Brendt Christensen Photo: VCG

The verdict and sentencing in the case of the kidnap-murder in the US of visiting Chinese schol­ar Zhang Yingying by Brendt Christensen sparked an outcry on the Chinese internet. A federal jury sentenced the former University of Illinois physics doctoral student to life in prison on July 18. Many Chinese people on the internet expressed doubts about the ability of the US judicial system to uphold justice and even suggested that factors like racial discrimination are hidden inside so-called procedural justice. 

Compared with the O. J. Simpson murder case of over 20 years ago, the attitude of Chinese mainland public opinion has changed dramatically. Simpson's case also includes elements of race, sex, violence and a long investigation before the trial ended. The Simpson acquittal, with which most Americans did not agree, became a living textbook for many Chinese law students to understand procedural justice. To some extent, Simpson's case enlightened the Chinese mainland legal world of that time. 

Why then has the US court judgment in the Zhang Yingying case met with so much apparent Chinese dissatisfaction? This is not only because the victim was an innocent Chinese girl, but more importantly because of the differences between China and the US in the criminal justice system, in their culture, as well as the fact that Chinese public opinion no longer succumbs to the mighty legal culture of the US.

The judgment in Zhang's case reflects differences between the Chinese and US judicial systems. The first is the imposition of the death penalty. Many states in the US have abolished the death penalty. Even in those states that have not, it is extremely difficult to impose the death penalty in practice. This is an important reason why Christensen, the devil, could escape the death penalty. The second is the jury system. As early as in North America in the colonial era, the jury system emerged. At that time, it had the function of fighting against the British monarchy. Later, the intention of balancing the relatively closed and professional judiciary by introducing the perspectives of ordinary citizens was added. The jury system sometimes does a good job in preventing wrongful convictions.

However, practice has long proved that it is easy to lose control of a jury and the jury system is prone to failure. As jury members do not understand the law and many people are poorly educated, they can be easily affected by lawyers and emotions. Since the death penalty must be fully agreed by the entire 12 members, it greatly reduces the possibility of fair judgment. Complex racial and religious situations have made many jury members bring prejudice into judgment, leading to unfair decisions. Racial discrimination, in particular, has almost become a pertinacious illness accompanying the US judicial system. The US Civil War, the 1992 Los Angeles riot in which over 50 people died, more than 2,000 people were injured and tens of thousands of people arrested, and the 2014 unrest in Ferguson, all have something to do with unfair judgments.

Due to various reasons such as the underdeveloped information of the past, China's academic circles have not studied these issues in depth. For a long time, many cases in which the unfair US judicial judgment led to bad consequences were not known by Chinese people. Also because of the image of a developed economy, democratic politics and a thriving rule of law of the US in modern times, especially in recent years when some US TV dramas in China were praised and advocated, the US judicial system has always been an advanced and perfect symbol of civilization in Chinese people's minds. For a long time, doubts about US court judgment have been a matter of courage. The Simpson case is a typical example with which many Americans do not agree, but on the contrary, was regarded as the gold standard by some Chinese scholars.

Perhaps, in the early days of reform and opening-up when the Chinese people did not know enough about the outside world and the rule of law, it was modest and prudent not to harbor doubts. However, access to knowledge at home and abroad, especially the growing popularity of the internet, has gradually broken the illusion that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and has also lifted the veil off the rule of law. More in-depth research and understanding have exposed flaws in many things that were originally considered advanced, developed and civilized. False belief could result from misunderstanding and blindness to the past, but can also be abandoned by today's understanding.

Although there have been wrathful comments in public, we cannot completely deny the advantages of the US judicial system because of individual cases. However, seen from the reactions to the Zhang case in Chinese mainland online public opinion, the disenchanted will not blindly follow the powerful discourse of the US rule of law. 

The author is a legal expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn