China is currently debating amendments to its Criminal Procedure Law, and one area that has received a lot of attention is the right against self-incrimination. Whether that will be included or not remains up in the air, but the greater context of the discussion involves continued problems with police and forced confessions.

But this is where things get complicated. In many countries around the world, the right to remain silent is a concept wrapped up in a host of legal ideas relating to evidence collection and usage, self-incrimination, the proper role of lawyers, and the power of the police and judges.

So if the goal here in China is to stop forced confessions, will a right against self-incrimination get the job done? Maybe, but it’s going to be a long road, and I think before we’re done, we will have to take a hard look at some related matters involving judicial independence and governance, both of which are hot-button issues in this country.

Some thoughts:

1. Test Cases — Most of this will come down to the actions of judges. When this is tested, I assume the cases will involve suspects who were beat up to force a confession, and then at trial they denounce the confession as coerced. The judge will have to make the call at that point as a neutral party and not as an enabler of the prosecution.

2. Effect of Exercising the Right — One important aspect of the right against self-incrimination is that the trier of fact (judges in China, juries in some other countries) should not hold it against the defendant who exercises this right. This will come down to proper training of judges and will take some time to get right.

3. The Police — How will the cops react to this? The answer to that depends, in part, on why folks are being beat up to begin with. For cases where the goal is to obtain a confession, the reform should help. If a sufficient number of confessions are thrown out, this would obviously demonstrate to the police that this tactic will not be effective in the future.

However, there are other reasons why folks are beat on by the police (and I use the term “police” broadly). I mean, let’s talk about payback, restoring public order, etc. There are many possible scenarios here (go read a newspaper, lots of examples so far just this month), so the right against self-incrimination will not be a panacea with respect to police brutality.

4. Oversight — Implementation of a law like this is going to be extraordinarily difficult in certain places. There will be countervailing incentives to keep the present system in place. Just think about a city beset with public demonstrations and civic disorder — will the local government want to be handcuffed (sorry, poor choice of words) by these new rules or free to deal with “troublemakers” as they see fit to put down the disturbance? And if the reality on the ground makes enforcement difficult, then what happens next? What will the High Courts (and Supreme People’s Court) do, and what will be Beijing’s oversight role, if any?

5. Getting the Word Out — In countries where the right against self-incrimination (i.e. right to remain silent) is something that must be affirmatively exercised, then one important aspect is knowledge. From watching movies and TV, everyone knows that in the U.S., the police are required to inform suspects of their rights. Many suspects have no idea what these are, and obviously the police, absent warnings, would be able to take advantage of this ignorance.

Having lived in China for a long time, it’s amazing to even consider a cop here grabbing a suspect and saying “You don’t have to talk to me if you don’t want to.” But maybe we’re heading closer in that direction.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: criminal law, Criminal Procedure Law, forced confessions, legal reform, self incrimination

Here’s an interesting experiment: effective March 1, 2011, people bringing a case to the police will be able to register it on line, track its progress, and evaluate the performance of the officer in charge. A problem with the current system (and if you’ve seen The Wire, you’ll guess it’s probably not unique to China) is that police officers are evaluated by their rate of case closings. This means they have an incentive not to take cases that will be tough to solve. As a result, your complaint may go unheard. The new system is supposed to solve that problem: the case can get registered on line before it is officially accepted (??), so parties at least have something they can point to as they pester the police to take action.

As usual, it sounds like a good idea on paper. Most of these pilot projects do. Will this system prevent police from ‘cherry picking’ cases? That all depends on enforcement (i.e. will the PSB actually follow through on this new system and use these numbers for evaluation and disciplinary actions?).

Who knows? This sort of thing reminds me of those little doohickeys at the airport that allow you to rate the performance of the passport control officers. I think there are four or five buttons you can push, from something like “Going through immigration was an orgasmic experience” to “If I had a gun, I’d shoot myself in the head.” I don’t know about you, but I always choose the button on the far left (most positive); no reason to piss off someone in a uniform who has your name and passport number.

