Deng's deadly fruit knife carves open legal debate

• Source: Global Times
• [22:38 June 15 2009]
• Comments

‘Judicial independence’

Liu Yong was sentenced to death on December 22, 2003, by Liaoning Provincial High Court. Photo: CFP

Official sexual abuse cases represent only the tip of an iceberg that has sparked curious discussions about China’s limited concept of “judicial independence”. Much of the media debate focused on whether or not a court should permit itself to be influenced by the people.

It’s not unknown for a Chinese court to flip-flop on a verdict under media bombardment and public outrage. The most famous example is the case of Liu Yong, 43, who ran a little mafia in Shenyang, capital of Liaoning Province, in which he had committed 42 assaults: 16 causing serious injury and one of them deadly.

Tieling Intermediate People’s Court sentenced Liu to death on December 22, 2003. But Liaoning Provincial High Court on August 15, 2003, handed lucky Liu a two-year reprieve, saving his life and over-ruling the sentence. The public and the media reacted with outrage.
 
The Supreme People’s Court of China in Beijing dramatically over-ruled the second verdict – supposedly the last and final decision – claiming the previous second instance was unjust. According to criminal procedure law, the Supreme Court had the right to overrule a previous sentence if found unjust. It was an extremely rare event in the legal history of New China.

Reportedly commenting on the case, He Weifang, a senior law professor at Peking University left no doubt about the elephant in the room: “As traditional governance in China is not based on the separation of power,” he wrote, “there has never been a judicial apparatus independent of the executive branch.”

Pu had no doubt that public outrage created administrative interference: Recognizing public outrage and fearing disturbance to social order, the government often leans on the court, he explained.

Public concern reflected an improved legal awareness, but nonetheless their legal knowledge remained incomplete, said a Beijing judge.

“Chinese law was set up for the good of the Chinese people,” Tian Xin told the Global Times. “So no doubt the law will not infringe upon people’s rights and will protect them.

“The thing is the public should not use their own perception, which is based on their plain moral outlook to judge whether or not the the law or the legal system is fair or not.”

Although defects exist, legal dignity should always be maintained, he said.

“We should believe in our legal system,” said Tian Xin. “I admit that flaws exist in our regulations, but we will remedy these regulations and ward off its worst effects.