The recent news that five people in China have been sentenced to death for their role in operating brutal scam compounds in northern Myanmar has reignited an old yet profound debate in criminology: can harsh punishment truly deter serious crime, or does it simply reflect society’s frustration with an ever-evolving criminal landscape?

The case, reported worldwide, exposed a sprawling criminal enterprise involving forced labour, torture, fraud and even murder. Thousands of victims were lured to scam centres across the lawless Kokang region, coerced into defrauding others under threat of violence or death. China’s swift and severe judicial response was meant to send an unmistakable message that such crimes, particularly those preying on human misery, would meet with the harshest possible punishment.

As scams have become rampant worldwide, many are understandably outraged and view the death penalty as fitting retribution for those operating large-scale syndicates. The emotional toll on victims – from financial ruin to psychological trauma – fuels a sense of moral outrage that demands severe justice. However, criminologists caution that emotions must never dictate the administration of justice. Effective sentencing requires proportionality, fairness and adherence to the rule of law – not the satisfaction of public anger. Justice grounded in vengeance risks eroding the very principles it seeks to protect.

At moments like these, societies must consciously guard against the pull of retribution. While anger toward scam operators is understandable, a punitive mindset driven by rage or grief often clouds objective reasoning. Punishment born of emotion may provide temporary catharsis but rarely leads to lasting solutions. In fact, it can degrade the integrity of the justice system by turning it into a vehicle for retaliation rather than rehabilitation.

Criminology teaches us that emotional justice is unstable – it amplifies fear and hostility rather than addressing the root causes of crime. What is needed is calm, evidence-based policymaking that prioritises prevention, education and systemic reform over emotional reaction. Only by controlling collective anger can societies focus on dismantling the socioeconomic and technological conditions that allow scam networks to thrive.

While compassion and rationality must temper justice, accountability cannot be compromised. Regardless of differing views on capital punishment, those responsible for orchestrating large-scale scam syndicates must still face proportionate and meaningful punishment. Justice demands that individuals who profit from exploitation, coercion and suffering be held fully accountable under the law. The key lies in ensuring that punishment serves justice, not vengeance. There must be balance – between retribution and fairness, deterrence and humanity. Only through this balance can societies uphold both the moral authority of the law and the dignity of justice itself.

From a deterrence standpoint, China’s move reflects a classical criminological argument: that the certainty and severity of punishment are key to preventing crime. Proponents believe that strong punitive measures not only hold offenders accountable but also serve as a powerful warning to others who might be tempted to engage in similar acts.

In the context of transnational organised crime such as human trafficking, cyber fraud or large-scale scams, governments often struggle to stem offences that operate beyond their borders. By applying the death penalty, China projects a stance of zero tolerance. It also sends a political and moral message that crimes exploiting the vulnerable, including those involving violence and forced labour, are beyond redemption.

Supporters further argue that when crimes are exceptionally cruel, retributive justice is justified. Families of victims often find closure when the state acts decisively. The death penalty, in this sense, satisfies a societal desire for balance and moral accountability.

While the death penalty may serve as a specific deterrent – ensuring that the executed offender can no longer reoffend – criminologists consistently question its broader effectiveness as a general deterrent. The evidence remains inconclusive that executions discourage others from committing similar crimes. In many societies where capital punishment exists, serious offences such as murder, drug trafficking and corruption still persist. This suggests that while the punishment may incapacitate an individual, it fails to alter the structural and social conditions that enable crime to flourish.

From a criminological and human rights perspective, such punitive measures also raise serious concerns. Numerous studies show that the death penalty does not demonstrably deter crime more effectively than long-term imprisonment. Instead, it risks perpetuating a cycle of violence, where the state mirrors the brutality it seeks to condemn.

Moreover, organised criminal networks rarely operate on rational calculation alone. Many perpetrators are themselves victims of coercion, poverty or trafficking – as seen in Myanmar’s scam centres, where young people were trapped and forced to commit crimes under duress. When such blurred lines exist between victim and offender, extreme punishment risks punishing those who were also exploited.

The death penalty leaves no room for rehabilitation or correction. Criminologically, this contradicts rehabilitative and restorative justice models that aim to reintegrate offenders into society. It also poses the ethical dilemma of irreversibility – the possibility of wrongful conviction in complex cross-border cases cannot be entirely dismissed.

The Myanmar-China case underscores a crucial criminological insight: it is the certainty of being caught, not the cruelty of the punishment, that deters crime. Transnational fraud syndicates thrive on weak enforcement, porous borders, corruption and digital anonymity – not on the belief that they will escape the death penalty.

Effective deterrence comes from coordinated law enforcement, intelligence sharing and international legal cooperation. Without these, even the harshest punishments are symbolic at best. China’s dramatic sentencing might shock the conscience, but unless the underlying criminal networks are dismantled, the problem will simply resurface elsewhere.

Criminology also reminds us that justice systems are reflections of moral and cultural values. While some societies emphasise retribution as a moral necessity, others see punishment as a means to reform. The challenge is finding balance – ensuring that punishment is proportional, humane and effective.

There is no denying the gravity of the crimes committed in Myanmar’s scam centres. They involved unimaginable cruelty, human trafficking and loss of life. Yet, the enduring question remains: will executing offenders prevent similar crimes, or merely satisfy a public sense of outrage?

In democratic and rights-based societies, the ultimate test of justice is not how harshly we punish, but how fairly and humanely we respond – even in the face of monstrous crimes.

The Myanmar scam-factory tragedy reminds us that crime today is global, complex and intertwined with economic desperation and weak governance. The solution, therefore, cannot rely on punishment alone. It must also involve prevention: stronger border controls, public education, protection for vulnerable migrants and international cooperation to dismantle trafficking routes.

Criminology teaches that lasting safety comes from addressing root causes, not from amplifying fear. Harsh punishments may create headlines, but holistic justice reforms create resilience.

As nations confront the challenges of transnational organised crime, we must ask ourselves: are we building safer societies through deterrence, or simply perpetuating cycles of violence under the guise of justice?

Justice must be guided by reason, not rage – for emotion may demand vengeance, but true justice demands balance.

DATO’ DR P. SUNDRAMOORTHY
Criminologist
Centre for Policy Research
Universiti Sains Malaysia