It seems like the issue of capital punishment in the case of bag snatchers is more complicated than I originally thought.

Capital punishment was already available as a sentence for violent robbery.  What has really changed is the status of bag snatching, which is now considered violent robbery.  And this change makes sense, in my opinion.  If someone drives up alongside you and grabs your bag or briefcase, you either let go or get dragged alongside the car.  The options in the case of bag snatching are injury or loss of possessions, similar to a case of robbery by knifepoint.

I have already shared my viewpoint on capital punishment and I still think capital punishment for robbers is still too harsh.  But I think the fact that I was a little bamboozled by the spin in the previous news release is another issue entirely.

When I thought that capital punishment was a new and seemingly arbitrary sentence applied to bag snatching and robberies, I was more than a little shocked.  I can say that I looked down on the Chinese government for being bloodthirsty.

But it turns out that the Chinese were already bloodthirsty and that they have been for years.  But somehow, I feel a little peeved at the way that Amnesty International put forward the information in the previous article.  They made the decision of the Guangdong policy makers seem to be more than it was in order to stir up a reaction.  Now robbers and bag snatchers are going to be slaughtered like lambs!  Well, robbers were already under threat of capital punishment and now bag snatchers will be as well.  The facts of the matter are just as revealing and just as likely to bring people to action—why twist the facts to inflame the reader?