​The Death Penalty in Việt Nam: Systemic Failures and Wrongful Convictions

A wrongful prison sentence can still be corrected. A wrongful execution cannot.

​While the Ministry of Public Security’s (MPS) draft amendments to the Penal Code—which reduce the number of capital crimes and expand the possibility of commutation to life imprisonment—are a positive step aligning with long-standing United Nations recommendations to Việt Nam, the debate extends beyond international trends. [1]

​The decision to retain or abolish the death penalty is deeply tied to the humanitarian nature of punishment and the realities of Việt Nam’s own judicial system. Given the country’s current conditions, capital punishment should be abolished.

Coerced Confessions and False Statements

​Statements and confessions often serve as the starting point for criminal case files. A single confession has the power to shape the direction of an investigation, strengthen an indictment, influence the assessment of the court, and overshadow contradictions found in other evidence.

​Consequently, the existence of coerced confessions or fabricated statements is not merely an issue of procedural misconduct but a distortion of the entire truth-seeking process.

​Coercive interrogation and fabricated statements in Việt Nam are not hypothetical problems from a distant past; they may still be occurring today. This systemic concern has been explored in prior writings. [2] 

As long as statements in Việt Nam can be produced under pressure, the death penalty remains an especially dangerous punishment, giving the state the power to take a life based on a potentially distorted process.

The “Right to Self-defense” in Theory and Practice

​While Việt Nam’s Constitution and criminal procedure laws formally recognize the right to self-defense—entitling defendants to present their case, challenge accusations, and defend themselves against charges—possessing this right in theory does not equate to the ability to exercise it in practice. [3]

​A 2023 research report on the death penalty in Việt Nam, conducted jointly by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Supreme People’s Court of Việt Nam, highlights that most suspects and defendants lack the skills or legal knowledge necessary for effective self-representation. [4] Even when informed of their rights, many individuals do not fully comprehend them or know how to exercise them properly.

​This disparity reveals a major gap between written legal guarantees and courtroom reality. On paper, defendants are permitted to request document access, take notes from case files, present evidence, question witnesses, and challenge accusations. In reality, a vulnerable person without legal training frequently lacks the confidence to confront investigators, prosecutors, or judges.

​Furthermore, the report found that among 35 surveyed courts, only four had ever received requests from defendants to read and take notes on documents and evidence related to both incriminating and exculpatory material.

​In cases that could result in execution, a merely formal right to defense is insufficient. When the ultimate consequence is death, the legal system cannot simply declare that a defendant “has rights”; it must actively ensure the defendant genuinely possesses the capacity to exercise them.

The Lack of Defense Lawyers

​It is a common misunderstanding that lawyers exist merely to help criminals escape punishment or to guarantee acquittals for guilty individuals. In reality, they exist to ensure that the state can only convict a person through lawful evidence, fair procedures, and a burden of proof carried by the prosecution. In death penalty cases, legal counsel serves as a critical safeguard against potentially irreversible mistakes.

Vietnamese law allows accused persons to request legal counsel and mandates that courts appoint lawyers for defendants facing life imprisonment or death who cannot afford one. However, the reality is starkly different. The UNDP report found that only a minimal number of defendants in Việt Nam receive legal representation at trial, noting that a mere 7.5% of defendants were assisted by defense counsel during court proceedings.

​This disparity poses particular danger in serious criminal cases. Without a lawyer, defendants struggle to challenge damaging statements, request independent examinations, detect contradictions in evidence, or recognize when they should appeal procedural violations. In instances where coercive interrogation or fabricated statements occur, the role of legal counsel becomes even more vital.

​If Việt Nam’s judicial system intends to maintain the death penalty, it must at minimum demonstrate that individuals facing execution are protected by the highest possible procedural safeguards. When legal representation remains rare, and the right to defense depends heavily on an individual’s financial means and legal knowledge, such safeguards cannot be said to exist.

Many Detainees Do Not Understand Their Rights

​A legal right only holds meaning if the person possessing it knows it exists and understands how to exercise it.

​During criminal proceedings, the initial moment of arrest or detention leaves an accused person at their most vulnerable. Separated from familiar surroundings, confronted by investigators, and placed under immense psychological pressure, detainees are frequently unaware of the legal consequences of their statements. 

If they do not know they have the right to remain silent, request legal counsel, or avoid self-incrimination at this critical juncture, these protections exist merely on paper.

​This disconnect is corroborated by the UNDP and Supreme People’s Court report, which documented a troubling reality: only about half of all detainees in Việt Nam were aware of their rights upon arrest or detention, including the fundamental rights to self-defense and legal representation.

***

No judicial system is entirely flawless. Even within developed legal frameworks equipped with independent lawyers, a free press, adversarial procedures, and advanced forensic methods, wrongful convictions still occur.

​Therefore, the core issue is not whether a judicial system can make mistakes, because the answer will always be yes. When courts err, confessions are coerced, evidence is misinterpreted, or defendants lack effective legal counsel, who bears the responsibility for a life that has already been irrevocably taken?

​Since no one can restore a life once it is lost, the state must immediately abolish the death penalty as long as Việt Nam’s judicial system carries the inherent risk of wrongful convictions.

---

Thúc Kháng wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on May 18, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.