Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Confession and the Crime Control Model: an Analysis of Exonerated Death Penalty Cases in China

  • Published:
Asian Journal of Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

Confessions clearly have probative value when they are truthful. When not, however, they may lead to disastrous consequences. While the due process model provides procedural safeguards to ensure the voluntariness of a confession, under the crime control model, the reliability of a confession is the main emphasis, given its truth-finding priority. Two forces coexisted in China in the past three decades that warrant a close examination of the nature and goal of confessions: the impact of “strike-hard” campaigns and political pressure to swiftly crack down on serious crimes and the growing international pressure on human rights protections and China’s steady progress in improving procedural safeguards for the criminally accused. Citing 103 wrongfully convicted death penalty cases in China from 1983 to 2012, this study examines two inter-related questions regarding coerced confessions: (1) the extent and characteristics of confessions and torture, and (2) the goal of extracting confessions through torture. This analysis sheds light on the myth of the truth-finding goal under the crime control model and discusses policy implications of China’s current confession laws and death penalty reforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Some of these decrees and regulations included: the 1950 Land Reform Law, the 1950 Regulation regarding People’s Court Organization, the 1950 and 1951 joint Directives on dealing with anti-revolutionary crimes by the State Department and the Supreme People’s Court, and the 1954 PRC Labor Reform Regulation. Further, in 1958, a ban on confession extraction through torture was mandated as one of eight disciplines for public security personnel, issued by the Ministry of Public Security (He, 2010).

  2. Supreme People’s Procuratorate. (2006, July 26). Provisions of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on the Criteria for Opening Cases of Malfeasance and Infringement Crimes [Effective]. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?cgid=87356770985153eebdfb&lib=law.

  3. For example, in February 2005, it was reported that Li Mingjiu was sentenced by Tangshan Intermediate Court with suspended death sentence, but the real criminal, Cai Mingxin was caught in Wenzhou two years later; in March, Nie Shubin was wrongfully executed for crimes of murder and rape, yet ten years later, the real culprit Wang Shujin confessed to the crimes; in April, it was reported that She Xianglin was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment for murdering his wife who returned alive after missing for 11 years (Chen, 2007).

  4. The Notice on A Careful Study of the Five Cases such as She Xianglin (2005/7/4); the Notice on A Careful Study of Seven Cases such as Teng Xingshan (2006/9/21); A Symposium on Major Wrongfully Convicted Criminal Cases in which 14 cases were discussed (2005/9) (Chen, 2007).

  5. Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (2012). Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/criminal-procedure-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china.

  6. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/36506326.

  7. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://www.bjnews.com.cn/inside/2014/05/29/318690.html.

  8. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2006-02-17/12419129898.shtml.

  9. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://news.sohu.com/20140226/n395649597.shtml.

  10. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.sohu.com/a/162216964_752455.

  11. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://china.findlaw.cn/bianhu/fanzuileixing/xfz/14101.html.

  12. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.lawtime.cn/info/guojia/gjnews/2008013043456.html.

  13. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.nmql.com/tushu/2021-08-24/367.html.

  14. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.sohu.com/a/399535634_99904755.

  15. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.sohu.com/a/341679277_120178631.

  16. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20210312A006EN00.

  17. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.sohu.com/a/304971153_654603.

  18. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.163.com/dy/article/H69UPCLI055339FF.html.

  19. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/聂树斌案

  20. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://www.163.com/dy/article/GE6A8M53055220SJ.html.

  21. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-no06-159097-1.shtml.

  22. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://baike.baidu.com/item/杜培武/59236472?fr=aladdin.

  23. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://baike.baidu.com/item/呼格吉勒图案.

  24. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from https://baike.baidu.com/item/聂树斌案.

References

  • Belkin, I. (2010). China’s tortuous path toward ending torture in criminal investigations. Colum. J. Asian l., 24, 273–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bi, X. Q. (2007). Legal regulations on the investigative interrogation [侦查讯问过程法律控制研究]. Journal of Chinese People’s Public Security University, 125, 130–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn v. Alabama (1960). 361 U.S. 199.

  • Brown v. Mississippi (1936). 297 U.S. 278.

  • Cai, J. Y., Xu, W., & Tang, F. L. (2015). Constructing an error prevention and correction system involving criminal cases [刑事冤假错案防范与纠正机制构建研究]. Southeast Scholarship, 2, 174–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, H. M. (2011). Coercive plea bargaining: The unrecognized scourge of the justice system. Cath. UL Rev., 61, 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Certoma, G. L. (1982). The accusatory system v the inquisitorial system: Procedural truth v fact. Australian Law Journal, 56, 288–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. L. (2006). An analysis of the Chinese criminal justice reforms: Liu Yong and She Xianglin cases [中国刑事司法改革的考察: 以刘涌案和佘祥林案为标本]. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 6(6), 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. S. (2007). Perspective on wrongful conviction – An analysis of 20 high profile cases in China. Chinese Law Science, 3, 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. S. (2009). Judicial budget and judicial fairness [司法经费与司法公正]. Peking University Law Journal, 21, 390–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R. (2014). National governance on extorting a confession by torture: 1979–2013 [刑讯逼供的国家治理: 1979–2013]. China Legal Science, 5(5), 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. S. (2007). Encyclopedia of law and society: American and global perspectives. Sage publications.

  • Colorado v. Connelly (1986). 479 U.S. 157.

  • Croydon, S. (2016). The politics of police detention in Japan: Consensus of convenience. Oxford University Press.

  • Fan, Y. T. (2016). Lack of accountability may precipitate wrongful conviction cases [冤狱追责虚化势必纵容错案复发]. Law Science, 8, 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Findley, K. A. (2008). Toward a new paradigm of criminal justice: How the innocence movement mergers crime control and due process. Tex. Tech l. Rev., 41, 133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foote, D. H. (1991). Confessions and the right to silence in Japan. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, 21, 415–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, M. (1974). Why the haves come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Soc’y Rev, 9, 95–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, A. S. (1973). Reflections on two models: Inquisitorial themes in American criminal procedure. Stan. l. Rev, 26, 1009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, R. R. (2014). Torture: From the legitimate means to acknowledged crimes. Journal of Comparative Law, 1, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, R. R. (2016). On the implementation of the convention against torture in China [<<禁止酷刑公约>>在中国的实施问题]. Peking University Law Journal, 28(4), 955–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J. H. (2009). The trend of criminal justice [刑事司法大趋势]. Journal of National Prosecutors College, 17(3), 153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Y. J. (2010). Sixty-year experience in combating coerced confessions in China [中国治理刑讯逼供六十年经验]. Law and Social Science, 2, 108–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J. H. (2014). How does the United States curb extorting confessions by torture [美国如何遏止刑讯逼供]. China Law Review, 6, 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J. H. (2016). Miscarriage of justice and malpractice in criminal investigations in china. China Review, 16(1), 65–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J. H., & He, R. (2008). Evidence in wrongfully convicted criminal cases [刑事错案中的证据问题]. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 26(2), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S. Y. (2014). The psychological reasons for wrongfully convicted criminal cases[刑事错案形成的心理原因]. Legal Studies, 3, 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsewé, A. F. P. (1955). Remnants of Han Law. Brill Archive.

  • Ito, K. (2011). Wrongful convictions and recent criminal justice reform in Japan. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80, 1245–1275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, B. Z. (2010). Common mistakes in criminal justice [刑事司法错误与司法惯性]. Hebei Law Science, 28(8), 72–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. T. (2012). Japan’s prosecution system. Crime and Justice, 41(1), 35–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, J. (2011). Justice on trial: Japanese prosecutors under fire. Asia-Pacific Journal, 9(10), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1997). Consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. J. Crim. l. & Criminology, 88, 429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. S. (2011). Ten suggestions to prevent wrongful convictions involving death penalty cases [杜绝死刑冤假错案十论]. Anhui University Tribune, 1, 118–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. J. (2015). Prevention of wrongful convictions [刑事错案的预防]. Law Daily, 011, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, B. (2005). Severe strike campaign in transitional China. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, B., & Lu, H. (Eds.) (2016). The death penalty in China: Policy, practice and reform. Columbia University Press.

  • Liu, W. (2015). Let the defense lawyer review case files [让律师阅卷, 天塌不下来]. China Youth Online. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://zqb.cyol.com/html/2015-03/30/nw.D110000zgqnb_20150330_2-02.htm.

  • Lu, H., & Miethe, T. D. (2003). Confessions and criminal case disposition in China. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 549–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, H., Trejbalova, T., & Liang, B. (2019). Proceduralism, political embeddedness and death penalty lawyers in China. The China Quarterly, 238, 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mapp v. Ohio (1961). 367 U.S. 643.

  • Miranda v. Arizona (1966). 384 U.S. 436.

  • Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on suspect behavior during police questioning. The British Journal of Criminology, 32(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2018). America’s courts and the criminal justice system. Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. L. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, N. (2008). Imperial Chinese justice and the law of torture. Late Imperial China, 29(2), 37–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearse, J., Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., & Rutter, S. (1998). Police interviewing and psychological vulnerabilities: Predicting the likelihood of a confession. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramseyer, J. M., & Rasmusen, E. B. (2001). Why is the Japanese conviction rate so high? The Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), 53–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelle, H. (2006). Torture in China. Torture, 16(3), 268–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. C., III., & Leo, R. A. (2012). Confessions of Guilt: From Torture to Miranda and beyond. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, M., Ayres, R., Hess, D. W., Schantz, M., Whitebread, C., & Charles, H. (1967). Interrogations in New Haven: The impact of Miranda. Yale Law Journal, 76(8), 1519–1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. K. (2006). Distorted humanity: Ancient Chinese torture [扭曲的人性: 中国古代酷刑]. Henan People’s Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F. (2015). Attribution and governance of extorting a confession by torture [刑讯逼供的归因与治理]. Henan Social Sciences, 23(5), 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. J. (2009). Japan’s new criminal jury trial system: In need of more transparency, more access, and more time. Fordham Int’l LJ, 33(2), 487–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf v. Colorado (1949). 338 U.S. 25.

  • Wu, X. F. (2011). An analysis of wrongful convictions in China. Okla. City UL Rev, 36, 451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W., & Vander Beken, T. (2010). Police torture in China and its causes: A review of literature. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 557–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, L. Y., & Wang, Y. Y. (2013). Research on the system mechanism of preventing extorting a confession by torture [防范刑讯逼供的制度机制研究]. Criminal Science, 4, 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong, M. L., & Miao, M. (2018). Miscarriage of justice in Chinese capital cases. Hastings Int’l & Comp. l. Rev, 41(3), 273–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. (2017). A reflection on wrongful convictions – Nie Shubin case [聂树斌案件的延展反思]. Journal of Northeast Normal University, 3, 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, X. N. (2012). On the prosecutorial supervision mechanism of extorting a confession by torture [试论对刑讯逼供的检察监督机制]. Criminal Science, 4, 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. K. (2004). Ancient History of Torture Instruments [古代刑具史话]. Baihua Edition.

  • New York v. Quarles (1984). 467 U.S. 649.

  • Zhao, B. Z., & Lin, P. X. (2015). The extraterritorial jurisdictional rule and curbing extorting a confession by torture [遏制刑讯逼供的域外法治经验及其启示]. Jianghai Academic Journal, 1, 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Y. Z., & Jiang, G. H. (2005). Legal rationality and judicial independence – The case of She Xianglin [法律理性中的司法和法官主导下的法治—佘祥林案的检讨与启示]. Law Study, 8, 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, C. J. (2016). Accountability in the Huugjilt case 呼格案追责名单距离正义尚远. China Youth Online. Retrieved June 17, 2022, from http://zqb.cyol.com/html/2016-02/03/nw.D110000zgqnb_20160203_1-02.htm.

  • Zuo, W. M. (2005). Elimination interrogational torture by legalizing investigation works. People’s Procuratorial Semimonthly, 1178, 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, 4505 S Maryland Pkwy, Las Vegas, NV, 89154, USA

    Hong Lu

  2. School of Law, Jiangsu University, Jiangsu Province, Zhenjiang, China

    Honglan Shuai

  3. Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, 1201 W University Dr, Edinburg, TX, 78539, USA

    Yudu Li

  4. Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade, Taipa, Macau, China

    Jianhong Liu

  5. Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University-Tulsa, 700 North Greenwood Avenue, Main Hall, 2223, Tulsa, OK, 74106, USA

    Bin Liang

Authors
  1. Hong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Honglan Shuai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yudu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianhong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bin Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong Lu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, H., Shuai, H., Li, Y. et al. Confession and the Crime Control Model: an Analysis of Exonerated Death Penalty Cases in China. Asian J Criminol 17 (Suppl 1), 33–54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-022-09383-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-022-09383-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation