Advertisement

Paying Money for Freedom: Effects of Monetary Compensation on Sentencing for Criminal Traffic Offenses in China

  • Yanyu Xin
  • Tianji CaiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

The current study seeks to understand the role that monetary compensation plays on the joint occurrence of imprisonment and probation for criminal traffic offenses in China. We argue that monetary compensation influences sentencing decisions primarily by manipulating the probation terms in favor of the defendant. With monetary compensation directly increasing the chances of a more lenient punishment through extended probation as opposed to more severe penalties, we have found sentence lengths for criminal traffic offenses to be concentrated at 36 months, the maximum length eligible for probation.

Methods

All available sentencing documents for criminal traffic offenses from 2014 to 2016 were retrieved from the China Judgments Online website. The final dataset contains 141,689 observations. Following a joint model approach using both sentence length and probation as outcomes, we utilized a Zero-Truncated-Generalized-Inflated-Poisson model to address the distributional characteristics of sentence length, such as discrete integers, non-zero values, and the concentration of data on certain points. To avoid detecting effects of little scientific importance due to our large sample size, all results were evaluated using bootstrapping techniques.

Results

We found that the likelihood of probation increases when monetary compensation is provided, but that compensation does not make a significant difference on the sentence length for those defendants receiving less than 36 months imprisonment. When considering the concentration of sentence lengths at specific values, monetary compensation was positively associated only with the chance of inflation at the value of 36 months, and the probation itself became insignificant in predicting sentence length.

Conclusions

The significant positive relationship between monetary compensation and lenient sentencing outcomes suggests that compensation plays a crucial role in the Chinese judicial process. Our study will not only help researchers to better understand the legal process in China, but it will also benefit the larger community as an example of utilizing new sources of data.

Keywords

Monetary compensation Sentencing outcomes Inflation Criminal traffic offenses China 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Science and Technology Development Fund of Macau SAR FDCT-090/2014/A. The funding source had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or reporting of results, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

  1. Abrams D (2010) Building criminal capital vs. specific deterrence: the effect of incarceration length on recidivism (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1641477). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1641477
  2. Anderson JM, Heaton PS (2012) How much difference does the lawyer make? The effect of defense counsel on murder case outcomes. Yale Law J 122(1):154–217Google Scholar
  3. Bagaric M (2014) Rich offender, poor offender: why it (sometimes) matters in sentencing. Law Inequal 33(1):1–51Google Scholar
  4. Bai J (2011) Empirical criminal law and sentencing practice: Big sample perspective on criminal law phenomena. Peking University Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  5. Bai J (2016) Sentencing prediction on the collective experiences of judges. Chin J Law 38(6):140–154 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  6. Begum M, Mallick A, Pa N (2014) A generalized inflated Poisson distribution with application to modeling fertility data. Thail Stat 12(2):135–159Google Scholar
  7. Braithwaite J (1999) Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime Justice 25:1–127.  https://doi.org/10.1086/449287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Britt CL (2009) Modeling the distribution of sentence length Decisions under a guidelines system: an application of quantile regression models. J Quant Criminol 25(4):341–370.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9066-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cai Z (2015) An empirical analysis on conviction and measurement of penalty in traffic accident crimes—based on 139 traffic accident crimes in east China. Present Day Law Sci 02:108–115 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  10. Cai T, Xia Y, Zhou Y (2018a) Generalized inflated discrete models: a strategy to work with multimodal discrete distributions. Sociol Methods Res.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118782535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cai T, Zhou Y, Niño MD, Driver N (2018b) The school contextual effect of sexual debut on sexual risk-taking: a joint parameter approach. J Sch Health 88:200–207.  https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12604 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Camerer CF et al (2018) Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nat Hum Behav 2:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Card D, Krueger AB (1994) Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Am Econ Rev 84:772–793Google Scholar
  14. Clougherty JA, Duso T, Muck J (2016) Correcting for self-selection based endogeneity in management research. Org Res Methods 19(2):286–347.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115619013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen A, Yang C (2018) Judicial politics and sentencing decisions. Am Econ J Econ Policy (forthcoming). https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/cyang/files/cohen_yang_march2018.pdf
  16. Davison AC, Hinkley DV (1997) Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Ciccio TJ, Efron B (1996) Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Stat Sci 11:189–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doerner JK, Demuth S (2010) The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Q 27(1):1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902926197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Efron B (2004) The estimation of prediction error: covariance penalties and cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 99:619–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1994) An introduction to the bootstrap. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Feinerer I, Hornik K (2017) tm: text mining package. R package version 0.7-3 (Computer software). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tm
  22. Fielding R, Gettys J, Mogul J, Frystyk H, Masinter L, Leach P, Berners-Lee T (1999) Hypertext transfer protocol—HTTP/1.1. Internet RFCs. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=RFC2616
  23. Fishman G, Rattner A, Turjeman H (2006) Sentencing outcomes in a multinational society: when judges, defendants and victims can be either Arabs or Jews. Eur J Criminol 3(1):69–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370806059081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fox J (2002) Bootstrapping regression models appendix to an R and S-PLUS companion to applied regression. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.182.9082
  25. Freese J, Peterson D (2017) Replication in social science. Ann Rev Sociol 43(1):147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gelb K (2010) Gender differences in sentencing outcomes. Sentencing Advisory Council, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  27. Glez-Peña D, Lourenço A, López-Fernández H, Reboiro-Jato M, Fdez-Riverola F (2014) Web scraping technologies in an API world. Brief Bioinform 15(5):788–797.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbt026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gormley TA, Matsa DA (2014) Common errors: how to (and not to) control for unobserved heterogeneity. Rev Financ Stud 27(2):617–661.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hht047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grundies V, Zhao S (2016) Sentencing in cases of serious crime in China: an analysis of robbery cases. J Criminol Penal Reform 99(2):140–157.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mkr-2016-0205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guo X, Carlin BP (2004) Separate and joint modeling of longitudinal and event time data using standard computer packages. Am Stat 58(1):16–24.  https://doi.org/10.1198/0003130042854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartley RD, Miller HV, Spohn C (2010) Do you get what you pay for? Type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes. J Crim Justice 38(5):1063–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hauser W, Peck JH (2017) The intersection of crime seriousness, discretion, and race: a test of the liberation hypothesis. Justice Q 34(1):166–192.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1121284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Herndon J, O’Reilly R (2016) Data sharing policies in social sciences academic journals: evolving expectations of data sharing as a form of scholarly communication. In: Kellam LM, Thompson K (eds) Databrarianship: the academic data librarian in theory and practice (chap 14). American Library AssociationGoogle Scholar
  34. Hester R, Hartman TK (2017) Conditional race disparities in criminal sentencing: a test of the liberation hypothesis from a non-guidelines state. J Quant Criminol 33(1):77–100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9283-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huang Z, Xie H, Wang J (2009) Drunken driver spared death sentence. China Daily. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-09/09/content_8669060.htm
  36. Jeffries S, Bond C (2010) Sex and sentencing disparity in South Australia’s higher courts. Curr Issues Crim Justice 22:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jiang M (2010) A rational questioning: victim-offender reconciliation or “using money substitute for criminal punishment.” North Legal Sci (5). http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-BFFX201005016.htm (in Chinese)
  38. Johnson BD, Betsinger S (2009) Punishing the “model minority”: Asian-American criminal sentencing outcomes in federal district courts. Criminology 47(4):1045–1090.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00169.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnstone G, Ness DWV (2007) Handbook of restorative justice. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Kutateladze BL, Andiloro NR, Johnson BD, Spohn CC (2014) Cumulative disadvantage: examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology 52(3):514–551.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kutateladze BL, Andiloro NR, Johnson BD (2016) Opening Pandora’s box: how does defendant race influence plea bargaining? Justice Q 33(3):398–426.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.915340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lambert D (1992) Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics 34(1):1–14.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1269547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li J (2013) Rwordseg: Chinese word segmentation. R package version 0.2-1/r47 (Computer software). https://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/rweibo/
  44. Li E (2015) Towards the lenient justice? A rise of ‘harmonious’ penalty in contemporary China. Asian J Criminol 10(4):307–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-015-9214-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li Y, Longmire D, Lu H (2018) Death penalty disposition in China: what matters? Int J Offender Therapy Comp Criminol 62(1):253–273.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16642426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liang B, Lu H, Taylor M (2009) Female drug abusers, narcotics offenders, and legal punishments in China. J Crim Justice 37:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liebman BL (2014) Leniency in Chinese criminal law? Everyday justice in Henan. Columbia Public Law Research Paper (No. 14-406). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2491889
  48. Little H, Karp T (2012) Sentencing children and young people in Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu J, Palermo GB (2009) Restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture in the context of contemporary Chinese criminal justice reform. Asia Pac J Police Crim Justice 7:49–68Google Scholar
  50. Lott JR (1987) Should the wealthy be able to “buy justice”? J Polit Econ 95(6):1307–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lu H, Kelly B (2008) Courts and sentencing research on contemporary China. Crime Law Soc Change 50(3):229.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-008-9132-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lu H, Zhang L (2005) Death penalty in China: the law and the practice. J Crim Justice 33(4):367–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lu H, Liang B, Liu S (2013) Serious violent offenses and sentencing decisions in China—are there any gender disparities? Asian J Criminol 8:159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lu H, Li Y, Liang B (2017) Restorative justice and probation decisions—an analysis of intentional assault cases in China. Psychol Crime Law 5:5.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lubitz RL, Ross TW (2001) Sentencing guidelines: reflections on the future. Sentencing Correct 10:1–7Google Scholar
  56. Maniadis Z, Tufano F (2017) The research reproducibility crisis and economics of science. Econ J 127(605):F200–F208.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12526 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Menkel-Meadow C (2007) Restorative justice: what is it and does it work? Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 3:161–187.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miao M (2016) Two years between life and death: a critical analysis of the suspended death penalty in China. Int J Law Crime Justice 45:26–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2015.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mitchell O (2005) A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. J Quant Criminol 21(4):439–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. National Bureau of Statistical of China (2011) China statistical yearbook 2011. China Statistical Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  61. Ng KH, He X (2014) Internal contradictions of judicial mediation in China. Law Soc Inquiry 39(2):285–312.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ng KH, He X (2017) The institutional and cultural logics of legal commensuration: blood money and negotiated justice in China. Am J Sociol 122(4):1104–1143.  https://doi.org/10.1086/689268 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pei W (2014) Criminal reconciliation in China: consequentialism in history, legislation, and practice. China EU Law J 3(3–4):191–221.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0042-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Poston DL, McKibben LS (2003) Using zero-inflated count regression models to estimate the fertility of U.S. women. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 2(2):371–379.  https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1067645400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rachlinski J, Guthrie C, Wistrich A (2013) Contrition in the courtroom: do apologies affect adjudication? Cornell Law Rev 98(5):1189–1243Google Scholar
