I wrote about this assault/murder case almost a month ago and discussed how an instance of self defense turned into a politically charged matter that had many folks very unhappy about local officials covering for each other.

The defendant was found guilty today of “intent to harm” and not, as many feared, murder (China Digital Times has some links and press accounts). The lesser charge allowed the judge to hit the sweet spot: the person who assaulted the government officials was found guilty, while at the same time the public’s anger was defused. At least that’s probably the way the local politicos viewed the “solution” to the problem.

The verdict leaves a lot to be desired. Peter Foster at the Telegraph has already written a quick comment, which is thoughtful and a good place to start:

Deng Yujiao walked free from court today, though she was convicted on a charge of causing harm with intent.

As many Chinese netizens are pointing out the verdict is mighty convenient: a riot is avoided in Badong County, but the girl gets convicted. It’s a neat finesse or as one netizen on the Strong Country forum scathingly observed: “Guilty but no punishment? Such a harmonious decision.”

I shall read the editorials in tomorrow’s papers with great interest. From reading initial reactions I suspect one or two might dare to question whether these kind of politically stage-managed verdict are really a substitute for due process and a fair, transparent legal system in which ordinary people can have confidence.

That’s really what it comes down to, doesn’t it? The facts of the case and the reasoning used by the judge here notwithstanding, this entire process, from the time Ms. Deng was picked up by the cops, has been seen as heavily influenced by politics and not the law.

At the outset, it looked as though this woman was facing a murder charge after defending herself against sexual assault from a number of assailants. Indeed, that might have happened had there not been a huge outcry over the case (much of the criticism coming from the blog and BBS world).

At that point, the local government was completely screwed with respect to public perception. Had they moved forward with a murder case, the public would have been outraged. Had they dismissed charges and let her go, it would have looked as though the criminal justice system was being heavily influenced by public opinion. Either way would have been a disaster for the rule of law and the goal of evenhanded justice.

The actual result was something of a compromise. Ironically, this verdict appears to be a political settlement, a cynical attempt to make everyone happy, or at least get everyone to stop complaining so vociferously.

The court used a finding that Ms. Deng had a “mood disorder” to justify the lesser charge — from what I’ve read, this was completely groundless. As I mentioned in my first post, there is a long history in the criminal justice systems of many countries of accusing women of having psychological disorders (when the woman in question needs to be discredited, that is). The word “sexist” doesn’t begin to convey how odious this is; moreover, to see this happen in the 21st century is outrageous.

This case will be getting a lot of attention from commentators over the next few days. This matter has the potential to do a great deal of damage to the public’s view of the criminal justice system. It’s on par with the O.J. Simpson case in the U.S. back in the 90s.

There is an argument to be made, I suppose, that certain principles should trump the straightforward application of the law. This case is certainly an example of 和谐社会 taking precedence over everything else.

If you subscribe to this position, then the judge was wise indeed in coming up with this compromise solution that will probably keep protestors off the streets. I’m a rule of law guy, though, and I think this result is nothing short of a major setback for legal modernization.