At Issue
9/11/2011 11:40:38 PM EST
Criminal justice in China: an empirical inquiry
Author 作者: Mike McConville 麥高偉 Publisher 出版 : Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
Posted by LexisNexis

Criminal justice in China is a term which evokes grainy images but few details. While scholars and those in the legal field may know about the statutory framework in which the criminal justice system is set, little is known about the law in practice. Where knowledge is available, it is usually in reference to individual cases involving highprofile persons such as the recently detained artist, Ai Weiwei. While we may be able to glean some information about the criminal justice process from such cases, we have no way of knowing how representative they are. The current body of knowledge simply does not include sufficient information on everyday cases.

Professor Mike McConville’s recently published Criminal Justice in China: An Empirical Inquiry aspires to change that. The book is the result of a 15-year research project, undertaken by McConville and a number of his colleagues, to collect ‘systematic and comprehensive statistics’ on criminal cases in China. The statistics are derived from five main sources: criminal case files, courtroom observations and interviews with judges, prosecutors and lawyers. Having had access to 1144 case files, the case file analysis provides the largest source of information. Further, courtroom observations were undertaken in 227 cases. The team also conducted 267 interviews. In total, all data were sourced from 13  geographic locations – which the author deems to be a ‘fair cross-section’ of the country. The study focuses on first instance cases in the Basic Court and in the Intermediate Court. For apparent reasons, the study does not disclose names or locations. Instead, data items are assigned codes denoting specific details, such as the location of a court or person interviewed.

Criminal Justice in China comprises 15 chapters, taking the reader from the  very beginning of the criminal justice process, namely the manner in which crimes come to the attention of authorities, through the collection of evidence, the trial stage and to the conclusion of a criminal trial. The various empirical data and the relevant laws are neatly absorbed into the narrative of each chapter, making this book more accessible than one might expect of a 560-page monograph. In the same vein, the book also dispenses with the use of expansive footnotes, impenetrable phrasing and intricate paragraphing which
often render academic texts unattractive to everyday readers. The appendices feature information on the research methodology, including the schedules and questionnaires used to collect data from the previously mentioned sources.

The book’s introduction sets out the context in which the rest of the discourse takes place. Briefly put, the end of the Cultural Revolution, during which China had no formal legal institutions, marked the beginning of a long reform process. The year 1979 saw the introduction of a criminal law and a criminal procedures law. On the face of it, these laws marked a break from the past. Criminal cases
would become subject to a formal legal structure with institutions and processes. While the 1979 reforms signalled a new period, many of the old practices – most notably perhaps the ‘verdict first, trial later’ approach – remained the same, according to McConville. However, the introduction of a successor law and the 1996 Criminal Procedure Law saw the emergence of genuine expectations of a new era for criminal justice in China. With more protections for defendants, such as the right to be represented by a lawyer, the 1996 law was widely thought to have put China on the path to a more adversarial system of trials. McConville cleverly uses a series of quotes from academics to underline this point, thereby setting a benchmark to juxtapose with his own empirical data and analysis. Thus, it is in light of the 1996 reforms
that this study is conducted. Have the changes in the law yielded the forecast changes in practice? In essence, that is the question which this book seeks to answer, not only in respect of an overall assessment, but in respect of every stage of the criminal justice process.

Criminal Justice in China begins in earnest by looking at the manner in which authorities learn about crimes and concludes that the situation is the same in China as in most countries: victims and members of the public report crimes to the police. The book continues by examining what happens after a crime is reported and, indeed, this is where the similarities end. McConville takes the reader through the entire criminal justice process, beginning with the role of the Public Security Bureau (or police) in deciding whether an act is actually a crime. Oddly, where police decide that an act is not a crime, this does not mean that the suspect is exonerated. Instead, police can pursue the matter by availing themselves of administrative powers, such as the power to detain or ‘re-educate’, which are not reviewable by other institutions, such as the courts. Evidently, this feature of the system has significant repercussions for McConville’s study, which focuses on those acts which are deemed to be crimes. Where crimes are thought to have been committed, police have wide-ranging evidence gathering powers at their disposal, including powers to search, seize and detain.It is the latter which, according to McConville, is the most significant. His case file analysis suggests that the greatest part of the police
investigation is spent extracting confessions from detained suspects. Although the law states that confessions may not be extracted by way of torture, threats or deception, the empirical evidence, chiefly the fact that confessions are extracted from more than 95% of suspects, suggests that the law does not fit the practice. Comparable figures for the United Kingdom suggest confession rates of between 54% and 75%. Cases are then handed over to the prosecution – most of them as a result of confessions. Indeed, McConville only came across one case which was not recommended for prosecution.

The book continues by examining the pre-trial roles of the prosecution and judges. The same methodology of juxtaposing the 1996 law with observed reality is applied. Again, the conclusions drawn are that there is a wide gulf between the law’s appearance and reality. While the law was meant to have restricted the role of the judiciary, the evidence suggests that judges continue to be deeply involved, for instance, by conducting substantive pre-trial evaluation of the evidence. Prosecution and judges seem to regard themselves as a tandem, whose task it is to advance the case. Meanwhile, McConville uses data gathered from interviews with lawyers to conclude that the defence’s pre-trial role is largely non-existent. It should be mentioned at this stage, as interviews always pose reliability concerns when conducting scholarly studies, that McConville skilfully incorporates the results of other studies, as well as the 1996 law itself (for instance, in that it restricts defence lawyers’ activities through threat of libel action) to corroborate the bleak picture painted by the lawyer interviewees.

Moving to the trial stage, the book approaches it from two different perspectives. First, by examining the case files and second, by analysing the extensive data gathered during courtroom observations. The case file analysis is supplemented by a broad range of tables, detailing a variety of facts, ranging from whether defendants were represented to the outcome of trials. Perhaps most notably, only one in 10 defendants attempted to contest any of the charges brought against them. Thus, it comes as little surprise that only two of the 1144 cases analysed resulted in ‘not guilty’ verdicts. While McConville focuses on the criminal justice process rather than the merit of individual cases, this section does provide a brief discussion of some substantive criminal law, in particular its ambiguousness, underscoring how both the criminal procedure law and criminal law combine to obstruct the accused from effectively arguing their cases. As is evidenced throughout the book, McConville again uses sources other than his data alone to corroborate his analysis. Next, the courtroom observations are grouped into three categories: prosecution, defence and outcomes, and make up the largest part of the book. One of the most absorbing features of the book are excerpts from trials, as transcribed by McConville’s team. Where, up to this point, the book is informative but heavy on numerical data, this part is far more graphic in that it confers a vivid picture of the situation
defendants actually face in the courtroom. One illustrative and memorable dialogue involves a defendant and his defence lawyer, who, after the defendant does not immediately confess, exclaims: “If you don’t confess frankly, I cannot defend you.” As this example shows, the courtroom dialogues make for both illustrative and chilling reading. None of the 227 cases observed by McConville’s team resulted in a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Once again, the conclusion is that legal reforms have not – assuming that was the intention – achieved a more adversarial system of trials. Overall, McConville deduces: “Changing the law has not in any significant way changed the behaviour of courtroom actors.” The result, both in terms of verdict and sentence, is almost invariably predetermined prior to a trial’s commencement.

Given the inherent constraints of the book review format, it is impossible to discuss all the topics explored in Criminal Justice in China. While this brief cross-section is meant to provide no more than a synopsis, it is worth mentioning that aside from the largely empirical work detailed above, McConville also considers the socio-political context in which the system operates. In other words, having explained how the criminal justice process works in practice, McConville reflects on the more philosophical question of why it works that way. One issue that stands out in this regard is the role that Political Legal
Committees play in supervising the police, prosecution and judges. The inference drawn is that even if courtroom actors were inclined to adopt a more adversarial model of trials, the threat of getting on the wrong side of such committees would probably cut short any such leanings. McConville also identifies Chinese culture as playing an important role in perpetuating the current system, for instance, in the form of strong public support for anti-crime initiatives such as ‘strikehard’ campaigns, or in the form of traditional customs such as guanxi (relationships) which can clash with a conventional understanding of the rule of law. In the end, the Chinese criminal justice system is said to serve one main purpose, which is to maintain social order. With
this in mind, genuine changes in the criminal justice process can only occur in concert with broader socio-political changes.

Criminal Justice in China fills a considerable gap in the body of scholarly work in that it both describes and explains the law in practice. Inevitably, there will be doubts about the reliability of some of the data used. No doubt, gleaning data from interviews and courtroom observations is an imprecise science. The demand for anonymity, which, if nothing else, renders data unverifiable and creates a particular challenge. To his credit, McConville makes no secret of this and, accordingly, reinforces his work with other materials. Perhaps, however, the author’s biggest achievement is that he manages to present his work in a way that is accessible to non-academics and non-lawyers. Indeed, the book is distinctly non-highbrow, not only in that it comprehensively disproves the rosy predictions of ivory tower academics regarding the state of China’s criminal justice system but also in that it shames parts of the academic community for mistakenly believing that China’s criminal procedure law can be understood by studying the relevant legislation. 

 

Hans Mahncke

中國刑事司法制度之實證研究
Author 作者: Mike McConville 麥高偉
Publisher 出版 : Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

中國的刑事司法制度令人有形象粗糙、缺乏細節之感。雖然學者和法律界人士可能了解到刑事司法制度所設定的法定框架,但很少人知道有關法律的實際運作情況。人們雖然可以獲得有關信息,但通常只涉及個別受矚目人士的案件,譬如近期被拘留的藝術家艾未未。雖然我們可從該等案件中收集到一些有關刑事司法程序的資料,但卻無從得知該些案件有多大代表性。我們目前認知不多,對日常案件的資料確實所知有限。

麥高偉教授近期推出的新作《中國刑事司法制度之實證研究》冀能改變這種狀況。這部著作是麥高偉教授及其同事埋首15年的研究成果,收集了中國刑事案件的「系統性和全面性的統計資料」。該等數據共有五個主要來源:刑事案件
檔案、法庭聽審紀錄,以及與法官、檢察官和律師的訪談。麥高偉教授的工作團隊對1144宗案卷進行分析,為這部作品提供了重大的資料來源。另外,他們還旁聽了227宗案件審訊,進行了267次訪談。總體而言,所有數據都是從內地13個不同地區收集得來的—作者認為這樣做可以對中國進行一次「公平的橫截面」。這項研究著重於基層法院和中級法院的一審案件。基於明顯的理由,該研究並沒有披露任何人的姓名或身處位置。取而代之,各資料項目都是以代碼表示具體細節,譬如法院的位置或是受訪人的名稱。

《中國刑事司法制度》共有15章,讓讀者得以從刑事司法程序的初始階段(即罪行如何受到當局關注)開始,到搜集證據、審訊階段,最後得出刑事審判結論,有一個通盤的了解。對於一本厚達560頁的專著,人們會預期內容深澀難懂,但這部著作將各種實證性的資料和相關法律有條不紊地納入每章的敘述中,使人一目了然,易於理解。出於同樣理由,這部著作還摒棄了可予擴展的註解、令人費解的語句和複雜的段落,因為此等元素往往令一般讀者對學術文章退避三舍。書中附錄闡述了作者運用的研究方法,包括利用附表和問卷來收集上文所提及的資料。