Perhaps the most significant problem folks have with the police, though, is that complaints are filed and then ignored. I can definitely back that up from the perspective of an IP lawyer — arguing with the PSB to open an IP case is just as futile as chastising an old man for spitting in the elevator (you know who you are, you filthy bastard).

Apparently this new PSB system also has an evaluation component. I wonder how that will work?

Please choose a response, from 1 to 5, that best illustrates your experience with the PSB on the case you filed:

1. The officer in charge of my file was diligent and pursued the matter in a timely manner.

2. My case was carefully considered but never formally opened.

3. My case was terminated with prejudice, and a paper bag with dog crap was left in front of my door. On fire.

4. Two words: repeated beatings.

5. Shit, I don’t know. I’ll go along with whatever you guys think is reasonable.

I share Prof. Clarke’s concerns that this system won’t stop cops from ignoring cases:

Naturally, having heard many, many stories of police reforms that go nowhere, hotlines that ring unanswered, and ombudsmen who beat up complainants, I’m a little cynical about whether this will really amount to anything. Among other things, the system apparently still requires a formal police acknowledgment that the case exists at some level in order to get it into the on-line database. Thus, you’re still stuck if the police just fold their arms and do nothing. Still, it’s an interesting idea that’s worth watching.

As usual, time will tell whether this is another PR exercise designed to placate a public that is pissed off at sub-par service, or is a sincere attempt at reform. And by the way, should this post find its way to a Beijing PSB officer, I’d just like to say that I love you guys, and I’m with you 110%.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: legal reform, pilot project, police, PSB, Public Security Bureau

You may have noticed an uptick in the number of posts on this blog and the number of links on my Twitter feed (@chinahearsay) on local legal reform. To be honest, this is not reflective of a sudden flowering of innovation. The more mundane explanation is that I started monitoring a Chinese-language news aggregator that contains a lot of those stories, and that’s why they’re on my radar screen.

In the past couple of days, I’ve seen several items about a pilot project in one district of Ningbo that has led to some interesting discussion. Under the policy, called “conditional non-prosecution” (??????), prosecutors may decide not to file charges against individuals based on present background and future conduct. The system is similar in some ways to Western concepts of probation and alternative sentencing programs, although in this case it is done prior to initiation of formal proceedings.

The program is indicative of a large number of grassroots legal reforms that are springing up in various parts of the country. Although I have no idea if there has been an actual increase in these pilot projects in recent years, it wouldn’t surprise me. As I’ve been writing over the past few months, civil and criminal cases in China have been proliferating and dockets are overflowing. Any legal reforms that may reduce this burden would certainly warrant a serious look in this sort of environment.

And yet there are critics. An Op/Ed in the Oriental Morning Post (Chinese only) on the “conditional non-prosecution” program in Ningbo poses questions about the ability of grassroots officials to institute such pilot projects given the lack of specific legal authority granted by Beijing (or any other higher judicial authorities). To put it another way: how conservative should legal reform be, and does local experimentation damage rule of law?

I have a feeling that I’ll be looking at this issue for years to come, so no need to cover all the angles in this post. However, consider just a couple of ways to look at this:

1. The “conditional non-prosecution” program has been criticized because it introduces the possibility of differing outcomes for the same crime as a function of geography. In other words, the punishment (or lack thereof) will be different depending on where the crime was committed. We bemoan this sort of thing when it occurs in the area of commercial law, so why is it acceptable here?

2. If pilot projects like this one result in criminals receiving lighter punishments, isn’t that being “soft of crime” and therefore bad for social stability?

3. Who really has the legal authority to introduce such programs? Shouldn’t localities wait for Central Government or provincial authorities to take the first step?

4. Do we really want to give local authorities even more discretion in legal proceedings? A lot of abuses, including corruption, are only possible given the wide discretionary power of local police, prosecutors, and judges. Don’t these programs exacerbate that problem?

These are some big questions to keep in mind when evaluating new programs as they pop up in the news.

Just to let you know my bias in this area, I’m pretty much a liberal when it comes to things like alternative sentencing and local experimentation, as long as new programs do not result in curtailing individual rights. To the extent that grassroots legal reform results in differing outcomes, I think the possible benefits probably outweigh the liabilities.

