Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law in the People's Republic of China

Chen, Jianfu

doi:10.1163/9789004234451

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Article 6 of the same law requires that ‘in conducting criminal proceedings, the People’s Courts, the People’s Procuratorates and the public security organs must rely on the masses.’ Nevertheless, it is evident that the presence of Marxist or Maoist statements in Chinese criminal law legislation has been gradually reduced (Keith and Lin, 2001: 207). The ideological shift from class struggle to the maintenance of law and order is apparent to many commentators (Chen, 2013: 62). The ideological content of criminal procedure can be seen not merely in the general political statements from the legislation quoted above, but also in the political and moral values protected or neglected in its provisions.…”

Section: Truth V Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truth and procedural fairness in Chinese criminal procedure law

Shytov

Duff

2019

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chinese criminal procedural law has recently been undergoing rapid transformation. While the search for ‘truth’, embodied in a confession by the accused, has traditionally dominated the criminal process, efforts are now being made to secure more procedural fairness. This is exemplified by the introduction of rules to render inadmissible at trial confessions extorted from suspects by ill treatment. Unsurprisingly, it has proved difficult to shift the mindsets of the players in the criminal justice process. The new rules have not been fully implemented in many respects and there is still confusion over the criteria to be used by the courts in making decisions about inadmissibility. Further, it has proved difficult to enable defence lawyers to play a more active role in defending their clients and to render it normal for witnesses to testify at trial. This handicaps the drive to secure a better balance between the search for truth and procedural fairness in the Chinese criminal trial.

show abstract

Section: Truth V Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truth and procedural fairness in Chinese criminal procedure law

Shytov

Duff

2019

The International Journal of Evidence & Proof

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, Chinese academic work on the subject of LWOP and the death penalty typically glosses it as a form of selective deterrence or does not mention it all (e.g. Chen, 2013; Gao and Ma, 2016; Zhang, 2008). 4 China has not undergone a grand turn towards incapacitation as a dominant penal logic.…”

Section: Lwop In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Making sense of life without parole in China

Smith¹,

2017

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015, the People’s Republic of China introduced the sentence of lifelong imprisonment for a single, non-violent crime: corruption. Although life without the possibility of parole statutes were increasingly common in the US and across the world by the late 20th century, this is the first such statute ever introduced in China. While introducing the new punishment for corruption, China, the world’s leading executioner, retained the death penalty for corruption as well. This study examines the reasons for China’s adoption of life without the possibility of parole and situates China in global debates about the punitive turn and capital punishment. It also provides insights for understanding how the adoption of life without the possibility of parole fits into a wider constellation of penal practices.

show abstract

“…As a result, we focus on how a cases be interpretably and fairly judged and processed. There are two important principles in legal systems across the world: Presumption of Innocence and Elemental Trial (Tadros and Tierney 2004;Cohen 1982;Quintard-Morénas 2010). Presumption of Innocence means that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iteratively Questioning and Answering for Interpretable Legal Judgment Prediction

Zhong

Yu-zhong

et al. 2020

AAAI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to predict judgment results according to the facts of cases. In recent years, LJP has drawn increasing attention rapidly from both academia and the legal industry, as it can provide references for legal practitioners and is expected to promote judicial justice. However, the research to date usually suffers from the lack of interpretability, which may lead to ethical issues like inconsistent judgments or gender bias. In this paper, we present QAjudge, a model based on reinforcement learning to visualize the prediction process and give interpretable judgments. QAjudge follows two essential principles in legal systems across the world: Presumption of Innocence and Elemental Trial. During inference, a Question Net will select questions from the given set and an Answer Net will answer the question according to the fact description. Finally, a Predict Net will produce judgment results based on the answers. Reward functions are designed to minimize the number of questions asked. We conduct extensive experiments on several real-world datasets. Experimental results show that QAjudge can provide interpretable judgments while maintaining comparable performance with other state-of-the-art LJP models. The codes can be found from https://github.com/thunlp/QAjudge.

show abstract

Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law in the People's Republic of China

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Truth and procedural fairness in Chinese criminal procedure law

Truth and procedural fairness in Chinese criminal procedure law

Making sense of life without parole in China

Iteratively Questioning and Answering for Interpretable Legal Judgment Prediction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About