Administrative Penalty Appeal Form: Fill & Download for Free

As a taxpayer I want my money to be better spent than accommodating and feeding inmates until the day they rot in prison.Justin, a friend of mine from college, was brutally murdered by a 16-year-old a couple of years ago. The perpetrator was recently convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.From the photos posted with the news report, I couldn't see the slightest sign of remorse from her face. She, the murderer sentenced to life in prison, could still laugh, learn, read, form relationships, and do thousands of things forever foreclosed to her victim Justin.Every one of Justin’s friends living in the same state, along with me, are among the taxpayers that pay for her meals, lodging, health care, and probably the college courses the prison would offer. We are indirectly financing our deceased friend’s murderer.I could still remember the first hearing when she was escorted into the courtroom. She played with her hair, sniggered at her defense attorney, and bore a contemptuous look on her face while Justin’s parents, flying all the way from China, broke down in sobs reading their impact statement.Justin’s parents were satisfied with the sentence given to the criminal who murdered their son. However, each time I find the amount of tax I've been withheld, I can't help but ask — could this be further from justice?I respect her rights as a human being, and I fully agree that she deserves the best advocate in court regardless of the contempt she shows. And for the tax I’ve paid, I'd rather the government use it to better fund the state public defender office, to invest it in the legal proceedings, to provide decent training to new criminal attorneys, or to improve the facilities inside prisons. However, once she has been provided the best advocate, and has exhausted her opportunities to appeal, and there's nothing further her defense attorney can do, I'd rather she be handed the death penalty, a suitable punishment for the crime she committed.I'm aware that death penalty is very costly, but I still think it's a better way to spend taxpayers’ money.A couple of studies show that death penalty incurs significantly more time, effort and cost on average, as compared to when the death penalty is not sought in cases of severe crimes.[1] It is estimated that each death penalty case cost on average $1 million more than a similar case where life without parole or term imprisonment was handed. Defense cost is about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution cost is up to four times more than non-death penalty cases.Is death penalty an even heavier financial burden to taxpayers? Not necessarily.It seems to me those studies are flawed to various extent. First of all, the vast majority of the studies on the high cost of death penalty are carried out by death penalty opponents. Second, their calculation fails to consider the circumstances where a defendant enters a guilty plea for fear of being executed, thus saving the cost of a possibly lengthy trial.The high cost of death penalty is a cosequence of the opposition of the practice. Multiple layers of appeal spanning across many years add to the overall cost. There's an argument that if the multiple layers of appeal are pursued in a timely and responsible manner, execution will cost less than life in prison without parole. The high cost of death penalty is caused primarily by the opponents.The lower cost of life imprisonment is more of a consequence of cutting corners in the construction of correctional facilities.The legal proceedings leading up to death penalty has undergone revolutionary changes. With the suspension of death penalty in Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court realized that additional safeguards were necessary to protect the defendants’ rights in death penalty cases. Henceforth, capital offenses started to be narrowed, and capital punishment tend to be applied in an increasingly restricted way.However, politicians rarely speak of prison reform, and so far there isn't anything as revolutionary in imprisonment as Furman in death penalty. As a result, not only the living condition in prisons shows no improvement, but cutting corners is more and more of a routine in running a prison.First, over 140 privately owned for-profit prisons exist in the US. There is an economic incentive behind every move made by the companies running them. The prisons incarcerate people and profit off of their loss of rights. They cut corners on living conditions and amenities — less food, less space, less exercise, less educational programs, etc. Inmates are paid even less than their counterparts in state prison while doing the same amount of work, if not more. Inmates are basically treated like slaves since the prisons can contract the inmates out to other companies while taking all the money that is supposed to be the wages for the inmates. Sometimes they even charge inmates room and board despite the inmates being paid peanuts all the time.No wonder. If more prisons are being operated in this way, it's indeed highly economical, except that inmates are less healthy and more likely to reoffend, but then it's not a bad thing for the prison to take released inmates back — free labor, why not?Second, the living condition in state-owned prisons is barely tolerable — cells are dirty, unsafe and vermin-infested; inmates are exposed to dangerous living environment like extreme heat or cold and lack of sanitation; they are frequently subject to physical mistreatment, excessive disciplinary sanctions and inadequate medical care. In addition, more problems occur now that the prisons become dangerously overcrowded and the public is reluctant to fund new construction. Violence is even more pervasive. Each year, dozens of inmates are killed by other inmates, and thousands are severely injured. Inmates rarely feel secure as extortion and intimidation are part of the routine.Third, prisons do not provide sufficient resources to rehabilitate inmates. Most inmates have no opportunity for work, training, education, health care or counseling. Mental health is seldom addressed, and inmates with mentally illness often fall prey to