This is what was widely reported in the news following the trial and sentencing:

A Chinese farmer has been sentenced to life in prison for avoiding highway tolls adding up to more than 3.5 million yuan ($530,000).

State media this week reported that a court in the central province of Henan sentenced Shi Jianfeng on Dec. 21. He was also fined 2 million yuan ($302,000).

The news caused an uproar among some Chinese, who argued in online postings and commentaries that shorter sentences have been given out for the more serious crimes of rape or murder.

A report in the People’s Daily newspaper said Shi avoided paying tolls more than 2,300 times by using fake military license plates between May 2008 and January 2009 as he ran a business transporting gravel.

Keep in mind that although the sentencing took place on December 15, it was only recently that this story was picked up by national and international press, the latter running with it this week.

Just like all those other cases I’ve been talking about recently, we’ve got a situation here where the result is unpalatable. On its face, it looks like a farmer was given a life sentence because he owed a shitload of traffic tickets. When held up against many rapists and murderers who receive much more lenient sentences, you can see why people could be upset with this sentence.

Of course, the case isn’t quite that simple. The fines this guy owed were gigantic. He apparently evaded these fines for two of his trucks by using fake military license plates, military ID cards, and military driver’s licenses. The trucks, which he ran overloaded at times, traveled on toll roads more than 2,000 times in an eight-month period.  Needless to say, I’m sure the government was not amused with someone pretending to be military to save money on tolls.

But yeah, regardless, a life sentence seems extraordinarily harsh, even for someone like this. The public certainly had something to complain about.

And now we hear this:

A man sentenced to life in prison by a local court for evading 3.68 million yuan ($530,000) in highway toll fees by using fake military documents will face a retrial, as “new evidence” has been discovered, the court said on Friday.

So the sentence was issued one month ago, the story went viral a few days ago, and now all of a sudden some “new evidence” has magically been uncovered? It’s possible. This may have absolutely nothing to do with public pressure finding its way to the right ears in the government and the court being given some helpful advice regarding a retrial. Hell, for all I know, this new evidence might make things worse for this guy and he’ll get a stiffer sentence this time around.

Anything’s possible, but from the details I’m reading this evening, it sure looks like another case of the public pressuring the judicial system. This is a recipe for disaster in the long run, and with each new case like this, and even when we like the result, China’s goal of establishing rule of law looks that much more difficult to attain.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: criminal justice, online activism, rule of law, sentencing

Eight people were sentenced to jail terms Friday for selling fake rabies vaccines that contributed to the death of a five-year old boy in Southwest China, a local court said Monday.

The Intermediate People’s Court of Laibin city in Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region sentenced Zhang Dazhi and seven other people to jail terms of up to 30 months.

The court said the eight sold more than 530 doses of fake rabies vaccines between August and December last year. The fake vaccines were mostly water.

Lovely people.

You know, we can (and often do) discuss the moral implications of things like copyright infringement, but even at its worst, such activities generally don’t cause death.

Knowingly supplying fake pharmaceuticals is some pretty evil shit. The IP issues aside, these guys were doing so with the understanding that if the intended patients were treated with the fake stuff, they would in all likelihood die.

You would think, therefore, that causing the death of a five-year-old kid would carry some stiff penalties. Well, not so much. “Up to 30 months” means, I assume, that at least one of the eight received a 30-month sentence, while at least some of the others received shorter sentences. Two and half years or less for something like this? Really?

The defendants also paid RMB 160,000 to the kid’s family. This might have helped to reduce the sentence, although to me, whether compensation was paid should have no effect on a criminal sentence.

Perhaps the issue that bothers me the most involves the way the judge considered the actions of the parents:

The court also partially blamed the victim’s parents for the child’s death, because they were slow to seek medical treatment for him.

I might be reading into this too much based on a single news account, but exactly why was the judge looking at how fast the parents got the kid to the hospital? If the medicine was fake, and if the kid had contracted rabies, then unless I’m missing something here, his fate was sealed notwithstanding when he arrived at the hospital. Right?

Was the judge saying that because the parents took the kid to the hospital late, this contributory factor somehow relieves the defendants from some of the responsibility for the kid’s death? I hope not, because that would be ridiculous.

Contributory negligence, or the apportionment of liability between parties, makes sense in certain types of cases, but it doesn’t seem relevant here.

Quick analogy. Let’s say a commuter slips and falls in front of a subway train, dying in the accident. If a subsequent investigation shows that the train was traveling faster than the rules allow, but that even if it was going slower, the person would still have died, then should the train operator assume any sort of liability for the death? I’d say no way, because the negligent action (i.e., going too fast) was irrelevant to the death. Maybe this judge would have a different opinion.

In any event, even if there was no fatality in this case, isn’t this exactly the kind of incident that the government should use to set an example? In fighting against fake products in general, some of the most serious actions have been in the pharmaceutical sector. The government often highlights the need for tough enforcement against fake drugs since these products can actually do a great deal of direct physical harm.

Letting these guys go after a couple of years does not, I believe, send the right message to would-be counterfeiters out there.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: criminal justice, pharmaceuticals, sentencing, shanzhai

I wrote about one part of this discussion, the blame being assessed on the government, on China/Divide yesterday. But perhaps the quintessential debate that goes on is the old “individual vs. society” distinction. Was it a crazy person or a poor soul wronged by society?

In the U.S., there are political overtones to this debate. Traditionally, the “individual as bad actor” position is taken by the Right (Republicans) in their role as being “tough on crime.” Some of you may be familiar with the “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do” tagline of the National Rifle Association.

The “society is to blame” position is often taken up by the Left (Democrats). As a Lefty myself, I also gravitate towards the “society” position, particularly since that line of thinking at least offers the possibility of preventing such violence. The proponents of the “individual” theory have to rely on early identification of these people so they can be locked up and/or treated.

So in the wake of these senseless tragedies here in China, we of course get a homegrown version of the classic debate. Here’s how one writer set forth her position in a Global Times editorial:

Recent attacks against school children have stunned China.

In public discourse, one common explanation for the criminals’ motives has emerged. It’s claimed that they were seeking revenge on society, and many parts of the media focused on the criminals’ personalities and hard lives.

Our attitude toward such child-murderers should be clear. We could not ascribe it exclusively to social problems or the criminals’ weakness. Who is more vulnerable than children? If we judge the question wrongly, our society would suffer a confusion of basic moral judgment.

I’ve been writing about this topic for weeks now, and I think I’ve developed an immunity to the tragic nature of all this. Then again, perhaps I just lack basic morals.

Whatever the cause, what’s the first thing that popped into my mind after reading that editorial? What’s the source I am most familiar with that sets out the different sides in this debate in a succinct and coherent manner?

Officer Krupke On Broadway

Of course it’s the song “Officer Krupke” from West Side Story. Stephen Sondheim’s lyrics set out the theories very well, albeit in a less than respectful manner. It is, in fact, satire.

You be the judge. But first, to set it up for you kids who are not familiar with West Side Story. This particular musical number has a bunch of juvenile delinquents being hassled by a cop (Officer Krupke, naturally). They make fun of him afterward, doing a short skit about how one of them, post arrest, would be processed by the New York City juvenile court system.

These are excerpts only (I took out the chorus, etc.). Full lyrics can be found here.

I. Blame the Parents

ACTION:
Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It’s just our bringin’ up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we’re punks!

ACTION AND JETS :
Gee, Officer Krupke, we’re very upset;
We never had the love that ev’ry child oughta get.
We ain’t no delinquents,
We’re misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!

ACTION:
Dear kindly Judge, your Honor,
My parents treat me rough.
With all their marijuana,
They won’t give me a puff.
They didn’t wanna have me,
But somehow I was had.
Leapin’ lizards! That’s why I’m so bad!

II. Blame mental illness

DIESEL: (As Judge) Right!
Officer Krupke, you’re really a square;
This boy don’t need a judge, he needs an analyst’s care!
It’s just his neurosis that oughta be curbed.
He’s psychologic’ly disturbed!

III. Blame society

A-RAB: (As Psychiatrist) Yes!
Officer Krupke, you’re really a slob.
This boy don’t need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society’s played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic’ly he’s sick!

IV. Blame the individual’s actions

BABY JOHN: (As Female Social Worker)
Eek!
Officer Krupke, you’ve done it again.
This boy don’t need a job, he needs a year in the pen.
It ain’t just a question of misunderstood;
Deep down inside him, he’s no good!

So there you have it. A complete exposition of the various positions taken by all the commentators out there on the school violence issue. All kidding aside, it’s actually a damn good summary, all things considered. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by this; West Side Story‘s main plot deals with inner-city gangs, racism, and violence.

Things haven’t much changed on this front (i.e. the basic argument) since the 1960s, and probably long before that.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: criminal justice, school violence, sociology

Police chief or deputy chief should resign if any prisoner under his jurisdiction dies in prison without adequate reasons in central China’s Henan Province, according to a new regulation of the provincial public security bureau.