  66. Rattner A, Turjeman H, Fishman G (2008) Public versus private defense: can money buy justice? J Crim Justice 36:43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.12.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reitler AK, Sullivan CJ, Frank J (2013) The effects of legal and extralegal factors on detention decisions in US district courts. Justice Q 30(2):340–368.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.668925 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roach MA (2014) Indigent defense counsel, attorney quality, and defendant outcomes. Am Law Econ Rev 16(2):577–619.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roberts JV, Pei W (2016) Structuring judicial discretion in China: exploring the 2014 sentencing guidelines. Crim Law Forum 27(1):3–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-015-9270-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenbaum PR (1999) Choice as an alternative to control in observational studies. Stat Sci 14(3):259–304.  https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1009212410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rydberg J, Cassidy M, Socia KM (2017) Punishing the wicked: examining the correlates of sentence severity for convicted sex offenders. J Quant Criminol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9360-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Salganik MJ (2017) Bit by bit: social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press, Princeton and OxfordGoogle Scholar
  73. Seghetti LM, Smith AM (2007) Federal sentencing guidelines: background, legal analysis, and policy options. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32766.pdf
  74. Shen Y (2016) Development of restorative justice in China: theory and practice. Int J Crime Justice Soc Democr 5(4):76–86.  https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spohn C (2000) Thirty years of sentencing reform: the quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. Crim Justice 3:427–501Google Scholar
  76. Stark J, Frenkel D (2013) Changing minds: the work of mediators and empirical studies of persuasion. Ohio State J Dispute Resol 28(2):263–352Google Scholar
  77. Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J, Kramer J (1998) The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36(4):763–798.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Supreme People’s Court (2000) Interpretation on issues in sentencing traffic offensesGoogle Scholar
  79. Supreme People’s Court (2008) The sentencing guidelines (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  80. Supreme People’s Court (2010) The sentencing guidelines (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  81. Supreme People’s Court (2013) The provisions of judgments on the Internet by the People’s Court (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  82. Supreme People’s Court (2014) Sentencing guidelines for common crimes (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  83. Supreme People’s Court (2016) The provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the issuance of judgments on the Internet (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  84. Trevaskes S (2013) China’s death penalty: the Supreme People’s Court, the suspended death sentence and the politics of penal reform. Br J Criminol 53(3):482–499.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tursun G (2010) Exploration of probation in Chinese criminal law. Federal Sentencing Rep 22(4):288–293.  https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2010.22.4.288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ulmer JT (2012) Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Q 29(1):1–40.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.624115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Wingerden S, van Wilsem J, Moerings M (2014) Pre-sentence reports and punishment: a quasi-experiment assessing the effects of risk-based pre-sentence reports on sentencing. Eur J Criminol 11(6):723–744.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814525937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. van Wingerden S, van Wilsem J, Johnson BD (2016) Offender’s personal circumstances and punishment: toward a more refined model for the explanation of sentencing disparities. Justice Q 33(1):100–133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.902091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wang J (2016) An empirical research on regional disparity of bribery crime sentencing in China. China Legal Sci 04:245–265 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  90. Weatherley R, Pittam H (2015) Money for life: the legal debate in China about criminal reconciliation in death penalty cases. Asian Perspect 39:277–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wermink H, Johnson BD, Nieuwbeerta P, de Keijser JW (2015) Expanding the scope of sentencing research: determinants of juvenile and adult punishment in the Netherlands. Eur J Criminol 12(6):739–768.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815597253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wooldredge J (2010) Judges’ unequal contributions to extralegal disparities in imprisonment. Criminology 48(2):539–567.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00195.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Xiang Y (2013) Criminal mediation in mainland China: a leap from judicial endeavor to legal norm. Asian J Criminol 8(4):247–256.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-013-9161-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Xie W, Ji L (2008) The development and perfection of minority criminal policy in the field of temper justice with mercy: from the angle of northwest minority areas. J Fujian Pol Acad 1:91–97 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  95. Zhang Y, Li X (2014) An empirical study on the sentencing model of drunk dangerous driving—based on 4782 random selected judicial documents. Criminal Science 05:99–108 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  96. Zhao X (2017) The application of probation in China—an empirical study using Chinese judicial documents. Contemp Law Rev 02:46–61 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  97. Zhao B, Yuan B, Wang H (2013) On the current situation and trend of China’s criminal justice policies: making three typical death penalty cases a breakthrough point. China Legal Sci 1(2):3–22 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  98. Zhe Z (2013) Sentencing pattern on the drunk dangerous driving crime. Polit Sci Law 8:30–41 (in Chinese) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of MacauMacauChina

Personalised recommendations