Advertisement

Conclusion: Making Sense of Chinese Criminal Trials

Chapter

Abstract

Chinese culture and law have many features. Both have been flexible and adaptive for centuries and, both were radically reshaped in the twentieth century. With a focus on China’s attempt to accelerate its legal and criminal justice reform efforts in the past two decades, this study shows in a limited fashion what the effects of some of these innovations have been: they are modest at best. The current Chinese juridical practice is set in a political climate that can be defined as adaptive authoritarianism where elements of the rule of man, rule by law, and rule of law coexist. The field of Chinese criminal justice can be figuratively described as a “fenced-off playground with paternalistic guards.” (The Economist 2013) There is a general recognition that China’s economic ascendance in recent decades has created a genuine dilemma pitting a liberated (and increasing liberal) grassroots economic spirit against the old, stifling political constraints induced by the government. In particular, researchers have noticed the expanded expectation for the Chinese court to serve not only as impartial and effective adjudicators of private disputes but also as necessary checks on state power (Liebman 2008).

Keywords

Criminal Justice World Value Survey Criminal Trial Legal Practice Chinese Characteristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bybee, K. J. (2012). Paying attention to what judges say: New directions in the study of judicial decision making. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bybee, K. J. (2010). All judges are political except when they are not: Acceptable hypocrisies and the rule of law. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (2011). People’s jury system: Is It possible in Mainland China? http://www.usasialaw.org/?p=5226
  5. Congressional-Executive Commission on China. (2011). Criminal Justice (pp. 80–93)002E Annual Report, 2011. Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  6. De Bary, W. T. (2000). Asian values and human rights: A confucian communitarian perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. He, N. (2014). The Politics of numbers: Crime statistics in China. In L. Cao, I. Sun, & W. Hebenton (Eds.), Handbook of Chinese criminology. New York: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Liang, B. (2008). The changing Chinese legal system, 1978-present: centralization of power and rationalization of the legal system. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Liebman, B. L. (2007). China’s courts: Restricted reform. Columbia Journal of Asian Law, 21, 2–44.Google Scholar
  11. Liebman, B. L. (2008). China’s courts: Restricted reform. Columbia law school, public law and legal theory working paper group (an extended version of liebman, 2007). pp. 8–180.Google Scholar
  12. Lubman, S. (2003). The study of Chinese law in the United States: reflections on the past and concerns about the future. Global Studies Law Review, 2, 1–35.Google Scholar
  13. McCloskey, R. (1960). The American supreme court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Popkin, W. D. (2007). Evolution of judicial opinion: Institutional and individual styles. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pye, L. W. ([1968] 1992). The Spirit of Chinese Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Skolnick, J. H. (2012). Legacies of legal realism: The sociology of criminal law and criminal justice. The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Supreme People’s Court. (2010). Annual report of 2009. PR China: Beijing.Google Scholar
  18. The Economist (2013). China’s internet: A giant cage. Special report on China and the internet. April 6th, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21574628. Access on 4/8/2013.
  19. The State Council Information Office (PRC) (2012). China’s Judicial Reform White Paper. http://www.scio.gov.cn/zfbps/ndhf/2012/201210/t1226622.htm. Accessed on 11/19/12.
  20. U.S. Supreme Court (2012). Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S.Google Scholar
  21. U.S. Supreme Court (2012). National federation of independent business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations