International Perspectives on Policing - Criminal Justice in China - Admission/Application Essay Example

Before the coming of communism in 1949, the Chinese law had a basis similar to Confucian ideology, where dispute resolution was achieve through methods based on relationship, like mediation. This ideology gave prominence to ethics and relationship between people and their leaders, this system lacked Specificity. The economic reconstruction in China also came with reforms in the institutional legal system to cope with the demands of economic growth. As more foreigners were headed to China they demanded for more protection similar to what they had at home. They wanted a way to find redress from what seemed as voracious steps taken by the government, other individuals and units. The CCP was meant to train lawyers and code laws, but when it failed in 1978, business law to the major role to address matters related to freedom of individuals and civil liberty (World Savvy, 2008). Compared to the western countries where courts play a major role in making sure other government branches are accountable, in China the ruling communist party has a direct influence on the judiciary system, an so the legal system lacks independence. With this an individual whose rights have been infringed by institutions, law and CCP officials has no where to seek recourse. An individual hoping to air grievances have a hard time as they seek justice (World Savvy 2008). As stated by World Savvy (2008), in China, judges are politically affiliated to their party and are not responsible to the people. All appointments are approved by the CCP. The committee under CCP has the power to intervene in verdicts and even overturn them; this makes the system to lack neutrality and transparency, and shows the governments ability to commit politicality by interfering with the justice system. Compared to United States’, 1:550, the ratio of lawyers to people is 1: 10,000 meaning the system has no capacity to handle the cases that the country faces. In China the CCP always has the final word on the interpretation of its own law as opposed to western countries where the court has the constitutional mandate to be the arbiter of law. One of the most outstanding factors in China’s criminal law system is how presumptions are made. In other countries where the system is a due process modeled, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. They cannot be arrested and charged without proof of law breaking. When someone is on trial it is the prosecutor’s work to prove and establish the corpus delicti that they are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Though there might be abuse with such systems because both the mens rea and the actus reus must be established, but before the defendant is proven guilty, they are protected against the government. In China the system is more of Crime control modeled and the presumption is that the defendant is guilty and must otherwise show innocence. There is a critical distinction as suspects have it hard trying to prove their innocence. According to Chinese National Bar, upto 70% of defendants have no lawyers when they go to trial (World Savvy 2008). That gives sense to the fact that in China there is a 99% chance of conviction for criminals. With an appeal system deemed to favor prosecution, according the China Statistics Year Book (CSY), only 4% of cases accepted for appeal were resolved out of 130000 cases (World Savvy 2008) and just 0.5% was overturned. The penal sanctions administered to convicts are harsh and includes death penalty that can be applied to 68 types of offences, which out of these two thirds are non-violent including tax evasion and stealing of gas (World Savvy 2008). One of the cases that show the state of China’s judicial system is the fundraising fraud case against Wu Ying. She was the legal representative of Zhejiang Inherent Quality Holdings Limited who in march 2007 turn suspect of in a criminal case where she was accused of embezzling funds belonging to the public. According to courts findings in 2007 in Zhejiang, she fabricated information and overrated interests which she used to fraud 770 million Yuan (Van Wyk, 2012). The court sentenced her to death and all her political rights withdrawn. Though she later appealed, the appeal was rejected by the court in 2012 and the former verdict withstood. Her only lease of hope was that the penalty had not been approved by the Supreme Court, as the case was referred back to the lower court in Zhejiang. The lower court also deferred the death penalty by two years in May. Even if the death penalty is withdrawn now, much of the harm is done. A significant online campaign to spare her life played a major role in the caseand might have served as causation towards the deferral of the death sentence (Van Wyk, 2012). According to Yip (2012), when she was arrested she was initially charged with “illegal absorbing deposits from the public” that later became financial fraud which narrowed down to fraudulent fundraising; then followed the confiscation of her luxury cars, apartments and businesses. Her charges said she had raised 770 Yuan from 11 people with a promise of extremely high interest rates (Yip, 2012). China recently removed some offences from its death penalty list that include economic offences, but fraudulent fundraising still remains in the list. The legal system of China lacks uniformity as on the same day Wu’s appeal was rejected, a court in Hebei sentenced a business woman by the name Sung Lipeng to 20 years in prison for acquiring 3.3 billion Yuan illegally. This shows some level of double standards by the Chinese courts as though the cases were similar; the sentences were different (Yip, 2012). Another case that is bringing the world attention to China’s judicial system is that against Boi Xilai, former Politburo leader and his wife Guli Kalai, alleged murderer. The government is being watched as the trial proceed on how it will uphold human rights, and criminal justices is put to test to see how the governments arbitration will be exercised against its own citizen (Cohen, 2013). Though the Chinese judicial system has gone through reforms in major areas such as increase in certified lawyers, law firms and law schools as compared to 1978, it is still lacking in key areas such as mandate, neutralism and capacity. though the government has reduced the list of crimes on death penalty, a lot needs to be done towards upholding the rights of the suspects. The defendants seem to be guilty before trial, and efforts to appeal seem futile and a total waste of time. The governments hand on the system is so evident as there is no autonomy for the court system, and the systems major shortfall is the fact that the judges are directly affiliated and loyal to their party. This plays a key role in the outcome of verdict as it will always lean towards the government. This makes it hard to go against the government and can be seen as a government that colonizes its own people. References Cohen A. J. (25 July 2013), human rights watch, Criminal Justice in China: From the Gang of Four to Bo Xilai, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/25/criminal-justice-china-gang-four- bo-xilai World Savvy (June 2008), Modern China, the promise to challenge an emerging super power: The Legal System in China, http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=113:leg al-system&catid=54:keyplayersinternal&Itemid=176 Van Wyk B. (28th Dec 2012), Danwei, China’s ten biggest criminal cases of 2012, http://www.danwei.com/chinas-ten-biggest-criminal-cases-of-2012/ Yip M. (24 Feb 2012), BBC NEWS: China, Death for fraud: China debates Wu Ying's sentence, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17071311 Read More