這部著作的序言列出其他篇章的背景內容。簡單來說,中國在文革期間並沒有正式的法律制度,因此文革結束標誌著一個漫長的改革進程的開始。1979 年,中國制定了刑法和刑事訴訟法,而這些法律表面上都除舊立新。刑事案件會受正式的法律架構約束,設有相關的機構和程序。正如麥高偉教授所言,雖然 1979年的改革標誌著一個新時代的開始,但許多舊有做法仍然沿用,也許「先判決,後審訊」的做法,是最明顯不過的了。然而,繼承法和1996年《刑事訴訟法》的引入,我們對中國刑事司法制度進入新時代抱有一種真正的期望。隨著法律賦予被告的保護越多,例如享有由律師代表的權利,一般認為1996年的法律將中國司法制度推向一個更具對抗性的審判制度的道路上。麥高偉教授巧妙地引用了學者的話強調這一點,並與其本身收集得來的實證性資料和分析並列,從而建立一個基
準。因此,這項研究是在1996年的改革背景下展開的。法律的變化,是否亦同時產生了實踐中的預期變化呢?從本質上講,這部著作通過對中國刑事司法制度的全面評估,以及刑事司法程序中的各個階段,試圖回答這個問題。

《中國刑事司法制度》一開首便認真地察看當局如何知悉罪行的發生,並認為中國的情況與大多數國家的情況相同:受害者和市民向警方報案。書中接著探究報案後會有甚麼事情發生,而所謂的相似之處也在此劃上句號。麥高偉教授帶讀者經歷整個刑事司法過程,先是決定某種行為實際上是否構成罪行,公安局(或警方)所扮演的角色。奇怪的是,在警方確定有關行為並不構成罪行時,這並不意味著疑犯會得到開釋。相反,警方可以行使本身的行政權力追究事件,譬如扣押疑犯或對其進行「再教育」,其他機關(譬如法院)不可對此作出復查。顯然,這一制度的特點對麥高偉教授的研究工作有重大影響,因為該項研究著重那些被視為犯罪的行為。倘若有人被認為犯了法,警方具有廣泛的蒐集證據權力,當中包括搜查、逮捕和扣押。據麥高偉教授所言,扣押是最為重要的一環。他的案卷分析表明,警方調查時將大部分時間放在取得被拘留疑犯的供認上。雖然法律規定,警方不得以酷刑、威脅或欺騙手段迫使疑犯招供,但事實證明,法律規定與實際情況不符。實情是中國95%以上的疑犯被迫招供,而英國的相應數字指出,招認率在54%至75%之間。案件隨後移交給檢察機關審理—大多數案件出於疑犯已向警方招供。事實上,麥高偉教授發現只有一宗案件是控方不建議提出起訴的。

這部著作接著探討控方和法官的預審角色。作者運用相同方法,將1996年的法律與所觀察到的實際情況一併比較。再次得出的結論是,法律的外表和現實之間存在著廣寬的鴻溝。雖然法律是要限制司法機關所作的影響,但證據表明,法官繼續深入參與,譬如是通過對有關證據開展實質性的審前評估,而控方和法官則似乎認為本身是二為一體,其任務是將案件了結。與此同時,麥高偉教授從受訪律師中所收集的資料顯示,辯方在審訊前的角色很大程度上是不存在的。在此階段必須一提的是,在進行學術研究時,訪問總是存在可信程度問題,因此麥高偉教授巧妙地將其他研究結果,以及1996年的法律結合起來(譬如,藉威脅提起誹謗訴訟來限制辯護律師的活動),對受訪律師所描繪的暗淡景象提出佐證。