Moreover, if the public sees local innovation designed to make the judicial system fairer and more efficient, this will serve to strengthen the rule of law, not weaken it. On the other hand, if  programs like “conditional non-prosecution” are exploited by the powerful, using their wealth or influence to avoid punishment, then of course this would serve to undermine public faith in the judicial system. As with everything, it all depends on implementation.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: federalism, judges, judicial reform, legal reform, pilot projects, prosecutors, rule of law

Sending lewd photographs or suggestive text messages to women will be considered sexual harassment according to a new regulation that will take effect next Tuesday in this capital city of South China’s Guangdong province. (China Daily)

This is a fairly typical pattern for Chinese legal reform. First, you have a situation where there is pretty much no law in a given area and local courts have to fend for themselves in the absence of specific guidance. With sexual harassment, this was the situation up to 2005, when courts relied on other charges, such as sexual assault, battery, and so on, for instances when women were attacked.

Of course this state of affairs is not adequate. The reason why many countries adopted sexual harassment laws in the first place is that there are many instances of inappropriate sexual advances towards women that do not rise to the level of assault. So more needed to be done.

Fast forward to 2005. Now there is a State-level law on the subject, but it is vague and does not include a useful definition of the term “sexual harassment.” Some progress, but only a first step. Moreover, when the new law was introduced, many outside observers mistakenly believed that China had simply allowed all acts of sexual predation to occur prior to 2005 without any prosecution — quite a misinterpretation. This issue was well explained in a 2008 Danwei article reporting on the jailing of a man convicted of sexual harassment under the “new” law:

Today quite a few newspapers reported on how a court in Sichuan sentenced a man convicted of sexual harassment to five months in jail.

According to the newspapers, this is the first time that an offender convicted of “sexual harassment” has been given to jail time in China. However, this claim is somewhat misleading; while the term “sexual harassment” was only introduced into Chinese law as recently as 2005, similar sexual offenses were previously prosecuted using different names.

Moreover, as time goes on and society and the workplace change, the law in this area also needs to change. We see that most clearly with respect to the use of new communications technology.

What’s next? In an area of the law like this that is already quite challenging for plaintiffs with respect to gathering a sufficient amount of evidence, lack of clarity in the law is a killer, making it very difficult to obtain redress.

However, because the central government is not yet ready to legislate again so soon, experimentation and progress will be left to the provinces and localities. And this is why Guangzhou is following the lead of many other provinces and localities (e.g. Shanghai, Chongqing, and Liaoning) and coming up with new rules.

Here are some of what Guangzhou has come up with to expand on the language of the 2005 law. Notice how this includes new communications technology:

Sexual harassment of women through language, words, physical contacts, graphics or electronic information is forbidden.

In addition to this language upgrade, the Guangzhou rules place additional affirmative responsibilities on employers:

For example, an employer will be required to change an office’s wooden door to a transparent glass door, if any of its staffers report to have been sexually harassed in that office.

It will also be required that victims of sexual harassment be moved from the department that the suspect heads, said Li Jianlan, president of the Guangzhou municipal women’s federation.

“Although it is difficult to get evidence of sexual harassment, when we receive a complaint from a female worker, whether it is true or not, we can require the employer to take measures to stop it and prevent it,” Li told the media on Wednesday.

It stipulates that employees have the right to require the employer to prevent and stop sexual harassment as a part of the collective labor contract.

A woman being harassed at the workplace may appeal to her employer or the trade union for help.

There are obviously some potential problems here. The rules put a lot of responsibility on employers and unions, but it is not very clear what options employees have if their complaints are not handled properly or simply ignored.

As usual, most of this will come down to enforcement and future interpretation by the courts. Additionally, if tougher rules like these gain traction and are seen as “successes,” then it is possible they will be used in future State-level reforms of the 2005 law. Again, this is the way that a great deal of legal reform progresses in China.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: federalism, Guangdong, Guangzhou, legal reform, sexual harassment law

As I mentioned previously, I was interviewed by the BBC the other day about the “Nanjing Swingers” trial. To start off, here are the links to the BBC news article on the subject that quotes me, plus a link to the PRI page where you can access the MP3 file of the U.S. interview (the longer, and better, of the two).

BBC news story: “China charges online ‘swingers’ in Nanjing

PRI’s The World

The case involves violations of the Criminal Law (Section 301) that forbids “group licentiousness.” The 22 defendants ran an online group, characterized as “swingers” or “wife swappers” (other phrases may come to mind). Basically they arranged for groups of people to get together and have sex – a clear violation of the law.

Although quite titillating, the case isn’t all that exciting from a legal perspective. The Criminal Law provision is fairly clear, and the decision to prosecute is not surprising (one of the defendants is a university professor).

Much more interesting is what this case says about social change and related legal reform. Big issue. In the interview, I boiled it down to this:

“You have two camps that have come out on this trial,” Mr Abrams told the BBC World Service.

“On the one side, you have got the conservatives and, frankly I think, the government, who are saying there are public policy issues here, there is the matter of social order to think about.

“On the other hand you have people who want liberalisation, who want the law to reflect the reality of the situation, who are saying that not only there should be legal reform, but the government should stop cracking down on these people for these kinds of activity [sic].”

Obviously the conservatives have the law on their side, and no, I don’t think that this case will lead to any legal reform. Perhaps the next time the Criminal Law is amended, provisions like this could be changed.

I should point out that all of this is expected with economic development and greater interaction with the rest of the world. Many nations worldwide have undergone social liberalization along with modernization, and the types of laws that remain on the books in certain countries are rather surprising given current opinions about issues like sex.

For example, it was just a few years ago, in 2003, that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that criminalized sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas).

Societies change, sometimes rapidly, but laws pertaining to social interaction often lag behind. As time goes on, these laws just stop being enforced, and eventually because of a famous case or simply broad-scale legal reform, they are taken off the books.

One would expect something similar in China, although there are two complicating factors. First, compared to many Western countries, China is still quite conservative when it comes to sex. It’s hard to tell sometimes when looking at all the scantily-clad models featured in major newspapers here, but at the level of personal interaction, this remains a conservative nation.

Second, the government’s interest in social order and stability might serve to slow down social liberalization. Although I would argue that there are absolutely no political ramifications of an online sex ring, the government could see it in different terms. A large group, organized online that meets in private and espouses ideas about personal freedom — hell, you never know where that might lead.

I’ll write a follow-up post to this one in ten years as a progress report. I have a feeling that this sort of reform is going to be slow going.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: china criminal law, china litigation, legal reform, nanjing sex ring, nanjing wife swapping, social change

I wanted to put both Rio Tinto and Google behind me. Too many people have said too much, and it’s gotten old fast. But some exceptions have to be made, and one relates to the sentences given to the Rio Tinto employees found guilty of bribery and theft of commercial secrets.

Although this topic has been all over the news (and I therefore should not be picking on one source), this is the one that has me annoyed, from Philip Bowring in the NYT:

The 7-to-14 year sentences for corruption and theft of commercial secrets handed down on Monday by a Shanghai court to four former executives of the mining giant Rio Tinto have sent shock waves through the foreign business community in China. The severity of the sentences came as a surprise, given that Rio appeared to have patched up its relationship with its largest customer.

This is really disappointing. I’ll get to the sentences themselves in a moment, but take a look at the second part of that paragraph. Bowring is suggesting that lighter sentences were expected because Rio and Beijing had put their differences behind them. Bowring notes that Rio chief Tom Albanese was in Beijing at the time of the trial, and that a deal in Guinea with Chinalco was announced.

I am not so naive to think that the PRC government is somehow above using political influence to reduce sentences for employees of a company with which it is doing business. Sure, that could happen. But does Bowring have to be so blase about it, indeed almost suggesting that the resulting sentences (not adjusted) are therefore worthy of outrage?

Let me repeat that. Many foreigners have criticized the Rio trials as illustrative of China’s rule of law problems. I have written at some length about this, saying that the case may have both positive and negative effects on rule of law here. But Bowring is actually suggesting that no one really cares about rule of law, they just want a particular outcome. If Rio can cut a deal such that Beijing uses political influence to reduce the sentences, then screw rule of law, that’s the outcome we all want.