violence and abuse. Needless to say, overcrowding decreases the available space that could be used for exercise or simply getting some fresh air. In some prisons, restraining devices are excessively used as a way to cope with the safety concerns rising from severe overcrowding. But very often such restraining devices are placed on inmates for lengthy periods of time, far exceeding the need for legitimate safety concerns.Many policymakers regard restraining as an economical way to cope with most issues in prison. While violence might have diminished as a result, excessive isolation, controls and restrictions have exacerbated many inmates who are already in a poor mental health.Nevertheless, solitary confinement is the primary way for super-maximum security prisons to maintain control. Inmates deemed as particularly disruptive and dangerous are isolated in small and windowless cells for 23 hours per day.Fourth, added to the overcrowding of prison is the fact that prison employees are overworked, underpaid, and feeling unsupported by the administration. For example, the Alabama prison is run by a very small number of staff. Sometimes as few as 9 prison employees would have to control the entire prison population of 950, while the prison was designed to house 637 at most.[2] Plus, prison employees are not protected from physical and sexual abuse from inmates.Owing to the dysfunctional prisons, reoffending rate is abysmal. It is estimated that within three years of release, 67.8% of released prisoners were rearrested. Within five years of release, 76.6% of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, 56.7% were arrested by the end of the first year.[3]If the prisoners are offered humane living condition, the prisons are living up to its purpose of rehabilitation, and proper food, medical care and other essential services are adequate, I doubt death penalty would be more costly than the accumulative expense for life imprisonment on food, medical expense, and other cost of sustaining those lives.“Single strongest argument” is highly subjective. There are plenty of reasons others may find strongest, including:Deterrence against future violence. This is the most frequently raised argument by pro death penalty activists. The fear of death would affect the criminals when they realize the cost of committing a crime is the gallows.Save other innocent lives. This is another frequently raised argument in favor of death penalty. Lengthy sentence doesn't guarantee the criminals shall spend that long time inside prison, nor does it ensure they will never commit any crime again. There have been instances where convicts serving life term killing prison guards or fellow inmates. Many criminals commit serious crimes when they are on parole. In many cases of severe crimes, defendants are not first-time offenders. In a way, death penalty guarantees our safety. Only death can guarantee that the criminal will never impose threat again. Additionally, it is not only lives of prospective victims that could be saved, but also prospective convicts who are deterred from committing crimes.Retribution is a main purpose of sentencing. Without death penalty, friends and family of the victims as well as the public in general would not feel that justice had been served. Some supporters of death penalty also argue that a person who murders someone doesn't deserve the right to live.Restore faith in the judicial system. The society need to be given assurance that heinous crimes are given harsh punishment. Deviance from this will add to such public opinion as the judicial system favors a criminal over the a victim.Threat of the death penalty could be used as a bargain chip for prosecutors. It could urge the defendants to plead guilty, testify against their accomplices or confess their criminal acts. Death penalty could be a valuable tool, not only for deterrence, but the fear of death would lead defendants to enter plea deal in exchange for their cooperation in police investigation of the case.Edit: Please, do me a favor, read through the entire answer before leaving any comments.Footnotes[1] Costs of the Death Penalty[2] 'It's a bloodbath': staff describe life inside America's most violent prison[3] National Institute of Justice

President Trump DID try to offer Americans a better alternative to Obamacare, but was struck down by a Federal Judge to protect Obamacare from having to compete with better alternatives. The judge specifically stated that he blocked this initiative because he saw it as an “end run around the ACA”. In other words, any attempt to offer Americans a less costly, better quality health care program besides Obamacare will be blocked by officious Federal judges.Federal judge strikes down Trump rule on group health plansMoreover, the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from running a healthcare insurance program. See 10th Amendment. Accordingly, Congress has no authority to ban any alternatives to a scheme cobbled up by a bunch of Democrat politicians, or for the Federal Government to implement any replacement or substitution for private health insurance. This was articulated in NFIB v Sibelius, before Justice Roberts put a huge thumb on the scale by pretending that Obamacare was a tax, which even the Obama Administration insisted it wasn’t. The text of the ACA makes clear that the Individual Mandate Penalty is a penalty, not a tax, but Justice Roberts violated Article 1, Article 2, and the 10th Amendment with his misconduct, but got away with it because of the Leftist political activists on the Court and the absence of any higher appeal. Fortunately, and quite rightly, Obamacare has now been declared unConstitutional by a Federal Court, awaiting confirmation by SCOTUS. With the Leftist activist cabal now broken, the Constitutionally correct decision can be made and rogue Justice Roberts can’t stop it.With a SCOTUS formed of pro-Constitution Justices instead of a Liberal cabal, NO healthcare plan created by Congress will be acceptable, as the Constitution grants no authority to the Federal government to take over control of medical care and insurance in the USA, and in fact prohibits the Federal Government, including Congress, from doing so.

Corruption–whether nepotistic, pecuniary, blatant, discreet, major, or minor–has undermined governments since governments were invented.Except for the ten years following Reform and Opening (which caused the Tiananmen Square demonstrations), corruption never interfered with Chinese policy formation, wage growth, or civic safety as it does elsewhere.But the corruption offended the Chinese people, whose Confucian civilization is very different from our Roman culture, which has been corrupt for 2500 years. Roman politicians were murderously corrupt and Christianity failed to improve them.Confucian governments at least fought corruption, as the The Hongwu Emperor⁠ [1] explained seven hundred years ago,Had I thoroughly eradicated corrupt officials in addition to those already imprisoned I would have been dealing with two thousand men from just two prefectures, men with no useful occupation who used my prestige to oppress people. No-one outside government knew how wicked they were so everyone said my punishments were harsh; they saw only the severity of the law and didn’t know that these villains had used the government’s good name to engage in evil practices.In the morning I punished a few and, by evening, others had committed the same crimes. I punished those in the evening and next morning there were more violations! Although the corpses of the first had not been removed others were already lined up to follow in their path, day and night! The harsher the punishment, the more violations. I didn’t know what to do, but I couldn’t rest. If I was lenient the law became ineffectual, order deteriorated, some people deemed me weak and engaged in still more evil practices. If I punished them others regarded me as a tyrant. How could anyone lead a peaceful life in such circumstances? Really, it was a dreadful situation.Nevertheless, the Confucian approach to corruption was consistently more effective than the Roman, for the Chinese public knew the antidote: before they destroy the State, people must withdraw the Mandate of Heaven from a government lacking the Four Principles–propriety, justice, honesty, and honor–and from officials lacking the Eight Virtues–loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, love, integrity, righteousness, harmony and peace.Rulers went to great pains to promote the most virtuous officials and to eliminate nepotism. Emperor Wu of Han began doing so in the second century BC and, despite officials’ resistance, fourteen centuries later, of two-hundred seventy-nine senior officials whose family histories we know[⁠2], fewer than half had forebears in government. By 2018, the number was under one-fifth. As Frederick Mote[⁠3] says, “China is very unusual, probably unique, in having had two millennia of experience with an increasingly open social structure and social ethos.”This table, from Nancy Park’s Corruption in Eighteenth-Century China, shows how government dealt with corrupt officials (‘salaried persons’) back then:From the earliest days, officials sent to govern provinces were forbidden to take their parents with them lest their needs conflict with the Emperor’s wishes. They were rotated every three years and, after each rotation, their successors were encouraged to report discrepancies lest they be blamed for them. Palace officials were regularly moved between departments and those who committed serious crimes were executed and their families sold into slavery.Everyone, from the humblest peasant to the most eminent politician, knows this history and understands that the surest cure for corruption is promoting honest men to leadership. Many still living saw how a century of chaos devastated public morality and how its effects lingered. As Mao observed during an anti-corruption drive in 1950, “Today, you can buy a branch secretary for a few packs of cigarettes, not to mention marrying a daughter to him.”Mao’s slogan, “The masses have sharp eyes,” encouraged people to report wrongdoing and corruption fell dramatically, just as Confucius had predicted. Though Mao’s insistence on merely shaming corrupt officials rather than executing them infuriated colleagues it worked, says Sydney Rittenberg⁠[4], “Nobody locked their doors. The banks–there was a local bank branch on many, many corners–the door was wide open, the currency was stacked up on the table in plain sight of the door, there were no guards and they never had a bank robbery, ever.”Anticipating that a wave of corruption would accompany the introduction of capitalism, planners redesigned the economy so that entrepreneurs would effectively bribe officials to expedite national development. Says Yukon Huang[5],The system countered the growth‐inhibiting aspects of corruption by setting investment and production targets that gave local officials incentives to promote expansion. It fostered a unity of purpose so that, even when corruption flourished, the collaborators still made growth the guiding principle of their actions. This was reinforced by competition between localities to meet targets and support productivity‐enhancing economic reforms. The competitive element helped curb waste and ensured a modicum of efficiency despite the high degree of state intervention in commercial activities.President Hu Jintao gave the system free rein between 2002-2012 and the roaring economy solved many problems–except corruption. But the government’s alternation of liberal and conservative policies is as ancient and predictable as the moon–and the new cycle followed a nepotism scandal in 2010.Bo Xilai, son of a Revolutionary Immortal (and schoolmate of Xi Jinping), had ignored his father’s pleas to stay out of politics, “You know nothing of the sufferings of ordinary people and just want to capitalize on my name.” Xilai cultivated a charismatic image, was named one of Time’s Most Influential People, rose rapidly to provincial governor and publicly campaigned for a cabinet position. But, as conservative scholar Cheng Li said at the time, “Nobody really trusts him. A lot of people are scared of him, including several princelings who are supposed to be his power base.” With the help of the Minister for Justice, Zhou Yongkang, Bo even wiretapped the President. Michael Wines wrote that, though he possessed prodigious charisma and deep intelligence, he had “A studied indifference to the wrecked lives that littered his path to power...Mr. Bo's ruthlessness stood out.”Then Vice Premier Wu Yi, the nation’s highest woman official, demanded an open investigation in 2012. A court trial revealed that Bo owned expensive property around the world and his wife had murdered a British agent, and the couple was jailed for life. They joined a long line of disgraced elites, like the grandson of Zhu De, China’s Head of State and founder of the Red Army, who was executed for rape, and Yan Jianhong, wife of Guizhou’s powerful Party Secretary, who was executed for corruption.With the economy strong, prosperity assured, and corruption foremost in the public’s mind, Congress anointed Xi Jinping, the most honest official of his generation, to succeed President Hu.In his first year, Xi’s anti-corruption campaign saw ten thousand officials passed over for promotion for concealing information and one-hundred thirty-thousand demoted or disciplined for making false declarations. In 2016, corrupt Yunnan Party Secretary, Bai Enpei, was sentenced to death, prosecutors charged sixty-three senior officials and ministers with corruption, and released confessions from fifty-seven thousand Party members who made restitution and accepted demotions.By 2018, the anti-corruption team had investigated 1.3 million administrators, filed a million court cases, issued one hundred thousand indictments, captured thousands of overseas fugitives and jailed or executed one-hundred twenty high-ranking officials–including five national leaders, twelve generals and a dozen CEOs. After a 2019 Tianjin industrial explosion killed one-hundred sixty-five people the investigating magistrate found that petty bribery had led to weak code enforcement, so he sentenced the responsible official to death and jailed forty-nine colleagues.Today, anti-graft officials subject officials to unannounced inspections like Olympic athletes’ doping tests. An Anhui provincial inspection team called one official four times between 7:31 and 7:35 one evening about his poverty alleviation efforts and reported that his failure to answer the call–he was showering at the time–had hindered the battle against poverty. Fortunately, when they moved to fire him, the public came to his defense and he was eventually exonerated.Knowing that that ten percent of their statements will be audited, even deputy county officials now report their marital status, overseas travel, criminal record, wages, other earnings, family properties, stocks, funds, insurance and investments. If they are questioned and refuse to answer, or collude with or protect accomplices, they are detained immediately. Bureaucrats–especially those with leadership ambitions–must endure increasing scrutiny as they advance. As one of them, Zhao Bing Bing[⁠6] said, “The selection criteria are: a person must have ‘both ability and moral integrity and the latter should be prioritized.’”Midlevel officials must report their own assets and those of their parents, wives, children, children’s spouses and cousins and the reporting form has a reminder, in red ink, to include children from previous marriages, children born out of wedlock and foster children. They must report their income, savings, real estate, stock portfolio, insurance policies, stocks, unit trusts, bonds and assets in overseas accounts, “Income shall include salary and various bonuses, allowances, subsidies, and payment you receive from lectures, writing, consultation, reviewing, painting and calligraphy.” The impact was immediate and palpable, says the young scion of a prominent Party family:I am a Party Member in China and all my family are Party members. What I think of Xi is that the life is really changing after he came to power. A relative of mine works for the government as a vital governor in my city ShenZhen (which is a big city like BeiJing or ShangHai), then all my family people are like in the hierarchy of privilege. We pay nothing when go out for dinner, the Party pays. We pay nothing for filling in oil, the Party pays. It seems like we don't need to pay for anything with our salaries, cause either the Party pays, or someone will pay for us (who wants to flatter us). I smoke the best, I drink the best, sometimes I even drive without license when drunk, because I fear no one.In past times, yes we did have privilege everywhere, I felt so arrogant to be superior to others that’s also true. But the problem is, there is a tradeoff. We drank quite a lot of alcohol to show respect to others, we had to accept bribes even we know it's risky, cause we have to consider about our clan (like the interest of my boss). We had to do some many things we don't want to do, that's the rule of living in Party, care about the interest of Clan more than your own. That's how we united. We have to fear a lot of threats from ordinary people, colleagues, and bosses. We cannot keep our own passports, Party keeps it in case of we flee.But life changed after Xi came to power, he did real thing on anti-corruption. No one dare to present gifts to governors and the abuse of public funds is strictly monitored. The Party took back the public cars from my family and even we have to pay for the parking fee now! But..my family and I are actually happy with this, we are thankful to President Xi. Cause he seems like dragging China to a healthier future. My relative doesn't need to go out for dinner with other governors as social intercourse daily, they don't need to drink so much on the table. And they start to learn to pay for the bill by turns, cause the Party will no longer do this for them. They start to learn how to take bus or metro. That's good, actually. People start to think about what kind of lifestyle is called ‘healthy,’ they are more like human now, no longer some conceited stupid with expanding power. That's how life changed after Xi came.Officials who have relatives in government must disclose their relationship and wait for promotion until the senior relative retires. Senior ministers’ lives are excruciatingly transparent. Their private activities are scrutinized and their children must adopt assumed names to avoid influence-seekers. One-on-one appointments are taken as evidence of impropriety so all meetings must have third-party observers. A trail of excessive–or poor quality–government debts is treated as prima facie evidence of corruption and automatically investigated.Even retirement brings no release: after retirement senior officials are audited annually and remain responsible for the consequences of their decisions until the day they die. Even then, clawback provisions reclaim ill-gotten gains.The masses’ eyes grew sharper, too, after Xi crowdsourced the anti-corruption campaign. He urged everyone to text 12388, the office of the Rules and Discipline Committee (founded during the Tang Dynasty). Complainants often post accusations on social media and request additional witnesses. In one famous case, netizens scrutinizing a news photograph spotted a low-level safety official wearing an expensive watch and the subsequent investigation sent Brother Watch to jail for fourteen years. Amateur corruption fighters even have their own websites and Beijing publishes monthly scores:Visitors still burn incense at the shrines of great corruption fighters and millions watch TV dramas about ‘Justice Bao’ Zheng, the incorruptible Prefect of the Capital in 1000 AD. A wildly popular TV series, ‘In the Name of People,’ depicts current-day intra-Party power struggles in the fictional city of Jingzhou. The Jingzhou prosecutor and honest local officials help laid-off workers violently protesting a corrupt land deal, fight corrupt bureaucrats sabotaging an arrest warrant, and stop fake police bulldozing honest citizens’ homes. The writers say they have no shortage of material for the show.But for all his high-profile attacks on corruption, Xi’s most memorable contribution to Chinese history will probably be his new, fourth arm of government, the National Supervision Commission[⁠7], whose job it is to make corruption impossible. It is only such government agency on earth.Before the Commission was created, anti-corruption was divided between the Party and the state. On the Party side, the CCDI enforced party discipline–including party loyalty, anti-graft, and ethical and lifestyle requirements–against Party members, who constitute 80 percent of civil servants and 95 percent of leading officials. The CCDI turned evidence of criminal wrongdoing over to the state for prosecution.On the state side, the State Council Ministry of Supervision (MOS) supervised the civil servants who were not Party members, investigated graft, misappropriation of public funds, and other duty-related violations. The National Bureau of Corruption Prevention made policy recommendations and coordinated international anti-corruption. Departments of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) investigated certain kinds of corruption and malfeasance.Now the anti-corruption functions of all three agencies–the MOS, the CPB, and the SPP–are performed by the Commission which, as the highest anti-corruption agency in the country, ranks with the Supreme People's Court and the Department of Justice. Congress appoints its director, deputy director and senior staff–who need not be Party members and who cannot work in another arm of government for the rest of their lives.Their first task is turning the ongoing anti-corruption campaign into a regular legal process, rather than continuing prosecution through internal and extralegal channels. The Commission also oversees provincial, city, and county commissions responsible for supervising all public personnel exercising public power. Their authority is much broader than their predecessor agencies and they enjoy more powerful investigatory powers including, scarily, power of immediate detention!The Supervision Law also doubles, even triples, the number of personnel subject to supervision. While the MOS only had jurisdiction over non-Party government employees, the new law gives the Commission authority over civil servants, the CCP itself, the government, the people’s congresses, the supervision commissions themselves, the people’s courts and the procuracy, the people’s political consultative congresses, the eight democratic parties, federations of industry and commerce, and other personnel managed under China’s Civil Servants Law or who work in organizations that manage public affairs.The Commission’s writ runs further: to SOE managers, state educational, scientific research, cultural, health care, sports, and similar entities and grassroots villager and urban residents committees–and even ‘other personnel who perform public duties.’ They do not have jurisdiction over the PLA or the PAP, who are supervised by the Central Military Commission.The Commission is neither an administrative body like MOS nor a judicial organ like the SPC or SPP–it is a political body. This means that, in addition to being exempted from criminal procedure protections, it is not subject to the administrative law that imposes procedural and substantive constraints on government administrative organs like the police, which must disclose stipulated information, allow the public to participate in rule-making, and follow due process when imposing administrative penalties.The new Supervision Law does allow its targets to request re-examination of the Commission’s decisions and challenge (internally) unlawful conduct like harsh interrogation and prolonged detention by appealing to the higher-level supervision organ. But, though the new law does not provide a right of further appeal to the courts, it does require supervisory organs and staff to pay lawful compensation for infringing someone’s lawful rights and interests.The effects of the anti-corruption drive are already visible: civil service applications fell four percent in 2018, but satisfaction with local officials rose twenty percent since 2012, while ninety-three percent of people said they trust the national government and eighty-three percent say it runs the country for everyone’s benefit. Thanks to officials’ early years in the wilderness, constant monitoring, endless ethics lectures, relentless demands for results, exhaustive disclosures, painful transparency and twenty-four-hour public scrutiny, corruption is becoming a losing business.We should also credit Confucius for limiting political power to a single lifetime, for knowing that intelligence and honesty are linked[⁠8], and for insisting that power be given only to honest, intelligent people._______________________________________________________________________1 Huáng-Míng Zǔxùn (Instructions of the Ancestor of the August Ming) were admonitions left by the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang, the founder of the Chinese Ming dynasty, to his descendants.2 China's Meritocratic Examinations and the Ideal of Virtuous Talents. Xiao, H., & Li, C. (2013). In D. Bell & C. Li (Eds.), The East Asian Challenge for Democracy: Political Meritocracy in Comparative Perspective: Cambridge University Press.3 Imperial China 900-1800. F.W. Mote4 An old friend of the party assesses China's new leaders. Rob Schmitz. Marketplace.November 19, 20125 Yukon Huang was the World Bank’s Director for China. The Diplomat6 The China Model, by Daniel Bell and Zhao Bing Bing.7 The National Supervision Commission was formed at the first session of the 13th National People's Congress in 2018 and absorbed the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection of the Communist Party of China.8 Honesty, rule violation and cognitive ability: A reply to Gächter and Schulz, by Heiner Rindermann, David Becker, and James Thompson.