到了審訊階段,這部作品以兩個不同觀點為切入點。首先是通過查閱案卷,然後分析從法庭旁聽所收集的大量資料。案卷分析輔以大量的圖表,詳細介紹各種案情,從被告是否獲律師代表出庭應訊到得出審判結果。也許最值得注意的是,在十名被告中,只有一人會就針對他們的指控提出抗辯。因此,在1144件已分析的案件中,只有兩宗作出「無罪」判決,絕不為奇。雖然麥高偉教授所側重的是刑事司法程序,而非個別案件的是非曲直,但本章節也對一些實體刑法作出了簡短的討論,特別是其含糊之處,並強調了刑事訴訟法與刑法如何相結合,以阻礙被告有效地為其案件作出爭辯。正如書中所見,麥高偉教授再次使用其他資料佐證其分析。其次,法庭聽審共分為三類:起訴、辯護和結果,為全書的主要篇幅。本章節最大亮點是由麥高偉教授領導的小組所轉錄的審訊摘錄。在此之前的章節,內容都是資料性的,當中包含大量數據,但這一章節卻非常形象化,因為本章節為被告在庭上所面對的實際情況作出了生動描繪。被告及其辯護律師之間有一句令人難忘的對話剛好說明此點。當被告不肯立即認罪,其辯護律師感嘆地說:「如果你不坦白招認,我不能替你辯護。」這個例子說明,法庭的對話是可作解釋性解讀,內容使人不寒而慄。麥高偉教授領導的研究小組觀察了227宗案件,當中沒有一宗最後獲判「無罪」。這個結論再次證明,中國所進行的法律改革,並沒有帶來一個更具對抗性的審訊制度 (假設這是改革的原意)。總體而言,麥高偉教授推斷:「法律的改變並沒有為法院的行事者在行為方面帶來任何重大改變。」因此,無論在裁決和判刑方面,審判結果幾乎都在審訊開始前已事先設定好了。

基於書評的篇幅有限,筆者不可能對《中國刑事司法制度》所探討的全部議題逐一討論。儘管這簡短的橫截面只提供了一個大綱,但值得一提的是,除上述提及的實證性內容,麥高偉教授還研究了該制度所處的社會政治環境。換句話說,麥高偉教授解釋刑事司法程序在實際中如何運作外,還談到一個更為哲學性的問題,就是這個制度為何這樣運作。在這方面帶出一個突出問題,就是政法委員會在監督警方、檢察官和法官方面所發揮的作用,而得出的推論是,即使法院的行事者傾向在審訊中採取一個更為對抗性的模式,但與該委員會立場不一致所生的顧慮,會阻礙他們向對抗性的模式有任何傾斜。麥高偉教授還確認了中國文化在維持現行制度方面所發揮的重要作用,譬如在打擊犯罪活動方面有強大的公眾支持 (如「嚴打」運動),或者與人們對法治的一般理解相悖的傳統習俗 (如關係)。到頭來,中國的刑事司法制度只是服膺於一個重要目的,就是維護社會秩序。考慮到這一點,我們便明白到,刑事司法程序的真正變革,只能與更廣泛的社會、政治變革一併進行才見成效。

《中國刑事司法制度》填補了學術著作中的一個相當大的縫隙,因為這部著作同時對法律在實踐中如何運作予以描述和解釋。當然,人們會對所使用的部分資料是否可靠存疑,但毫無疑問,通過訪談和旁聽法庭審訊蒐集資料,並非是一門不精確的科學。匿名的做法令相關資料無法得到核實,也會特別引起他人的質疑。麥高偉教授對此並沒有加以隱瞞,並因此借用其他材料來加強作品內容。作者的最大成就,也許是他表達方式通俗易懂,讓非學界和非法律界人士都能易於理解。事實上,這絕非曲高和寡之作。它不僅全面駁斥了象牙塔學者對中國刑事司法制度的樂觀預測,也反駁了部分學術界人士的錯誤觀點,因為他們相信中國刑事訴訟法可以憑著研究相關法例予以理解。

 

Hans Mahncke

 

 

 


Rate this article:
LowHigh

Create an account or login to post comments.

Go!

Tell us what you think


Submit

Partners

    Lexis HK

    HKFLA

    FAQ

    Products & Services

    Other Resources

    HKLC link button