I believe this is a logical conclusion to reach after reading Bowring’s article. If I’m misinterpreting, however, then that’s on me.

On the sentences themselves, other commentators (including Steve Dickinson of Harris & Moure – sorry, don’t have a link) have stated that the prison terms given are fairly average given the charges and the facts of the case. This is also my impression. Is there some reason why these people should be given lesser sentences? The Australian citizen, Mr. Hu, is worthy of special treatment? Or all of the employees of the foreign company Rio? I fail to see the reason why, as Bowring writes, the sentences were so shocking to everyone, particularly since they pled guilty and, as Bowring admits, this industry is rife with corruption. Somehow I doubt that all of these surprised folks are up to speed on China’s sentencing patterns on bribery cases over the past few years. By the way, I have not heard anyone suggest that the guilty pleas were coerced, although that is always a possibility.

A large portion of Bowring’s column builds off of the great shocking surprise of the Rio verdicts, questioning whether this is indicative of a shift in Beijing’s attitudes towards foreign companies. This is a topic for another post (short version: attitudes have indeed changed, but this verdict has nothing to do with that), but I would like to point out that Bowring is basing his entire discussion on these unexpected verdicts that are really not so surprising after all.

A couple of last points with the article. First this interesting statement:

The fact that the trial was closed for the most part suggests that China does not care too much about how its delivery of justice is perceived. This is not new.

Absolutely true. But so what? Are American trials open to the public because we care about how the rest of the world perceives our system of justice? No, we could give a crap. They’re open because of our political and legal history. China’s system is not very transparent, something that many of us would like to see changed. But that specific legal reform would not be motivated by international perception but by domestic concerns.

Second, and last, there’s this:

What is new is that China feels able to turn the tables on major foreign suppliers, in this case both jailing their former executives while at the same time pursuing deals like Guinea.

Again, the automatic assumption that this is all a big game and that the trial was nothing more than a tactic. I understand that it might have been, and that a lot of rumors to that effect are out there, but in a newspaper like the New York Times, a direct statement like this that blithely assumes fact is really inappropriate.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: corruption, criminal law, legal reform, Rio Tinto, sentencing, transparency

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

One of the big questions hanging out there since the adoption of the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) a couple years ago has been the treatment of State-owned Enterprises (SOEs) and the regulation of the State sector. One of the pillars of competition law is to promote fair competition, and monopolies and monopolistic conduct often runs counter to that principle.

China’s State sector, and its industrial policy in general, presents a competition law problem. How do you square the existence of dominant SOEs, many of which have very large market shares, with fair competition?

The AML provides some basic guidance on this issue. Article 7 acknowledges that although SOEs may engage in monopolistic conduct, they will be protected by the State. In other words, they will receive special protection. At the same time, however, the State recognizes the danger posed by these special privileges and has a duty to regulate SOEs and their pricing behavior.

Articles 8, and 32-37 address specific actions of government actors in restricting competition, laying out certain situations and actions that are prohibited.

Not a lot of detail there, and I have not heard too much on this issue recently. Until Friday, when Grandpa Wen brought up the subject at the meeting of the National People’s Congress.

China will accelerate the reform of monopoly industries to facilitate fair competition among private and state-owned businesses, Premier Wen Jiabao said in a government work report delivered at the parliament’s annual session Friday.

There are calls for government to loosen the grip and invite private sector to join the competition in monopoly industries.

We’ll have to wait and see what all this means once individual policy documents are released. One specific area mentioned was the use of competition to affect pricing of natural resources in the area of energy in the furtherance of environmental goals.

The government said it will deepen the reform of prices for resource products and environmental protection charges as the current state-controlled pricing mechanism does no good for conserving energy and resources, and achieving sustainable development.

Wen noted pushing forward these reforms requires the government to balance the interests of different parties and ensure that the basic living conditions of people with low incomes are not adversely affected.

© Stan for China Hearsay, 2010. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: anti-monopoly law, china state sector, competition law, legal reform, National People's Congress, Wen Jiabao

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