Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal reconciliation in China: consequentialism in history, legislation, and practice

  • Article
  • Published:
China-EU Law Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Criminal reconciliation has become a watchword in the Chinese criminal justice system since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Similar devices were marginalized during the 1980s and 1990s when a strong effort towards formalization and adjudication overwhelmed the criminal justice field. In the last 10 years there has been a shift away from these practices in favour of less formal, more flexible mechanisms in criminal law and in practice. Underlying this shift is a type of consequentialist rationale that emphasizes the overall outcome rather than the legality of the proceedings. This rationale is deeply rooted in the authoritarian state’s reaction to the rampant social instabilities which challenge both its legitimacy and its control over society. Criminal reconciliation is an epitome of the relay race of consequentialism, in which criminal justice authorities are pressurized to act pragmatically, even to the extent of risking their own legitimacy.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Research on mediation in the Chinese judicial system. see e.g., Zhang 2012; Waye and Xiong 2011; Zeng 2009; Lubman 1997; Fu 1992; Ren 1987; Cohen 1966. One major similar feature of such research is that although many commentators noticed the politicalization of mediation in China, as well as the twisted relationship between mediation and adjudication, few of them commented on mediation in criminal justice.

  2. Chen and Ge 2006, 3. In Fan Chongyi’s research criminal reconciliation is interpreted similarly, where during criminal litigation, offenders reconcile with victims on civil damages through compensation, apology, or other methods. Based on this reconciliation, a judicial organ may exempt suspects from criminal liability, punishment, or impose lenient or mitigated penalties. See Fan and Ai 2012, 24.

  3. As to the analysis of the vertical and horizontal relationships observed in negotiation during the course of the criminal proceedings, see Tulkens 2002, pp. 641–687.

  4. For research on Chinese mediation, see, e.g., Cohen 1966, 1980; Lubman 1967; Cloke 1987; Woo 1989; Glassman 1991; Fu 1992; Minzner 2011; Zhang 2012. The common feature of these studies is that they all focus on civil or administrative mediation.

  5. Garner (ed) 2009, p. 1098.

  6. Ibid, p. 1415.

  7. There are three situations in which the victim can issue a private prosecution: (1) cases which can only be prosecuted by private victims, including insulting and slander (article 246), violent interference with the freedom of marriage (article 257), abuse (article 260), and normal embezzlement (article 270) under the 1997 CL; (2) minor offences that the victims have evidence to prove, including eight kinds of crimes under the 1997 CL: intentional injury (Paragraph 1, article 234), intrusion (article 245), infringing upon the right of communication (article 252), bigamy (article 258), abandonment (article 261), infringement of intellectual property rights (s1 in ch3), manufacturing and selling fake and shoddy goods (s1 in ch 3), and crimes within ch 4 and ch 5 for which a sentence of less than three years’ imprisonment may be imposed; and (3) cases in which the victims have sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants, who infringed upon the victim’s personal or property rights, should be investigated, in which the police or the prosecutor refuses to investigate. According to art 206 of the 2012 CPL, the third type cannot be mediated (art 206), and the second type can be prosecuted either by the victim or by prosecutors.

  8. Regarding China’s judicial reforms as they relate to the rule of law, see Peerenboom 2002; Dicks 1989, p. 540.

  9. This is a trend that has emerged not only in the criminal justice system, but in the entire legal system in China. For a detailed analysis on this topic, see supra note 4, Minzner 2011.

  10. These seven provinces are Zhejiang, Shanghai, Anhui, Hunan, Jiangsu, Liaoning, Hebei.

  11. These four provinces are Jiangsu, Henan, Guangdong, Liaoning.

  12. 最高人民检察院关于办理当事人达成和解的轻微刑事案件的若干意见 (SPP’s Several Opinions on Reconciliation in Slight Criminal Cases), 高检发 研字[2011]第2号 (Gaojianfa Yanzi [2011] No. 2), 29 January 2011.

  13. 人民法院第三个五年改革纲要 (2009–2013) (The third Five-Years’ Outline for Reform of the People’s Court), 23 February 2019.

  14. In the 2012 CPL there are four special procedures described in part 5 (‘Special Procedures’).They are: procedures for juvenile crime; procedures for reconciliation between parties in public prosecution cases; procedures for the confiscation of illegal earnings in cases where the suspect or defendant has absconded or died; and compulsory medical procedures for mentally ill persons legally exempted from criminal liability.

  15. There are three major official documents issued by criminal justice authorities: (1) 人民检察院刑事诉讼规则 (试行) (Regulations for People’s Procuratorate on Criminal Procedure (Trial), the 2012 SPP Regulations), 检释[2012]第2号 (Jianshi [2012], No. 2), 22 November 2012; validated on 1 January 2013 (2) 最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法的解释》(SPC’s Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law of People’s Republic of China, the 2012 SPC Interpretations), 法释[2012]第21号 (Fashi [2012], No. 21), 20 December 2012; validated on 1 January 2013; and (3) 公安机关办理刑事案件程序规定 (Procedural Regulations for Public Security Organs on Solving Criminal Cases, the 2012 MPS Regulations), 公安部令第127号 (Gonganbu Ling No. 127), 3 December 2012 and validated on 1 January 2013.

  16. Chapter Four of the 1997 CL regulates crimes infringing personal rights and citizens’ democratic rights, and Chapter Five pertains to crimes encroaching on property. Most crimes stipulated in these two Chapters don’t violate social or collective benefits directly, where victims are the major group who suffer from these crimes.

  17. Article 277 of the 2012 CPL.

  18. Article 277 of the 2012 CPL.

  19. Article 278 of the 2012 CPL.

  20. Article 514 of the 2012 SPP Regulations.

  21. Section 3, article 9 of the SPC’s Sentencing Guidance.

  22. Section 3, article 10 of the SPC’s Sentencing Guidance. The guidance does not specify the relationship between article 9 and article 10 of section 3. However, it is clear that if the offender does not offer compensation, then the judge should follow article 10.

  23. Article 514 of the 2012 SPP Regulations.

  24. Article 496 of the 2012 SPC Interpretations.

  25. Article 322 of the 2012 MPS Regulations.

  26. Article 514 of the 2012 SPP Regulations.

  27. These six situations are stipulated in Article 323 of the 2012 MPS Regulations: (1) bodily injury through hiring offenders; (2) mafia-like crimes; (3) activities causing disturbances; (4) activities involving gang fights; (5) intentional bodily injury occurring on several occasions; and (6) other situations.

  28. S2, Article 516 of the 2012 SPP Regulations.

  29. Articles 496 and 501 of the 2012 SPC Interpretations.

  30. S2, Article 326 of the 2012 MPS Regulations.

  31. Article 517 of the 2012 SPP Regulations.

  32. Article 502 of the 2012 SPC Interpretations.

  33. See Song and Yuan (eds) 2009.

  34. See Song 2009.

  35. See Bian and Wang (eds) 2010.

  36. See Song 2008, p. 123.

  37. See Wei 2013. Article 13 of the 1997 CL stipulates that ‘if the circumstances are clearly minor and the harm is not great, they (offences) are not to be deemed crimes’. Article 15 of the 2012 CPL describes six situations leading to withdrawal, and one is that ‘an act is obviously minor, causing no serious harm, and is therefore not deemed a crime’.

  38. See Bi 2012.

  39. See npv.gov.cn 2011.

  40. Interview, Taiyuan.

  41. Supra note 35, p. 1.

  42. Li and He 2010, p. 48.

  43. Interview, Haidian District, Beijing.

  44. Shi 2008, p. 306.

  45. Art 99 of the 2012 CPL.

  46. Art 22 of the 2010 Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that the victim of the tort may require compensation for mental damages when the crime is serious. 中华人民共和国侵权责任法 (Tort Law of the People’s Republic of China) 中华人民共和国主席令第21号 (Decree of the President of the People’s Republic of China, No. 21), 26 December 2009.

  47. Art 35 of the 2010 State Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates that ‘in the case of mental injury, the state shall, to the extent of infringement, eliminate the effects of the infringement for the injured body, resume his or her reputation, make an apology and pay appropriate consolation money if the infringement causes serious subsequences’. 中华人民共和国国家赔偿法 (State Compensation Law of the People’s Republic of China), 中华人民共和国主席令第29号 (Decree of the President of the People’s Republic of China, No. 29), 29 April 2010.

  48. See people.com.cn 2012.

  49. See supra note 34.

  50. Wu 2007, p. 108.

  51. See, e.g., Zhang 2013; news.xinhuanet.com 2012.

  52. See gzfy.chinacourt.org 2013.

  53. 甘肃省高级人民法院指定并由甘肃省张掖市甘州区人民检察院指控被告人金鹏犯交通肇事罪一案 (People’s Prosecutor v. Jin Peng. Crime of Causing Traffic Casualities). See also Ibid.

  54. See news.xinhuanet.com 2010.

  55. Sometimes this term is also translated as ‘petition to higher government officials’ or ‘administrative petition’. In this article the author adopted its original meanings in the Chinese language.

  56. Xie 2009, p. 24.

  57. See Yu 2012.

  58. Minzner 2006, 2.

  59. 最高人民检察院工作报告 (SPP’s Annual Working Report) (2004–2012).

  60. Theory.people.com.cn 2012.

  61. See Article 2 of公安机关处置群体性治安事件规定 (Regulations for Public Security Organs on Dealing with Popular Protests), 公发[2000]第5号 (Gongfa [2000], No. 5), 5 April 2000. This document was updated in 2008, where the definition mentioned above was eliminated. See 公通字(2008)第56号 (Gongtongzi (2008), No. 56).

  62. See Buckley 2008.

  63. See Li and Zeng 2009.

  64. See Wines 2011.

  65. See scitech.people.com.cn 2012.

  66. See bbc.co.uk 2013.

  67. See gmw.cn 2006.

  68. 最高人民法院关于进一步贯彻“调解优先、调判结合”工作原则的若干意见 (SPC’s Several Opinions on Further Implementing the Work Principle of ‘Giving Priority to Mediation and Combining Mediation with Judgment’), 法发[2010] 第16号 (Fafa [2010], No. 16), 6 July 2010.

  69. See Research Group in the Higher Court of Guangzhou Province 2012.

  70. Concerning the detailed analysis on grand mediation and its differences to similar mechanisms applied in the past, see Hu 2011.

  71. See Wang et al. 2012.

  72. See supra note 4, p 939.

  73. See Cai 2008, p. 411.

  74. supra note 4, Minzner 2011, p. 938.

  75. He and Ng 2013, p. 97.

  76. See note 74 above.

  77. Zhang (note 1 above).

References

  • Bbc.co.uk China Court Compensates Labour Camp Mother Tang Hui. 15 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23311391. Accessed 13 Dec 2013

  • 毕振志 (Bi Z) (2012) 朝阳中院:案件调解率要提升5% (IPC of Chaoyang: mediation rate must increase by 5%). 法制网 (Infzb). 6 July 2012, http://www.lnfzb.com/news_view.aspx?id=20120606081733856. Accessed 15 Aug 2013

  • 卞建林 (Bian J) and 王立 (Wang L) (eds) (2010) 刑事和解与程序分流 (Criminal reconciliation and procedural diversion). 北京:中国人民公安大学出版社 (CPPSUP Press, Beijing)

  • Buckley C (2008) ‘Girl’s Death Sparks Rioting in Chinese County’. 29 June 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/06/29/us-china-riot-idUSPEK27256220080629. Accessed 5 Jan 2013

  • Cai YSH (2008) Power structure and regime resilience: contentious politics in China. Br J Polit Sci 59:411–432

    Google Scholar 

  • 陈光中 (Chen G), 葛琳 (Ge L) (2006) 刑事和解初探 (Exploration on criminal reconciliation). 中国法学 (China Legal Sci) 5:3–14

  • Chung JH et al (2006) Mounting challenges to governance in China: surveying collective protestors, religious sects and criminal organizations. China J 56:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloke K (1987) Politics and values in mediation: the Chinese experience. Confl Resolut Q 17:69–82

  • Cohen JA (1966) Chinese mediation on the eve of modernization. Calif Law Rev 54:1201–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JA (1980) China’s new lawyers’ law. Am Bar Assoc J 66:1533–1535

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks A (1989) The Chinese legal system: reforms in the balance. China Q 119:540–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 樊崇义 (Fan Ch) and 艾静 (Ai J) (2010) 刑事和解管见和实证考量 (Personal opinions and empirical examination on criminal reconciliation). 中国司法 (Justice China) 2:24–28

  • Fu H (1992) Understanding people’s mediation in post-mao China. J Chin Law 6:211–246

    Google Scholar 

  • 甘肃省高级人民法院指定并由甘肃省张掖市甘州区人民检察院指控被告人金鹏犯交通肇事罪一案 (People’s Prosecutor v. Jin Peng. Crime of Causing Traffic Casualities), 30 May 2009, 张掖市甘州区人民法院 (Basic People’s Court of Ganzhou District in Zhangye City), http://www.110.com/panli/panli_23729222.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2013

  • Garner BA (ed) (2009) Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edn. West Publishing, Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassman EJ (1991) The Function of Mediation in China: examining the Impact of Regulations Governing the People’s Mediation Committees. UCLA Pac. Basin L. J. 10:460–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Gmw.cn ‘能调则调,当判则判,调判结合,案结事了’ (‘Mediate those mediatable, and try those should be trialed; combine mediation and trial, and solve the case and end the dispute’). 18 July 2006, http://www.gmw.cn/01gmrb/2006-07/18/content_451097.htm. Accessed 9 September 2013

  • Gzfy.chinacourt.org 全国模范法官宁兰红同志先进事迹 (Meritorious deeds of Ning Lanhong, the national model judge) 26 June 2013, http://gzfy.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2013/06/id/1018071.shtml. Accessed 21 Aug 2013

  • He X, Ng KH (2013) In the name of harmony: the erasure of domestic violence in China’s judicial mediation. Int J Law Policy Family 27(1):97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu J (2011) Grand mediation in china: mechanism and application. Asian Surv 51(6):1065–1089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 胡铭 (Hu M) and 张健 (Zhang J) (2013) 转型与承续:民国时期的刑事和解 (Transformation and inheritance: the criminal mediation in the period of the Republic of China). 浙江大学学报 (J Zhejiang Univ) 4:1–15

  • Huang PC (2006) Court mediation in China, past and present. Modern China 32:275–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 李战吉 (Li J), 曾华锋 (Zeng H) 甘肃会宁县群体性事件已妥善处置 (The group event has been proper dealt in Huining, Gansu Province). 20 May 2009, http://society.people.com.cn/GB/41158/9337033.html, Accessed 5 January 2013

  • Lubman S (1967) Mao and Mediation: politics and Dispute Resolution in Communist China. Cal. L. Rev. 55:1284–1360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubman S (1997) Dispute resolution in China after Deng Xiaoping: ‘Mao and Mediation’ revisited. Columbia J Asian Law 11(2):229–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Minzner CF (2006) Xinfang: alternative to formal Chinese legal institutions. Stanf J Int Law 42(103):1–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Minzner CF (2011) China’s turn against law. Am J Comp Law 59:935–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • News.xinhuanet.com ‘李刚门’46万元和解玄机 (Hidden story behind the 460,000 RMB Reconciliation in ‘Li Gang Event’). 26 December 2010, http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2010-12/26/c_13665166.htm. Accessed 22 Aug 2013

  • News.xinhuanet.com 专家解读刑事和解:明确使用标准避免花钱买刑 (Experts comment on criminal reconciliation: clarify standards to avoid buying penalty). 27 September 2012, http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2012-09/27/c_123766919.htm. Accessed 13 Aug 2013

  • Npc.gov.cn 提高诉讼效率保证司法公正 (Improve Judicial Efficiency and Guarantee Justice). 27 September 2011, http://www.npc.gov.cn/huiyi/lfzt/xsssfxg/2011-09/27/content_1717775.htm. Accessed 29 Nov 2012

  • 潘大松 (Pan D) (1989) 中国近代以来法律文化发展考察 (Study on the legal cultural development since 1840 in China). 社会学研究 (Sociol Stud) 2:116–117

  • Peerenboom RP (2002) China’s Long March toward Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • People.com.cn 北京朝阳检察院十年刑事和解工作当事人满意率100% (100% Satisfaction reached among parties through criminal reconciliation during past ten years in PP of Chaoyang District, Beijing). 26 September 2012, http://legal.people.com.cn/n/2012/0926/c42510-19110709.html. Accessed 5 Jan 2013

  • Ren J (1987) Mediation, conciliation, arbitration and litigation in the People’s Republic of China. Int Bus Law 15:395–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Group in the Higher Court of Guangzhou Province 关于不断改进工作促进案结事了的调研报告 (Research report on improving working quality and promoting solving the case and ending the dispute). 20 March 2012, http://www.gdcourts.gov.cn/gdcourt/front/front!content.action?lmdm=LM22&gjid=20120320020835197722. Accessed 13 December 2013

