An elephant walking cannot mind ants and mantises — written on International Day Against Drug Abuse
[4] Mainland China is the most stringent region in the world regarding drug-related crimes, without exception.
[5] This stringency is not only reflected in the application of the death penalty for drug crimes, the extremely low threshold for imposing the death penalty, its frequent use in practice, and the specific provision for heavier punishment for repeat offenders without time limit (Article 356 of the Criminal Law), but more importantly, through a series of judicial interpretations and practical operations, extensive use has been made of expansive interpretations and presumptions of guilt (or aggravated guilt), which to some extent negates criminal law and criminal procedure principles such as "consistency of subjective and objective elements," "possibility of awareness of illegality," and "sufficient and reliable evidence."
[6] First, in drug-related crimes, the offense for which courts most frequently impose the death penalty is the crime of transporting drugs. However, in many cases, those who directly transport drugs and are most easily caught are often poor, unemployed border residents or farmers, who generally have low legal awareness, are often hired by others, and more importantly, profit little from drug transportation. Logically, they should be considered accomplices, but courts often deem them active perpetrators on the grounds that they directly carried out the drug transport, thus classifying them as principal offenders. If the quantity involved is large enough, they are often sentenced to death.
Second, according to Article 22 of the 2014 Supreme People's Court and Supreme People's Procuratorate's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Smuggling, there is in fact a situation of "objective imputation" in drug smuggling crimes. That is, regardless of whether the party had the intent to smuggle drugs, as long as the goods or items they smuggled contain drugs and they had the intent to smuggle other goods or items, they can be convicted of drug smuggling. This leads to cases where someone, thinking they are merely smuggling Apple phones through customs for a few hundred yuan in water fees, could face the death penalty due to drug involvement—a "wrongful conviction."
Third, in the crime of drug trafficking, the law expansively interprets purchasing with the intent to sell as trafficking. Common sense suggests that at this point, the criminal has only carried out the purchase and has not yet made a secondary sale; if deemed drug trafficking, it should be an attempt. However, in practice, as long as the buyer and seller reach an agreement, this preparatory act of purchasing is treated as the commencement of the crime, effectively advancing the standard for completion.
Fourth is the issue of concurrence between drug trafficking and illegal drug possession. After arresting a suspect at the transaction scene and seizing the drugs, law enforcement typically searches the suspect's residence. If drugs are found there, they are presumed to be for sale and part of the trafficking. The law relieves the prosecution of the burden of proof, adopting a reversed burden of proof, requiring the suspect to prove that the drugs found in the residence were not for sale. If they cannot, they are deemed for sale.
Fifth, in drug-related cases, public authorities often harbor preconceived notions of "economic judgment" or "moral judgment." A suspect with no legitimate job but living in a villa, driving a luxury car, and having millions in bank deposits, or at least wearing a thick gold chain and rings on nine out of ten fingers, is assumed to be involved in drug crimes, even without evidence linking the drugs to these assets. If the suspect has a prior drug use record, this assumption is reinforced. While this may not lead to fabricated evidence or outright distortion, once such a mindset takes hold, even if the evidence in the case is problematic, the conviction is likely to stand.
Why does mainland China adopt a standard of clearly heavier punishment, aggravation, and even intentional sentencing to death specifically for drug-related cases?
The drug issue can be described as an eternal pain for modern China. History textbooks attribute the external factors leading to the decline of the Qing Dynasty (modern China) to drugs, with the label "Sick Man of East Asia" at least half owed to drugs, and the opium pipe becoming a symbol of Chinese abroad. From its founding, the Communist Party of China (CPC) advocated clear anti-drug policies, viewing the anti-drug struggle as a key part of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle. After seizing national power, it inscribed "The Destruction of Opium at Humen" on the Monument to the People's Heroes and resolved the drug problem within three years through a series of strong measures. From the 1950s to the late 1970s, China enjoyed a 30-year reputation as a "drug-free nation." It can be said that drug control has become one of the CPC's largest image-building projects. This also explains the current absurdity where the government can hang plaques on drug-affected families' doors but cannot print images of rotten mouths and lungs on cigarette packs. To put it bluntly, without the historical baggage, the government would likely have legalized recreational marijuana and placed it under the Tobacco Monopoly Bureau to boost fiscal revenue.
In addition to the above reasons, we must also acknowledge that drugs can destroy human ethics and cause instability in families and even society as a whole, as the saying goes, "One person uses drugs, the whole family suffers." Therefore, the TG only defines corruption as "the downfall of the party and the nation," while drugs are seen as "the destruction of the nation and its people." When an elephant walks, how can it care about ants and mantises? As the nation, party, and society march on the path of comprehensive rejuvenation, individual lives and rights must give way. For individuals involved in drug cases, one can only sigh, "This drug thing, you really can't touch it at all."
Appendix: Some classic drug-related cases handled by Zhiming Law Firm:
Hong Kong businessman Sun was found carrying 1 kilogram of heroin during customs clearance. After being entrusted by Zhiming Law Firm, he was acquitted during the investigation stage.
Transport driver Li was found with 3 kilograms of methamphetamine in his vehicle while carrying passengers. After being entrusted by Zhiming Law Firm, he was acquitted during the investigation stage.
Drug user Chen was found carrying methamphetamine during airport security checks. After being entrusted by Zhiming Law Firm, his sentence was reduced, and he actually served only two months in prison.
