.1	4.4	1.3	2.15	18.7	42.0	32.1	5.7	1.6	2.30	26.4	51.3	18.3	3.0	1.0	2.01
Corruption^a	10.9	37.3	31.9	14.0	6.0	2.67	5.8	36.3	34.7	16.8	6.3	2.82	15.8	38.3	29.1	11.2	5.6	2.53
Rape	4.1	30.2	37.4	19.1	9.3	2.99	3.6	31.8	42.2	15.1	7.3	2.91	4.6	28.6	32.7	23.0	11.2	3.08
Embezzlement	6.6	33.4	36.2	16.3	7.4	2.84	5.1	30.3	41.0	14.9	8.7	2.92	8.1	36.5	31.5	17.8	6.1	2.77
Org prostit^a	4.1	31.2	32.5	20.4	11.9	3.05	4.2	33.0	37.7	15.2	9.9	2.94	4.1	29.4	27.4	25.4	13.7	3.15
Espionage^a	4.3	11.0	17.1	30.6	37.0	3.85	2.6	5.6	16.4	32.3	43.1	4.08	6.1	16.2	17.8	28.9	31.0	3.62
Robbery^a	5.9	26.1	35.8	22.5	9.7	3.04	2.6	13.4	39.2	28.9	16.0	3.42	9.1	38.6	32.5	16.2	3.6	2.67

Note. The numbers in the columns stand for level of death penalty support where 1 = strongly oppose, 2 = oppose, 3 = uncertain, 4 = support, and 5 = strongly support. In the “Crime” column, injury death = intentional injury resulting in death; sexual child = sexual abuse of a girl under age 14; fake med = fake medicines; rape = rape of an adult woman; org prostit = organization prostitution; espionage = espionage/treason. A total of 401 participants completed the survey, of which 203 were general public citizens, and 198 were students. The number of missing cases ranged from 0 to 14.

Based on the Independent t test, there was a statistically significant difference at p ≤ .05 between general population citizens and college students on the variable.

For many of the specific crimes, there was a significant difference in level of death penalty support between general population citizens and college students. Citizens were more likely to favor the death penalty than students for murder (86% vs. 77%), drug dealing (77% vs. 57%), sexual abuse of a girl under age 14 (68% vs. 59%), producing fake medicines (68% vs. 46%), theft (7% vs. 4%), corruption (23% vs. 17%), espionage (75% vs. 60%), and robbery (45% vs. 20%). The only offense for which the general population had significantly lower support for capital punishment compared with students was for organizing prostitution (26% vs. 39%). There was no significant difference in level of death penalty support between the two groups for the crimes of intentional injury resulting in death, rape of an adult woman, and embezzlement.

Table 3 presents the multivariate regression results with overall death penalty support as the dependent variable and the reasons to support capital punishment, the reasons to oppose the death penalty, and personal characteristics as the independent variables. Three regression equations were estimated: one for all the participants, one for only general population citizens, and one for only college students. For the overall group, the R squared value was .52, which means that the independent variables explained about 52% of the observed variance in the dependent variable. Seven of the independent variables had significant associations with overall death penalty support: deterrence, retribution, maintenance of social order, rehabilitation, wrongful conviction, sadness, and brutality. Increases in deterrence, retribution, and maintenance of social order were associated with higher support for capital punishment. Conversely, increases in the variables of rehabilitation, wrongful conviction, sadness, and brutality were associated with decreases in death penalty support. The standardized regression coefficients (i.e., values in the β column) can be ranked from largest to smallest. Among the significant variables, maintenance of social order had the largest sized effect, followed closely by brutality, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, sadness, and, finally, wrongful conviction. The variables for incapacitation, crime severity, confidence in government, gender, age, and marital status all had nonsignificant associations with death penalty support.

Table 3.

Regression Results of the Effects of Independent Variables on Level of Death Penalty Support.

Variable	Entire sample			General pop citizens			College students
Variable	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Reasons to support DP
Deterrence	.17	.06	.14**	.22	.11	.17*	.11	.08	.09
Retribution	.17	.04	.16***	.20	.07	.21**	.15	.06	.13*
Incapacitation	.07	.05	.06	.02	.08	.02	.14	.06	.12*
Crime severity	.03	.04	.03	.00	.07	.00	.05	.06	.04
Confidence in government	−.04	.05	−.04	−.02	.07	−.02	−.09	.07	−.07
Maintenance of soc order	.31	.07	.21***	.14	.14	.09	.42	.09	.30***
Reasons to oppose DP
Rehabilitation	−.19	.06	−.15**	−.12	.09	−.10	−.27	.08	−.20**
Wrongful conviction	−.12	.05	−.11*	−.13	.08	−.12	−.09	.07	−.07
Sadness	−.16	.05	−.13**	−.14	.07	−.13	−.17	.07	−.13*
Brutalization	−.20	.06	−.16**	−.21	.09	−.17*	−.19	.07	−.15**
Personal characteristics
Gender (male = 1)	.14	.10	.05	.28	.15	.13	.04	.14	.02
Age	.00	.01	.03	−.01	.01	−.06	.01	.03	.02
Marital status (married = 1)	.21	.16	.08	.05	.20	.02	.56	.53	.05
R squared	.52			.35			.64

Note. B represents the unstandardized regression coefficient, SE the standard error of the regression coefficient/slope, and β the standardized regression coefficient. General pop citizens = general population citizens; DP = death penalty; maintenance of soc order = maintenance of social order. After listwise deletion, the number of participants for the entire sample was 359, for general population citizens 182, and for college students 180.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For the regression equation for citizens only, the independent variables accounted for about 35% of the observed variance in the dependent variable. Deterrence and retribution had positive significant effects on level of death penalty support. Brutalization had a significant negative effect. All the other independent variables had nonsignificant effects. For the regression equation using only student responses, the independent variables explained approximately 64% of the variance in the dependent variable. Retribution, incapacitation, and maintenance of social order had significant positive effects on level of support for capital punishment, while rehabilitation, sadness, and brutalization had negative effects. The other independent variables had nonsignificant effects. The similarities between the two groups were that the variables for retribution, rehabilitation, sadness, and brutalization had significant effects, and the variables for crime severity, confidence in government, wrongful conviction, gender, age, and marital status were all nonsignificant predictors for both groups. There were differences in the results between citizens and students. For citizens but not students, deterrence was a significant predictor of level of death penalty support. On the other hand, incapacitation and maintenance of social order were significant predictors for students not for citizens. Using the statistical test recommended by Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero (1998) for the equality of regression coefficients, however, only the difference between the two groups of the size of effects of incapacitation was statistically significant. That means that the effect of incapacitation on support for the death penalty for students was greater than for citizens. Finally, the amount of variance in the level of death penalty measure explained in the multivariate analysis was greater for students than for citizens.

Discussion and Conclusion

Several topics are worthy of further discussion. The first is on the level of support for the death penalty. This study found that 73% of the Chinese participants were in favor of the death penalty, which is lower than that found by Hu (2000, 97%), Jia (2005, 78%), Jiang et al. (2009, 84%), and Kuang et al. (2010, 91%) but higher than that found by Liang et al. (2006, 63%), Jiang et al. (2007, 70%), Qi and Oberwittler (2009, 69%), and Oberwittler and Qi (2009, 58%). When separating college students from general population citizens, this study found a higher percentage of death penalty support among citizens (80%) than among students (65%). Among the studies noted above, Hu (2000), Kuang et al. (2010), and Oberwittler and Qi (2009) reflected the general population’s support level; Jiang et al. (2009) included both residents and college students, and the other studies collected data from college students only. Previous studies did not include analyses to determine whether and how citizens and students were similar and differed in their death penalty support and views. The findings of the present study suggest that Chinese general population tends to have greater support for capital punishment as compared with college students. In addition, the current findings suggest that citizens and students differ in their level of death penalty support for specific crimes. The current findings suggest caution in estimating the level of death penalty support for the overall population using different segments. This may not be the case when exploring the predictors of death penalty support. In multivariate regression analyses, however, the predictors of level of death penalty support were similar, for both groups, except for incapacitation, once the equality of regression coefficient test was conducted. Nevertheless, the present study also has clear practical implications. It is commonly believed that, relative to residents, college students are more liberal. Thus, they are less likely to support the death penalty. The present study provided empirical support for the belief. Previous studies at least provide some evidence that information and knowledge about the death penalty can change people’s support level (Bohm, 1989, 1991; Bohm et al., 1991; Lambert, Camp, Clarke, & Jiang, 2011; Sandys, 1995). For example, using data from a 4-week death penalty class, Bohm (1989) found a decrease in support for the death penalty based on a comparison of results from before and after the class. Lambert et al. (2011) found that information on both innocence and deterrence led to a decrease in death penalty support among students from a 4-year, public university in Michigan. These findings from the United States may also be applied to Chinese college students in the present study. That is, compared with regular citizens, college students may get more information about the death penalty, in general, and about a lack of a deterrent effect, in particular. In fact, the present study did find that college students were less likely to believe in the deterrence of the death penalty.

It is important to note that the present study is a single study based on citizens and students in the Zhejiang province of China. Additional studies are needed to more conclusively determine whether and how general population citizens and college students are similar and differ in their levels of capital punishment support and their views on the reasons to support or oppose the death penalty.

The findings of the present study suggest that support level of death penalty is not absolute for all crimes, but varies. In some manner, 73% of the participants indicated that they supported capital punishment in a general sense. Their level of support differed significantly when asked about different crimes. The greatest level of support was found for the crime of murder (81%) and sexual abuse of a girl under 14 (73%). These are horrific crimes that likely bring out the desire for retribution. The majority opposed executing nonviolent offenders, such as for crimes as embezzlement (24%), corruption (20%), and theft (6%). Again, this probably supports the notion of the revenge theory under the retribution ideology of having the punishment fit the harm caused by the crime (Bohm, 1987). While there were differences between citizens and students in the specific level of support for capital punishment on the various specific crimes, the pattern was consistent between the two groups. The majority of both groups supported capital punishment for murderers, those who sexually abuse young girls, and intentional injury of another that results in death. The majority of groups did not support death sentences for nonviolent crimes, such as embezzlement, corruption, and theft. This finding suggests that government use of the death penalty for economic and corruption crimes may not be supported by the majority of Chinese citizens. This finding suggests that policy makers in China and abolitionists inside and outside China may promote a moratorium on the death penalty for property crimes first and then tackle the issue of capital punishment for violent offenders.

The present study found for the entire group of participants that deterrence, retribution, and desire for maintenance of social order were significant predictors for supporting capital punishment. These variables have been found to be significant predictors of support for the death penalty in the United States (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Lambert et al., 2004). The desire to deter future crimes of violence makes sense. It may be that the surveyed Chinese individuals are reacting to the need to protect themselves and others. What is not clear is if their support could change if they became aware of the possible lack of deterrent effect of capital punishment, at least has been reported in the United States. The deterrent effect of the death penalty needs to be studied in China. What was surprising was that deterrence was not a predictor of death penalty views among students whereas it was among citizens. A significant correlation exists between the variables for deterrence and death penalty support among students (r = .54, p ≤ .001); this relationship disappeared when other variables were controlled for in the multivariate analysis. (While correlation matrices for the entire group, for citizens, and for students are not reported in this study, these matrices are available on request.) It should be noted that there was a moderate correlation between maintenance of social order and deterrence (r = .57, p ≤ .001), but it is significantly below the level of concerns for collinearity. For some, maintenance of social order and deterrence are similar, if not the same concepts. For example, in a study of the predictors of death penalty support among Japanese college students by Lambert et al. (2016), the deterrence measure included an item used in this study to measure maintenance of social order. Similarly, maintenance of social order was a significant predictor of death penalty support for students but not for citizens. Future research should explore whether people distinguish deterrence and maintenance of social order as separate concepts or whether maintenance of social order is part of the overall deterrence ideology.

Retribution was a significant predictor for the entire group, for citizens, and for students. It makes sense that individuals want revenge against offenders who have harmed society. As previously noted, the greatest support for capital punishment was for crimes that significantly harmed others. It could be that Chinese participants support the idea of a “life for a life.” As previously mentioned, retribution is a major reason given by many in the United States for supporting capital punishment (Ellsworth & Gross, 1997; Lambert et al., 2004). The current findings suggest it is likely a reason for death penalty support in China. The desire for revenge for those who cause serious harm may be a human trait that cuts across cultures. This is an area that needs further exploration in many nations across the globe.

Interestingly, the measure for incapacitation only had a significant association with level of capital punishment support among students but not among citizens. It appears that the belief that murderers would kill again is stronger among college students than among citizens. The opposite would be expected. In the United States, murder does not have a high recidivism rate (Lambert et al., 2004). The likelihood of murderers killing again has not been researched in China. Moreover, it is unlikely that either college students or general population citizens would be aware of research conducted in this area in the United States. There was no significant difference in level of agreement with the incapacitation item between the two groups. Why incapacitation has a significant positive relationship with level of death penalty support among students but not citizens is unclear.

For both groups, the variables for crime severity and confidence in government had nonsignificant associations with level of death penalty support. This is contrary to what was hypothesized. It could be that these are not major reasons to support capital punishment as are deterrence and retribution. It is interesting to note only a small correlation was found between crime severity and deterrence (r = .19, p ≤ .01), and nonsignificant correlations were found between crime severity and retribution (r = .07), confidence in government and deterrence (r = .01), and retribution (r = .01). The present study suggests that neither crime severity nor confidence in government play a significant role in predicting the level of support for the death penalty.

Brutalization had a significant negative association for the entire group, citizens, and students. Feeling that it is wrong to respond to social harm with government violence appears to reduce death penalty support regardless of whether the participant is a general citizen or a college student. Sadness was a significant predictor for students and came close to significance for citizens. It makes sense that the emotion of sadness would result in lower capital punishment support. Retribution is often linked to feeling angry to the harm done by an offender (Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Lambert et al., 2014). Rehabilitation had a significant negative association in the regression analyses for the overall group and for students, but not for citizens. There was no significant difference between the two groups in their level of agreement to the rehabilitation measure. As there was a significant negative correlation between rehabilitation and level of death penalty support for citizens (r = −.311, p ≤ .01), it is likely that once the shared effects of other independent variables were taken into account, rehabilitation does not have as strong effect than do other variables. There was a significant negative correlation between the rehabilitation variable and the deterrence variable (r = −.35, p ≤ .01). Deterrence appears to play a greater role in influencing death penalty support for citizens than rehabilitation. It is important to note that citizens were significantly higher on the deterrence variable than were students (see Table 1). Furthermore, there was a significant negative correlation between rehabilitation and support for death penalty for students (r = −.61, p ≤ .001). Finally, for both citizens and students, the wrongful conviction variable had a negative association with level of death penalty support but failed to reach statistical significance. In the regression equation for the entire group, wrongful conviction had a significant negative effect. It could be combining both groups provided enough cases to meet the power of analysis for a smaller effect of wrongful conviction on level of capital punishment support. The current findings indicate that those higher on the wrongful conviction measure were less likely to support the death penalty.

None of the three personal characteristics of gender, age, and marital status had significant associations with level of death penalty support. Once the major reasons to support or oppose capital punishment are taken into account, personal characteristics do not play much of a direct role in shaping the level of death penalty support among the surveyed Chinese participants in the present study. This is a similar finding found among Chinese individuals in past studies (Jiang et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2010).

As with most studies, the current one has limitations. First, although the study purposively selected both college students and residents to fill the gap in the previous studies, the participants were not randomly selected. Findings of the study cannot be statistically generalized with a confidence level back to the overall population. Second, Zhejiang is an economically advanced province. Findings from the present study may not be able to be generalized to people in other areas in China, particularly those in rural areas. Third, several of the variables used to measure the major reasons to support or oppose capital punishment were measured with one item (e.g., incapacitation, crime severity, and rehabilitation) or two items (e.g., retribution). Future studies should measure these concepts using more items. Fourth, in the multivariate regression analysis for the entire group, approximately 52% of the variance in the dependent variable of level of death penalty support was explained by the independent variables in the equation. Future research needs to identify the other variables that help shape the level of death penalty support. Fifth, in explaining different levels of support for the death penalty between citizens and students, the present study suggested that knowledge and information about the death penalty may be a predictor. Thus, future studies need to survey citizens’ and college students’ knowledge about the death penalty and compare and contrast their degrees of knowledge. Furthermore, future research should examine whether changes in knowledge of capital punishment can change the level of support. Finally, research is needed to determine how the major reasons to support or oppose capital punishment develop and how knowledge of the death penalty is accumulated.

While the present study had limitations, it also added to the death penalty literature concerning China. It explored whether level of death penalty support differed by various specific crimes, which it did. It included a larger number of possible predictors of death penalty support than past studies. Although there are past studies on death penalty views in China, there is a lack of direct comparisons between general population residents and college students. The present study directly compared their death penalty views. While differences were found, there were also similarities between the two groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Marvin Zalman and Janet Lambert for their editorial assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arthur

J. A.

(1998). Racial attitudes and opinions about capital punishment: Preliminary findings. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22, 131-144.

Baumgartner

F. R.

De Boef

S. L.

Boydstun

A. E.

(2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bedau

H. A.

(1997). Background and developments. In Bedau

(Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current controversies (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bohm

R. M.

(1987). American death penalty attitudes: A critical examination of recent evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 380-396.

Bohm

R. M.

(1989). The effects of classroom instruction and discussion on death penalty opinions: A teaching note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 123-131.

Bohm

R. M.

(1991). American death penalty opinion 1936-1986: A critical examination of the Gallup polls. In Bohm

(Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 113-145). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Bohm

R. M.

Clark

L. J.

Aveni

A. F.

(1991). Knowledge and death penalty opinion: A test of the Marshall hypotheses. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 360-387.

Ellsworth

P. C.

Gross

(1997). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans views on the death penalty. In Bedau

(Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current controversies (pp. 90-115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ellsworth

P. C.

Ross

(1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime & Delinquency, 29, 116-169.

10.

Griffiths

(2016, April 7). China is the world’s top executioner, but it doesn’t want you to know that. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/06/asia/china-death-penalty/index.html

11.

Hood

(2009). Abolition of the death penalty: China in world perspective. City University of Hong Kong Law Review, 1, 1-21.

12.

(2000). Death penalty retention and abolition: Basic theories of death penalty. Beijing, China: Law Press.

13.

Jia

(2005). Death penalty views among college students in China: An empirical study. Legal Science Review (Faxue Pinglun), 3, 20-33.

14.

Jiang

(2015). Public opinion and the death penalty. In Liang

(Eds.), The death penalty in China: Policy, practice, and reform (pp. 247-273). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

15.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Nathan

V. M.

(2009). Reasons for death penalty attitudes among Chinese citizens: Retributive or instrumental? Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 225-233.

16.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Wang

(2007). Capital punishment views in China and the United States: A preliminary study among college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 84-97.

17.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Wang

Saito

Pilot

(2010). Death penalty views in China, Japan and the US: An empirical comparison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 862-869.

18.

Jiang

Wang

(2008). Correlates of support for capital punishment in China. International Criminal Justice Review, 18, 24-38.

19.

Kuang

Zeng

Liu

Chen

Dai

Zhang

(2010). A survey on criminal justice professionals’ attitudes toward the death penalty. In Mo

(Ed.), A survey report on the death penalty in China (pp. 63-224). Taipei, China: Yuanzhao Press.

20.

Lambert

E. G.

Camp

S. D.

Clarke

Jiang

(2011). The impact of information on death penalty support, revisited. Crime & Delinquency, 57, 572-599.

21.

Lambert

E. G.

Clarke

Lambert

(2004). Reasons for supporting and opposing capital punishment in the USA. The Internet Journal of Criminology, 1, 1-34. Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/

22.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Moore

Jenkins

Jiang

Clarke

(2008). The death penalty attitudes of criminal justice students: Are they different from other students? Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 193-212.

23.

Lambert

E. G.

Jiang

Elechi

O. O.

Khondaker

Wang

Baker

(2014). A preliminary study of gender differences in death penalty views of college students from Bangladesh, China, Nigeria, and the United States. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 12, 44-68.

24.

Lambert

E. G.

Jiang

Williamson

L. C.

Elechi

O. O.

Khondaker

M. I.

Baker

D. N.

Saito

(2016). Gender and capital punishment views among Japanese and U.S. college students. International Criminal Justice Review, 26, 337-358.

25.

Lambert

E. G.

Pasupuleti

Jiang

Jaishankar

Bhimarasetty

J. V.

(2008). Views on the death penalty among college students in India. Punishment & Society, 10, 207-218.

26.

Liang

(2015). China’s death penalty practice: Working progress, struggle, and challenges within the global abolition movement. In Liang

(Eds.), The death penalty in China: Policy, practice, and reform (pp. 1-30). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

27.

Liang

Miethe

T. D.

Zhang

(2006). Sources of variation in Pro-death penalty attitudes in China: An exploratory study of Chinese students at home and abroad. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 119-130.

28.

(2015). The criminal justice system and the death penalty. In Liang

(Eds.), The death penalty in China: Policy, practice, and reform (pp. 31-61). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

29.

Miethe

T. D.

(2007). China’s death penalty: History, law, and contemporary practices. New York, NY: Routledge.

30.

Maggard

S. R.

Payne

B. K.

Chappell

A. T.

(2012). Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences. The Social Science Journal, 49, 155-166.

31.

Maxwell

S. R.

Rivera-Vazquez

(1998). Assessing the instrumental and symbolic elements in attitudes toward the death penalty using a sample of Puerto Rican students. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22, 329-339.

32.

Miethe

T. D.

(2005). Punishment: A comparative historical perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Oberwittler

(2009). Public opinion on the death penalty in China: Results from a general population survey conducted in three provinces in 2007/08. Freiburg, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law.

34.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

35.

Oberwittler

(2009). On the road to the rule of law: Crime, crime control, and public opinion in China. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 137-157.

36.

Radelet

M. L.

Borg

M. J.

(2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43-61.

37.

Sandys

(1995). Attitudinal change among students in a capital punishment class: It may be possible. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 37-55.

38.

Soss

Langbein

Metelko

A. R.

(2003). Why do white Americans support the death penalty? The Journal of Politics, 65, 397-421.

39.

Stack

(2003). Authoritarianism and support for the death penalty: A multivariate analysis. Sociological Focus, 36, 333-352.

40.

Unnever

J. D.

Cullen

F. T.

(2005). Executing the innocent and support for capital punishment: Implications for public policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 3-38.

41.

Wang

(2008). The death penalty and society in contemporary China. Punishment & Society, 10, 137-151.

42.

Sun

I. Y.

(2011). Support for the death penalty: Chinese and American college students compared. Punishment & Society, 13, 354-376.

43.

(2015). The abolitionist and retentionist debate. In Liang

(Eds.), The death penalty in China: Policy, practice, and reform (pp. 156-186). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

44.

Zhang

(2008). The political origins of death penalty exceptionalism: Mao Zedong and the practice of capital punishment in contemporary China. Punishment & Society, 10, 117-136.

45.

Zimring

F. E.

(2003). The contradictions of American capital punishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.