  • Scitech.people.com.cn 沟通在先, ‘PX’就不会闹大 (‘PX Event’ should had not been deteriorated if parties communicated first). 25 October 2012, http://scitech.people.com.cn/n/2012/1025/c1007-19380777.html. Accessed 19 Aug 2013

  • Shi Y (2008) On Restorative Justice Practiced in China. Front Law China 3:306–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 宋英辉 (Song Y) (2008) 我国刑事和解的实证分析 (Practical analysis on criminal reconciliation in China). 中国法学 (China Legal Sci) 5:123–135

  • 宋英辉 (Song Y) (2009) 公诉案件刑事和解实证研究 (On criminal reconciliation in public prosecution). 法学研究 (Chin J Law) 3:1–14

  • 宋英辉 (Song Y), 袁金彪 (Yuan J) (eds) (2009) 我国刑事和解的理论与实践 (Theory and practice of criminal reconciliation in China), 北京:北京大学出版社 (Peking University Press, Beijing)

  • Tulkens F (2002) Negotiated justice. In: Delmas-Marty M, Spencer JR (eds) European criminal procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 641–687

    Google Scholar 

  • 汪世荣 (W Sh) (2010) 陕甘宁边区高等法院的成就 (The accomplishment of the higher court in SGN). 西南政法大学学报 (J Southwest Univ Polit Sci Law) 6:10–17

  • Wang G et al (2012) 完善以人民调解为基础的“大调解”工作体系调研报告 (Research report on promoting grand mediation which is based on the people’s mediation). 18 October 2012, http://www.moj.gov.cn/yjs/content/2012-10/18/content_2787450.htm?node=30053. Accessed 16 Dec 2013

  • Waye V, Xiong P (2011) The relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings in China. Asian J Comp Law 6(1):Article 2

  • 卫建萍 (Wei J) 以柔克刚的刑事和解 (Criminal reconciliation: conquering the unyielding with the yielding) 人民法院报 (People’s Court Daily). 29 July 2013, http://rmfyb.chinacourt.org/paper/html/2013-07/29/content_68211.htm?div=-1. Accessed 20 Dec 2013

  • Wines M (2011) A village in revolt could be a harbinger for China. 25 December 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/world/asia/in-china-the-wukan-revolt-could-be-a-harbinger.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 29 Nov 2012

  • Woo MY (1989) The right to a criminal appeal in the People’s Republic of China. Yale J Int Law 14:118–160

    Google Scholar 

  • 吴建雄 (Wu J) (2007) 刑事和解与检察官客观义务 (Criminal reconciliation and the objective obligation of People’s Procuratorate). 法学家 (Jurists Rev) 5:108–115

  • Xie Zh (2009) Petition and judicial integrity. J Polit Law 2(1):24–30

    Google Scholar 

  • 徐忠明 (Xu Zh) (2005) 明清刑事诉讼“依法判决”之辩证 (Dialectical study on the ‘Adjudgement According to Law’ in Ming and Qing dynasties). 法商研究 (Stud Law Bus) 4:159–164

    Google Scholar 

  • 于建嵘 (Yu J) 中国信访制度的困境和出路 (The dilemma and solutions for the visits and letters in China). 23 November 2012, http://szk.hrichina.org/repost/3497. Accessed 13 December 2013

  • Zeng X (2009) Mediation in China: past and present. Asia Pac Law Rev 17:1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang T (2012) The pragmatic court: reinterpreting the Supreme People’s Court of China. Columbia J Asian Law 25(1):1–61

    Google Scholar 

  • 张宇 (Zhang Y) 烟台首例刑事和解案引关注:会导致花钱买刑吗 (The first criminal reconciliation in Yantai City drew attention: will it lead to buying penalty). 26 March 2013, http://qd.ifeng.com/sd/detail_2013_03/26/661668_0.shtml. Accessed 13 Aug 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Erasmus Law School, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Wei Pei

Authors
  1. Wei Pei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei Pei.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pei, W. Criminal reconciliation in China: consequentialism in history, legislation, and practice. China-EU Law J 3, 191–221 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0042-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-014-0042-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation