Comments on: Rule of Law Cases: A ‘Murder’ in Hubei

By: karen

karen — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:19:59 +0000

oops! the guy is dead – so a little difficult to undergo an eval. Need to change that. After the lst sentence, change sentence 2:
“But the 2 men who were complicit didn’t have to be evaluated.”

Leave sentence 3 as is.

By: karen

karen — Fri, 29 May 2009 08:52:25 +0000

Because she defended herself, the men think she should have a psychiatric evaluation, which means they think it’s abnormal for a woman to say no to a man who wants sex. But the man didn’t have to be evaluated. So it’s perfectly normal for a man to force a woman to have sex with him when she doesn’t want to.

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:48:12 +0000

Although I do think that this case does illustrate the mutual protection that goes on between government officials (a.k.a. “I scratch your back, you scratch mine”), I do not see this as indicative of government policy per se. In fact, I would guess that no one at the provincial and central government levels are too pleased at how this has played out.

By: PB

PB — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:38:13 +0000

It is a shame that whatever is going to happen, the female attendant will be in mental hospital or jail for a long, long, time, just because she refuse to be raped by a government official. I suspect the Chinese government wants to send the message out that all Chinese citizens must serve the government the way it is requested, no question asked. And do it happily, express your eternal gratitude for the opportunity to serve.

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 20 May 2009 04:08:11 +0000

Thanks! Good blog post discussing Article 20 of the Criminal Law as it relates to this case.

By: Sue

Sue — Tue, 19 May 2009 20:29:31 +0000

Chinese lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan did an analysis on Chinese law about self-defense in relation to the case discussed here. See link
http://liu6465.blog.sohu.com/116371795.html

By: Stan

Stan — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:21:35 +0000

The system is stacked against victims like this for a variety of reasons. I wish I knew about self-defense theories here, and all I remember from school on the subject aside from “proportional force” derives from spring gun cases — remember those?

BTW, having that many guns IS crazy. And try explaining to anyone who isn’t American why even Democrats are unwilling to ban assault rifles.

By: Stan

Stan — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:12:40 +0000

This case, and others like it, have nothing to do with what message the “Chinese government” wants to send to people. These incidents have to do with local officials abusing their power, and the Central Government certainly doesn’t support this kind of thing. Don’t fall for the China-has-a-monolithic-all-powerful-government myth.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:08:48 +0000

Does anyone know much about self-defense in China?

In the U.S., this is an open and shut case of self-defense. Americans might even have the gut reaction of “good for her and they deserved it” (or at least I think they would).

But from the little that I understand, I don’t think self-defense laws in China work the same (and maybe not even in Europe). At least when I explain the Castle Doctrine, etc to Chinese friends, they think we are crazy and have way too many guns.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:46:38 +0000