Police officers directly involved in torture or forcing confessions shall be prosecuted in accordance with the law, the new rule said.

The new rule was issued this week after a criminal suspect allegedly died of forced confession in Lushan County, Pingdingshan city of Henan Province in February, police officers said. (China Daily)

You may have noticed that the press accounts of “mysterious” custodial deaths in China have increased in frequency lately. Each explanation seems more absurd than the last and include these now instant classics: death by playing “hide and seek,” death by drinking hot water, and death by ingesting pesticide.

There are two problems: first, the underlying crime of course (i.e. murder), and second, the cover-up. It’s the second issue that should concern the local and provincial governments, since these murders were committed by police and prison guards; the only way to stop that is to prosecute aggressively and provide better training.

The cover-ups involve officials who are in positions of authority, people who would rather hide the truth and cover their asses than allow the justice system to function properly. In doing so, not only are many murders essentially being condoned, but the public’s faith in the criminal justice system is eroded. In other words, this kind of thing damages the Rule of Law.

The more bizarre the explanation of a death that is given to the public, the more Rule of Law suffers. Why was the neo-Chinglish term “Suihide” coined? Because when a law enforcement official claims, with a straight face, that a suspect in custody died while playing hide and seek, what else can you do but mock?

Actually, you can do a lot. The “Suihide” case is famous, for the most part, because online activists successfully pressured the local government to take a fresh look at the case. Ultimately the death was “discovered” to be the result of a fatal beating. I don’t like the online mob pressuring officials like this, but one has to admit that justice was served in that case due to Net activists and concerned citizens.

How do you solve this problem? Henan is going to try to fix it via accountability. If the guy at the top will also take the fall, perhaps that official will, to the extent possible, not participate in further coverups.

Worth a try, but the long-term fix requires independence. What is needed is a judiciary that is not influenced by local politicians and more professional prosecutors and other law enforcement officials.

Beijing would like to exert control, but federalism problems are persistent in China. If I had a magic wand, I would create a small, dedicated national law enforcement body whose job it was to investigate and prosecute these incidents. Americans familiar with what the FBI and US Attorneys did in the 1960s with respect to racial violence and cover-ups by small town sheriffs and judges understand where I’m coming from on this. You can also watch the movie Mississippi Burning, which documented this history quite well.

Public perception of Rule of Law is heavily influenced by what happens in the criminal justice system. These cases are infamous and extraordinarily damaging to our faith in the system. This new measure in Henan is a good start since it acknowledges the problem. A lot more needs to be done.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: china criminal law, coverup, criminal justice, criminal law, custodial death, legal reform, suihide

This year . . . a total of 180,000 convicts spent Lantern Festival, which fell last Sunday, at home rather than in jail, thanks to the community correction program.

China started to trial run the program in 2003 in Beijing and Shanghai, then extended it to 27 provinces.

Having fulfilled their compulsory education and services, offenders on the community correction program can go to work and meet their friends just like ordinary people. (China Daily)

I’ve been asked many times about China’s approach to mediation, community policing, and other alternative programs in the enforcement of law here. Recent reforms suggest a great deal of interest in non-traditional methods, which may be motivated by an attempt to reconcile current conditions with the Harmonious Society.

Community corrections here sounds similar to programs used in the West. You may have seen examples where convicts are allowed to carry out criminal sentences at home. These programs often use security technology (e.g. in the U.S., devices are often affixed to the convict’s ankle that notifies authorities if the convict leaves home) to monitor movement of these people.

These programs are also in line with the new “Tempering Justice With Mercy” campaign, recently outlined by the Supreme People’s Court and which has included reform in the way China uses and carries out the death penalty. I wrote about the new policy last month:

The guidelines say the death penalty should be “resolutely” handed down to those who have committed “extremely serious” crimes, but that the punishment should be reserved for the tiny minority of criminals against which there is valid and ample evidence.

So now it appears that reforms of the criminal justice system are more widespread than simply applying limits to death penalty cases. Community corrections is a way to keep folks out of prisons, maintain their ties with their communities, and give people opportunities to minimize their total sentences.

But wait. Those aren’t the only noteworthy reforms of the criminal justice system. An important one involves the method of State execution:

Another humanitarian move is the increasing use of the lethal injection to replace the traditional method of bullet to the back of the head, which has been in use for decades and was the only lawful execution method until 1996.

(I just love the sheer bluntness of that sentence. Almost as cut and dried as a bullet to the back of the head.)

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: china criminal law, community corrections, corrections, criminal justice, death penalty, house arrest, legal reform, lethal injection