Mercy in Chinese Criminal Law, Dissertation Example

The concept of Saving Face and hierarchy interactions

The pervasiveness and significance of shame in Chinese society are undeniable when the phrase “a feeling of shame” even began within the Chinese landmark in a foreign country. Chinese settlers’ children and adults experience this sight after entering the social enclave of Chinatown in the United States. For them, this noteworthy idea is a positive indication of their social legacy. Why does shame accept such significance in Chinese society? How is this feeling composed in general in Chinese individuals’ mental thinking? The purpose of trying to figure out the Chinese legal system is to look at the way in which their culture and tradition impacts their train of thought.

Shame as a main element from the purported hesitant feelings including self centrally. It is likewise created in social connections, in which individuals associate with each other, assess, and judge each other and themselves. Individuals feel ashamed when they see that somebody is making a negative judgment about some action or normal for theirs.[1] Shame frequently happens when an individual gets to be mindful of  their selves as having disregarded an ethical standard, objective or social tradition, and it drives ordinarily to expressive practices of concealing the face, dismissing, and getting away. Shame may be a very difficult state bringing about the wish to conceal, vanish, or even pass on.

Despite the fact that the concept of shame has long existing within other cultures,[2] late research on shame archives extensive multifaceted contrasts in significance, precursors, real experience of the shame state, and following activity inclinations. Case in point, Heider’s (1991) investigation of feeling words in three societies inside Indonesia demonstrated finely separated parts of shame that don’t appear to exist in English-talking societies.[3] In Orissa, India, shame likewise demonstrates an increased mindfulness and is experienced and seen both as a solid feeling and a remedy to fury.[4] Contrasted with Western societies, shame is more common in Indonesia and Japan as per different sorts of appraisals,[5] [6] [7] albeit two investigations of the essential dialect of Indonesia did not discover shame to structure a striking class of feeling words in that specific society.[8]

Besides the West-East contrasts, shame has likewise been discovered to be a noteworthy feeling in the alleged honor societies in the Mediterranean area. Abu-Lughod’s anthropological exploration depicted how shameful occasions can debilitate one’s honor, particularly the honor of women, among the Awlad ‘Ali in Western Egypt. Also, shame is more identified with family and manly respect and additionally in Spain, female sexuality, than in the Netherlands.[9] In clarifying these social contrasts in shame, the vast majority of the above exploration draws on a vital qualification ordinarily made between societies that underline the gathering and those that concentrate on the related and individual understandings of self.[10] Typically, most Western societies (maybe with the exemptions of the Mediterranean European societies) have been described as more independent, [11] while most non-Western societies have been discovered to be more collectivist. In Maverick societies, freedom, self-sufficiency, and uniformity are cultivated while in collectivist cultures, estimations of congruity, association, bunch solidarity, and progressive power are energized. In both cases, shame works as a mechanism of social control that makes utilization of the feeling’s aversive properties. The control may be more far reaching and explained in collectivist societies, nonetheless, due to the usage of shame as a conspicuous system of child rearing and social control.

In the same way as other gathering focused societies, Chinese society underscores disgrace. On the other hand, because of its own particular social worth framework and improvement, Chinese ideas of shame may have their own highlights. The significance of disgrace in Chinese society is connected with the predominant social also, morally considered Confucianism. As per Confucian educating, life’s most elevated reason for existing is looking for perfection toward oneself, as spoke to by the idea of ren (?), that means turning to the most veritable, most earnest, and most others conscious individual one can be.[12] This good desire is not imagined as exclusively an individual undertaking however as a methodology inserted in one’s everyday social presence. Given that Confucianism stresses concordant social relations among individuals, one’s ability to think about one’s social communications and good conduct expect focal noteworthiness during the time spent perfection toward oneself.[13] [14]

Confucianism conceptualizes disgrace as a feeling and also a human limit that coordinates the individual internal for examination toward oneself and rouses the individual toward socially and ethically attractive change. At the point when one has done something incorrectly or socially wrong, conceding one’s wrongdoing and fancying to improve oneself is likewise accepted to be a demonstration of reparation obliging individual mettle.[15] It is this very capacity, what’s more, force of disgrace that Confucianism cultivates and values. The basic Western relationship of shame as being destructive to an individual’s wellbeing does not show up to be a piece of the Confucian learning. In Chinese society, if an individual is seen as having no feeling of disgrace, which individual may be considered as past good reach, and in this way is even “dreaded by the demon.” Thus, disgrace to the Chinese is not an unimportant feeling, additionally an ethical and upright sensibility to be sought after. That may be the reason a feeling of disgrace is one of the four Confucian moral standards cut on landmarks.

Empirical research has additionally given proof to the part disgrace plays among the Chinese contemporary population. For instance, Wilson[16] discovered the utilization of disgracing to be a good preparing procedure, including shunning or surrender by the gathering for breeches of social standards. Wilson additionally noticed that disgrace is a group as opposed to a single concern in China: Individuals quite often have a place for a nearly coordinated gathering on which their honor or disgrace is reflected. Individuals’ families and their more extensive group of companions, relatives, and bosses all have an enthusiasm for a part’s headways and setbacks. At the point when individuals attain to well, the whole group imparts the honor. Moreover, when individuals come up short, they don’t just lose their own face. However, they disgrace every one of people around them. Identified with Wilson’s portrayals, the Chinese idea of face, which fits in with the bigger region of honor and admiration, has gotten far-reaching examination consideration.[17] Like the Mediterranean idea of honor[18], loss of face is a typical reason for disgrace in Chinese individuals. Shaver and his partners gave further comprehension of Chinese shame by breaking down the association of feeling words in Indonesian, Chinese, Italian, and English.[19] While individuals in each of the four societies classified feeling words comparably regarding a couple of essential feeling families (i.e., annoyance, dread, pity, love, and delight), just the Chinese created the extra sense group of disgrace. For Indonesian, Italian, and English speakers, hesitant feeling terms were subsumed under other feeling families, yet for the Chinese speakers disgrace, including blame and humiliation, developed as a different gang.

All the more as of late, Stipek, recorded that while both U.S. what’s more, Chinese school understudies evaluated correspondingly on disgrace and blame for their own particular wrongdoing.[20] The Chinese augmented these feelings of their nearby relatives essentially more than the Americans. Shaver et al., [21] additionally looked at the first words procured by kids in China, England, and the U.S., discovered that Chinese kids utilized disgrace from an early age, while U.S. Furthermore, British adolescence did not do as such.[22] Most as of late, Fung’s (1999) observational information in a longitudinal study demonstrated the pervasive disgracing strategies that Chinese guardians used to mingle their youngsters in the domain of social/good conduct. These socialization techniques began with youth as at the early age of 2 and expanded as kids got more seasoned. As a major aspect of the social introduction toward the gathering, hiding any hint of failure face is of incredible concern to Chinese individuals.[23]

The idea of face alludes to the confidence of oneself and society in one’s capacity to assume one’s social parts, good character, and personal integrity. At the point when falling flat to experience the desires set without anyone else and others for their parts, individuals “lose face.” Not just them face derision, disdain, or social segregation, yet their disappointment might likewise reflect upon their larger community, their friends, their ancestry, and especially family. Subsequently, having a regarded face is imperative to Chinese individuals. Eberhard (1967) looked after that disgrace in Confucianism is an ethical idea and is disguised, together with the statutes of the code of social conduct.[24] Late research additionally affirms that disgracing is intensely included in good educating in every day connections[25]. Therefore, shame and blame here and there may work conversely in such a path, to the point that disgrace is generally as intensely identified with sound issues as responsibility seems to be. Second, though a few terms obviously incline toward disgrace, others incline toward blame. From one perspective, this shading and adaptable nature of combinatorial significance might signal the way of life’s mindfulness and affirmation of the intertwined state of the two feelings.

Then again, the joined feeling may be stronger than either one alone and can consequently serve as an all the more intense rationale in wanted behavioral change.[26] Third, Chinese blame is emphatically identified with misgiving, regret, or an annoying soul, maybe communicated basically with jiu and its different blends, for example, blame misgiving, feeling remorseful to sharply repentant, and feeling/conveying blame. These implications straightforwardly express blame, in difference to disgrace, which concentrates all the more on the self’s activities and practices that are liable to repair the disappointment. [27] What the Chinese call misgiving, regret, or inner voice is by all accounts arranged toward adjusting wrongdoing.

In Western societies disgrace sentiments may not be energized, yet in Chinese society, a feeling of shame is taught to adolescents at an exceptionally youthful age. Disgrace is utilized deliberately furthermore, serves as an imperative method for conduct control, both in the socialization of kids and later in grown-up life. For instance, if a 3-year old requests confection from a neighbor, the mother will stand up to the youngster by saying “Xiu! Xiu! Xiu!” (“Shame! Disgrace! Disgrace!”) While more than once scratching her own particular face with her pointer. This physical scratching of the face may show figurative damage to or devastation of the face. [28] [29]

In Chinese society, an improper individual is viewed as considerably more despicable than a disgraced individual. In the event that an individual has no feeling of disgrace or no feeling of disrespect, others would be extremely angry and usually perceive this person is sad and disturbing (e.g., “even a fallen angel would be frightened of a man who would like to keep up his face”). Such an individual is dreaded and blamed. In retrospect, this may be on account of an individual without the feeling of disgrace is no more unsurprising, dependable, and controllable. Such individuals may be seen as a risk to the ethical request of society (e.g., urging others to take after their setting or suit incorrectly models for younger children) Humility or quietude is a crucial part of the Chinese origination of oneself in light of the Confucian model of perfect human improvement. The idea of ren, as said prior, goes for the thought of turning into the most certified, accurate, and sympathetic individual one can be.[30] Unobtrusiveness is a fundamental fixing in this deeply rooted procedure toward perfection toward oneself. Accordingly, an individual occupied with getting to be ren feels the need to enhance him/herself continually. Li’s late research on Chinese originations of learning affirms this very inclination of persistent endeavoring toward change toward oneself through learning.[31] An individual with a swelled feeling of self is along these lines saw as inadequate with regards to the craving to reflect toward oneself and accordingly deficient the longing to upgrade toward oneself and look for ren.

Since disgrace is profoundly associated with this ethical hunt, over-assessment of oneself can without much of a stretch enraged individuals. In other regards, individuals’ responses are definitely not continuously genuine yet amusing now and again (here the significance may shade into disdain). Likely it is since the pretentious person is the singular case out of many others that take themselves seriously, though others watch with shock and amusement (maybe truisms, for example, “a revolting frog…” and “go pee…” are prominent, in light of the fact that they are not altogether different from the humorous impact in Hans Christian Anderson’s The Emperor’s New Clothes).  A related clarification of the dissatisfaction with over-assessment of oneself is that Chinese individuals underscore amicability in their interpersonal connections. To keep up concordance in the day by day life, they esteem kindheartedness, sympathy, contemplation, alert, restriction, consideration, tolerance, balance, lastly unobtrusiveness. [32] Accordingly, shame toward oneself systems are generally used to cultivate humility. Face can be hard to handle in light of the fact that it can allude to both of two diverse yet related Chinese ideas, mianzi (??) and lian (?).

Both are like the Western ideas of honor and respect, yet lian is objective though mianzi is subjective; individuals’ lian are in light of their adherence to an acknowledged arrangement of sound guidelines, while their mini is determined by their relative social performance to those they choose to interact with.[33] (Lam 1993, 6-12). In this connection, face is equal to mianzi on the grounds that China is more worried about its notoriety and accomplishments contrasted with the West, paying little respect to the profound quality of their activities. For instance, the Chinese did not lose lian over the Nanjing Massacre in light of the fact that it was the Japanese who acted unscrupulously and not them. [34]However, they felt embarrassed regardless. In this way, face alludes to mianzi in the domain of Chinese patriotism, which again demonstrates that Chinese nationalism is taking into account relations between its outer groups and relatives. The significance of face shifts from society to culture.

Research shows that countries with “low-connection” and “high-setting” social orders. Low-setting social rules, including the United States and other Western countries, verbally coordinate and are individualistic, and therefore, social clashes in these social orders are seen as “individual shames” and can be determined by a basic expression of remorse.[35] Then again, aggregate congruity is focused on high-setting social orders, which incorporate East Asian countries, especially China. Harmed connections can be hard to resolve in these social rules, and numerous vibe that being embarrassed or losing face, is “a deplorable outcome”. [36] This eventually clarifies the centrality of concealing any hint of failure face and keeping away from mortification in Chinese patriotism, and additionally how the “century of national embarrassment” got to be implanted into the Chinese personality. By understanding the mind-boggling essentialness of gathering amicability and concealing any hint of saving face in Chinese society, the “terroristic behavior” of Chinese nationalist may not appear to be so nonsensical after all. The traumatic experience of the “century of national embarrassment,” and subsequently the contention in the middle of the West and China, has ended up instilled into the character of the Chinese country; doubting the West, albeit maybe not generally intentionally, has turned into an unalterable part of being Chinese. The aspects of saving face and their relationship with how they view shame is instrumental in the way in which they govern their punishments and their aspects of retribution.

Historical view on Crime and Punishment in China

To comprehend the current criminal system in China, it is a necessity that this paper discusses the historical view of crime and punishment in China, and the influence of the creation of its system. As indicated by the written history, the Chinese punishment system started amid the Great Shun (2255-2195 b.c.) when Jiutao was placed accountable for building punishments to manage different offenders. Jiutao proceeded with his approach to the rule of Yu, who established the Xia Line (2100-1600 b.c.). For over 2,000 years through Xia, Shang (1600-1046 b.c.), and Zhou (1045-221 b.c.) lines, the Chinese jail framework came to fruition to fit in within the general social arrangement of subjection. As the physical format of detainment facilities got to be institutionalized from the first “Huantu” (ringed hills), an entire stock of systems and apparatuses produced for discipline (Editorial Board, 1986; Gao, 2001; Li, 2005). Incorporated in this stock is the real trick of restoring crooks in detainment facilities through good training and beneficial work that was seen by and by as right on time as the to start with some piece of Zhou Dynasties (1045-770 b.c.). Feudalism began with the alliance of China into an unlimited realm under Qin Shi Huang (221 b.c.). Regarding Jiutao as the divine force of the jail, different medieval lines from Qin (221-206 b.c.) to Qing (1644-1911) added to their individual frameworks of law and discipline. At the crest was Tang Dynasty (618-907) where a complete legitimate code was secured to give clear direction to all real parts of jails and jail administration. From general conditions, hardware utilized for discipline, and record keeping for prisoners to implicit rules for guards in the prisons.

Historically, China has been guided by the beneficence of its rulers in the application of the law. The T’ang Code of A.D. 653 is the most significance legal work in the history of East Asia. It is considered the basis for all subsequent Chinese Criminal Law.[37] This code is a point of reference utilized in the development for trial procedures, a lesser reliance on lawyers, and the emphasis on confessions. While it has been influential in setting the precedence for legal frameworks in Vietnam, Korea, and Japan, it is regarded as the last resort in the area social control. In traditional China, a wide range of approaches were used in order to promote socially acceptable behavior, which began with moral instruction in the home, in which the family was responsible. The Code was seen as a legal establishment for the central government that was the product of centuries of legal development. Despite the fact that laws might have been in composing, the application of them was cleared out to the attentiveness of the single person leader, whether a ruler, a warlord, alternately a nearby senator. This optional approach has to be a “rule of the person,” significance that each individual of power could make a choice based on the winning convictions, the most convenient decision, alternately the status of the individual to be punished.  The types of punishments that were carried out during the period of The Code, including;

“beating with a light stick, redemption by 1.5-7.5 pounds of copper; beating with the heavy stick, redemption by 9-15 pounds of copper; penal servitude, redemption by 30-90 pounds of copper; life exile, redemption by 120-130 pounds of copper; death, redemption by 180 pounds of copper.”[38]

Only the in the case of robbery, were criminals sentenced to one of these punishments. In 1840, the Opium War forced the Chinese world open. The criminal and punishment system in modern China emphasized a mixture of impacts from different sources.  In the Qing dynasty, however quite a bit of its dynastical practice proceeded with, penitentiaries displaying after Western thoughts and measures showed up in Beijing, Shengyang, Yunnan, and Hubei.[39]  Local warlords kept up social request inside their own territories with both Chinese also, Western measures, pretty much as they utilized both society apparatuses and remote guns to hold onto their regional force. Later between the patriot government and the socialist defiance, the previous drew from Western free enterprise and the recent turned to Soviet Communism. As to the Chinese convention, both nationalists and communists thought that it was inheritable, though through diverse mixes of selectable components.

This idea persevered under Mao Zedong, in spite of an endeavor, to make a tactless alternately “uni-class society.” Resulting in a wide range of incomprehensibly distinctive disciplines for what were frequently very comparable offenses. With the Chinese Revolution in 1911, contemporary changes were made led by Dr. Sun Yat Sen, from an imperialist society and a feudal state, to a nationalist state.  Mao Zedong was responsible for the creation of the People’s Republic of China, in 1949, in which transformed China into a communist nation.[40]  The Chinese Criminal Law takes the idea of Mao Zedong, Leninism, and Marxism, as its blueprint. It announces that its assignments are to utilize criminal disciplines to battle against all counter-progressive and other criminal acts. So as to defend the arrangement of the individuals’ vote based fascism and the smooth advancement of the route of communist development. The Chinese law takes the Constitution as its premise. Within the Constitution, Article 28 stipulates that the State keeps up public order and fights to contain treasonable and other counter-progressive exercises; it punishes acts that jeopardize public security and disturb the communist economy and other criminal activities, and rebuffs and changes offenders”.

From that point forward, endeavors have been made to establish fundamental laws concerning the criminal justice system. At the establishing of the P.R.C, the Chinese Communist Party needed to devise another lawful framework, since the legitimate system that had previously worked under the Nationalist administration was totally abrogated. On the other hand, endeavors to devise a far-reaching Chinese criminal system code after 1949 were constantly upset by political crusades and changes. When communists came into force in 1949, China appeared to have a full range of decisions for another arrangement of punishment and corrections. From the past was the profoundly established in moral transformation, labor, and belief in conscience. All things considered, panopticons in Western capitalism offered the comfort of reconnaissance and control though gulags under Soviet communism created revolutionary order, deterrence, and the utility of control. With an immeasurable mixture of reactionary and criminal components to process, from communist criticizers, prostitutes, drug addicts, gangsters, bandits, and prisoners of war. The new government needed keeping all usable thoughts and instruments but under the weight of bundling every single reformatory and restorative practice being used with communist wrapping. The Minister of Public Security in 1951, made a unique report to the Communist Party, vowing to compose a million offenders for beneficial work. More than whatever else, work was set in the core of crime and punishment in communist China. [41] [42] [43]

In 1957, the Anti-Rightist Campaign guided its national cleanse chiefly against educated people, including legitimate experts and researchers, and seriously disturbed the creation of a criminal system code after 1954. With the breakdown of the Great Leap Forward, endeavors to modify lawful establishments related to the criminal procedure code redrafted around 1963, which brought about around 200 articles. After the approach of the Cultural Evolution, execution of the law was brief. Amid the Cultural Upheaval, innumerable people, including numerous high positioning authorities, were discretionarily captured, kept, tormented, also, killed by “political accuracy” of the time. Laws gave little security against any treachery in light of the fact that there were practically no standard lawful methodology and shields.

Subsequently, for a large portion of the ?rst thirty years of Communist control, the criminal procedure served as a “blunt instrument of dread” [44] in which the Party squashed class opponents, and political opposition, often, actually including its own individuals. The phase of the political crusades soon stretched out for the law enforcement officials and their agencies. In 1957, legal counselors as a gathering were purged during the anti-rightist movement, vanishing from China’s lawful scene for the next 20 years. Therefore, amid the Cultural Revolution, additionally the court, procuracy, and the police, the iron triangle of the criminal equity framework that kept up fundamental social request were crushed, and replaced by direct intercessions of the armed force.[45] China in the mid-1970s had turned into a country without attorneys (comprehensively de?ned). A few spectators at the time, most strikingly Li (1977), even recommended that, as a result of its particular convention and society, China was on the pathway to manufacture an arrangement of law without legal counselors in its protracted, harried procedure of modernization.[46] However, the historical backdrop of the following 30 years had proved something else.

Most lawful organizations were abrogated, including the National People’s Congress (NPC), the Ministry of Justice, and the People’s Procuratorates. After the finish of the Cultural Revolution, the Party at the end of the day needed to recreate a complete legitimate framework. Chinese pioneers felt a dire need to execute a code for criminal methodology; During the Cultural Revolution, the expectation was to keep the uncontrolled misuse common amid the lawlessness. The variant of the criminal strategy code embraced in 1979 by China was from various perspectives enlivened by before drafts arranged amid the 50s and the early 60s, which had their beginnings in the common law inquisitorial arrangement of mainland Europe. These prior drafts likewise consolidated components of Leninism and Marxism into the content, and the law were regarded an apparatus of the common autocracy intended to shield the individuals from foes of the Communist Party.

Significant defects subsisted in the 1979 CPL not on the grounds that the framework was planned as an inquisitorial methodology fundamentally.  Although since of the real ambiguities and major deficiencies shown under the procedural law, and the absence of qualified, legitimate experts working inside the framework to agree to the standards. Subsequently, powers have frequently exploited the various ambiguities and escape clauses in the law and have generally slighted numerous lawful shields conceded to criminal suspects. Authorities have as often as possible disregarded individual procurements of the procedural law to consent quickly with “strike-hard” crusades or yanda against wrongdoing. Yanda (the anti-crime campaign been influential in proliferating the Criminal Procedure law, which was introduced in the 1979, less than a week after the Criminal Law was effective. The Criminal Procedure Law was in response to the Cultural Revolution anarchy, which brought major advancement in the creation of the legal system that restrained revolutionary excess, and abuses of official authority. However, supplementary provisions and subsequent resolutions took away many of the safeguards procedurally that the law had promised. The most notable is the delegation of the authority that approved death sentences sent to the provincial Higher People’s Court, from the Supreme People’s Court. In addition, for suspects, during investigations, the ability to extend their detentions, as well as the luxury given to the accused, for a trial and appeal for serious cases. Also taken a way was the seven day notice, a shorter time limit placed on appeals, and many other fundamental factors to Procedural law. The changes to the Procedural Law, seriously, complicated and blocked the ability for the suspect to file an appeal, or prepare for trial. It was not until 1996 with the amendments made to the law, placed these procedural safeguards back into the legal system.

Progressing within an inquisitorial framework has routinely permitted swift convictions and arrests, without satisfactory respects for due process. Amid the early phases of the implementation of procedural law’s police, prosecutors, and judges, were new to working with formal lawful methods.  Therefore they were not able to finish their tasks as per indicated time imperatives. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Supreme People’s Court, the State Council, and the NPC Standing Committee, and other state bodies, consequently corrected a few of the 1979 CPL procurements. In order to augment the time allotment for directing examination, indictment, trial, and offer, yet those changes did little to ensure the privileges of the blamed.

Within the 1979 CPL, the state had numerous disproportional favorable circumstances over the resistance amid detainment, what’s more, the trial itself, pretrial investigation, detention, and arrest. The police had broad circumspection over the capture and confinement of suspects that needed considerable review and scrutiny. There was no assumption of innocence for the accused, but the framework joined the assumption of blame as the standard for attempting cases. Since the accused were objects of discipline, they were not ensured numerous rights, consisting of access early to a lawyer. Also, verdicts were typically chosen before trial, often not by the judges who themselves had explored the cases, making trial systems an insignificant demonstration of the convention.

These conditions prompted various reactions in regards to the 1979 CPL’s inability to stick to universal legitimate guidelines of assumption of blamelessness, due procedure, and the privilege of advice. After the time of “Cultural Revolution” in 1979, which went on for a long time, which the Criminal Procedure Law and Criminal Law were established. In the meantime, laws concerning the association and capacity of the courts and open arraignment were additionally re-composed. Essential laws with respect to the legal advisors, capture and confinement of the suspects, common suit systems, relational unions, and so on have been built.

The historical outlook on Chinese crime and punishment system has been exceptionally mindful and responsive to open notions since its initial start. As a mechanism for the powers to oversee the nation for the sake of the individuals, the death penalty worked as an apparatus for political battles in Maoist China, and later was used as a device to battle law violations in Deng’s period of reform. These days, the requests of the populace for equality, justice, and revenge have been interpreted as an intense energy for the death penalty for specific offenses and guilty parties. By attempting to fulfil these sentiments and public demands, China has sought to improve its political authenticity. In this sense, capital punishment serves as a populist instrument to fortify the flexibility of the party-state by creating resentment and public anxiety towards social issues made in the methods of China’s quick modernization and social discontinuity.

While changes have been made in amending the laws, in efforts to improve their criminal judicature, only partial progress has been made. During the past updates to the legal system have been progressive in heavily reshaping the factors of detention and arrest, as well as, trial proceedings, initiation of prosecution, defense counsel, and other legal factors. However, many parts of the legal system, such as those that regulate evidence and investigations, and revising the death sentence, have remained largely untouched. An area of historical context, that is has needed to change, is the area of criminal cases involving state secrets, in which the law goes to provide access to public and open trial, legal counsel, and access to evidence. Their treatment of most criminals undermines the suspects’ rights, which consist of denying the accused the rights to speak, or even notify their family. This has also blocked the accusers the rights to find legal counsel, on the concept that it could interfere with the investigation. Numerous changes have been made to the criminal justice system since Ancient and Imperial China, however, what largely has remained the same is the penalty. Thought to be a tool for deterring crime, it is still being used in which is considered among the highest annual rate. Death penalties are given from violent crimes such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, rape, and murder, in addition to over 60 other serious crimes. While monetary or economic crimes, that many of the elite find themselves in, are only sentenced to capital punishment. Many critics have hit out at the hypocrisy, while history shows that highest court of the country, Supreme People’s Court (SPC), had the authority to review and approve death sentences. After yanda, however came many changes to the capabilities of the SPC. Their authority over the death sentence was given to the highest people’s courts in municipalities, autonomous regions, and provinces under the supervision of the central government. Chaos understandably ensured, in which had created more problems, and opposition to the death sentences. In China’s past, the death sentence was seen as a social deterrence in which create a precedent in which if citizens didn’t fall in line, then they would be punished. Through the new era in China, there has been a pull back on the usage of the death sentence to punish criminals that is further discussed.

Historical view on Methods of Punishment China

Significantly, the dependence on the death penalty in contemporary China has, to a vast degree, been politically propelled. This section draws on the previous discussion of China’s history on crime and the issuance of the death sentence. This section looks further at their historical perspective on the methods of punishment in China. China has passed through several periods in which range from the primitive commune, slave society, feudal system, a semifeudal and semicolonial system, and a socialist society. They country has a legal tradition of a mix of Legalist and traditionally Confucian ideas, to a contemporary Marxism-Leninism and Maoism of the ideologies of legal socialism.  Chinese Criminal Law historically has been the focus of the criminal law the “code of punishment” established in turn throughout each dynasty. Despite the fact that sections of laws were established within the Han and Qin dynasties, the first code completed that survived was Code of Kai Huang created amid the Sui Dynasty and embraced by the accompanying lines, incorporating Tang (653). This code gave the model to all criminal customary future systems, by its meaning of the Five Punishments and Ten Abominations.

The most exceedingly terrible criminal acts were considered uprisings against the administration, injustice, defiance while the littlest disappointment with the ruler brought about aggregate repercussions. Capital punishment extended the whole country for the individuals who planned against the ruler. Particular offenses coordinated against state force brought about the punishment of the offenders throughout the next 3 generations. From the Kai Huang Code, the Five Punishments represented an aggregate name given to various normal physical authorizes by the pre-modern dynastic Chinese legal system.  The Five Punishments were adopted under the Miao dynasty, in which included tattooing of the face or forehead, chiseling, cutting off the nose, amputation of one or both feet, and other types of punishment. One of the more gruesome punishments during this time was the removal of the reproductive organs, or death. Besides the death penalty, the remaining punishments implicated for slaves, were created in order to bring damage to their bodies, so they would have that mark for life. While implicated for slave, ordinary citizens were also subjected to the punishments, in which many crimes were punished using this code. During the Qin Dynasty, not only did they practice amputation of the feet, they also removed kneecaps for military prisoners. The male reproductive organs were removed, cutting off the testicles, and removing the penis, as they were sentenced to eunuchs living in the palace. For the death penalty, the methods of execution included slow slicing, strangulation, execution then abandonment of the body in the local market, beheading, tearing off of the limbs by attaching the body to chariots, boiling alive, or cutting or quartering the body into four pieces.

The Five Punishments were practice throughout the Shang and Zhou Dynasties (1600-256 BCE). When Emperor Wen of Han reigned, he abolished the Five Punishments for Salve, and replaced it with the Five Punishments for Serfs.  During the Western Han dynasty, they Five Punishments were altered, as they abolished the punishments of amputation and tattooing, in which the basic punishments were solidified during the end of the imperial era. During the Qing Dynasty they implemented the punishments of:

• Si (death): During the Tang and Sui Dynasties, the two methods for death were decapitation or strangulation, additionally during the Song Dynasty beheading and slow slicing was used. The offender could pay 42 guan in copper cash to remit the death penalty.
• Liu (exile) with the return to their birthplace forbidden, with three levels of severity:
• 2,000 (100 strokes with a large stick, and exiled 620 miles) Option to pay 30 guan in copper cash.
• 2,500; 100 strokes of the large stick and 775 exiled to 775 miles. Option to pay 33 guan in copper cash.
• 3,000; 100 strokes with a large stick and 930 miles exiled. Option to pay 36 guan in copper cash.
• Tu; five levels of severity; compulsory penal servitude.
• 60 stokes with large stick, and one year of penal servitude (12 guan in copper cash).
• 70 strokes with large stick and one year and half years of penal servitude. (15 guan in copper cash).
• 80 strokes with large stick and two years of penal servitude. (18 guan in copper cash).
• 90 strokes with a large stick and two and half years of penal servitude. (21 guan in copper cash).
• 100 strokes of the large stick and three years of penal servitude. (24 guan in copper cash)
• Zhang; five levels of zhang; beating with a large stick on the legs, buttocks, or back.
• 60 strokes (600 wen and 3 guan in copper cash)
• 70 strokes (200 wen and 4 guan in copper cash)
• 80 strokes (800 wen and 4 guan in copper cash)
• 90 strokes (400 wen and 4 guan in copper cash)
• 100 strokes (6 guan in copper cash)
• Chi; during the Qing Dynasty there were five levels of chi (bamboo clappers). Beating with a light bamboo cane on the buttocks.
• 10 lashes (600 wen in copper cash)
• 20 lashes (200 wen and 1 guan in copper cash)
• 30 lashes (800 wen and 1 guan in copper cash)
• 40 lashes (400 wen and 2 guan in copper cash)
• 50 lashes (3 guan in copper cash)

Women offenders were also punished in China, but with much less severe methods of punishment. The Five Punishments for women were Gongxing, punishment for adultery or licentiousness, confinement or sequestration to a room. Cisi, one the harsher punishments of forced suicide. Zhangxing, beating with wooden staves, while Zanxing was the squeezing of fingers between sticks. The less harsh punishment was Xingchong, where the women would be forced to grind grain.

However, punishment in China was just subjected to those punishments, as research suggests there were other methods of punishment employed throughout China’s history, that were more severe. These punishments ranged from the most heinous of skinning, in which they would skin from the spinal cord and back, with the skin separated into two halves. Authorities would pour mercury onto the body, to open the skin, and allow for easy separation, while burying the person alive in the ground. [47]  Other gruesome methods also included chopping the waist in half, in which would leave the vital organs in the upper body, bleeding them out taking only a few moments to die. This was used during the Ming Dynasty, and not practiced in several other dynasties.

In the Sun late Qing era, hai punishment was also used, in which two executioners would chop the body into pulp. This punishment was carried out when the person was alive, and ranged from stabbing over a 1000 times, to being wrapped in fish net, and cut up, then paraded around the village. During the Ming and the Zhongguo dynasties, using a bow string to trap and kill their offenders was violently executed. During the Zhan Guo era, they usually paralyzed legs, or cut the legs offs from the upper thigh. Female prisoners were subjected to the stabbing of needles, while during the Zhan Guo era they also were buried alive, in the standing position. Other gruesome methods not practiced entirely throughout the regime included combing of the skin, usually prisoners of war or spies, cutting with a saw, breaking the spine, or stick punishment (insert stick throughout the body from the mouth) . [48]

The Qing Dynasty saw another realm of harsh punishments, as they imposed harsher sanctions and tighter controls in order to confront foreign invasions and internal conflicts. [49] Their punishments were guided by appeasing foreign relations, such as sending many of their own to prison, and to die by exposure of the head, slicing, or decapitation.  Many of the Five Punishments were banned, as China was changing their society. By 1908, with the introduction of the new Penal Code, the harsher punishments were replaced with the death penalty, incarceration, and fines. [50] With the exception of the death penalty, corporal punishment was abolished around this time, but during the time of 1914 to 1916, the Yuan Shikai brought back bamboo stick beatings to respond to the growing disorder and violence. It was thought to be necessary to instill fear and deter criminals, which applied to petty offenses, with short-term incarcerations.

In 1911, saw the end of the imperial era in China, in which attempt to create a working justice framework. China’s first thirty years of socialism saw the class struggle and revolution. In which Mao aimed at eliminating the feudal system differentiations. During this period, China had no formal body of law, no legally proscribed procedures, and few legal professionals in charge of carrying out party and political policies. Under Mao Zedong, punishment was conveyed as a populist device for ideological control, political repression and class struggle. [51] Mass sentencing and trial rallies in pre-1949 Communist fringe areas excited famous notion, [52] while forums for justice after state making, proceeded to re-instruct the masses into communist lawfulness and to articulate the force of the new progressive administration.

Within this period, the broad utilization of punishment helped reshape post-progressive social and political request.  The most prominent example of the Maoist method to deal with punishment and crime can be found in the ‘Ma Xiwu Mode of Adjudication’ which started in the Communist Shan-Gan-Ning Border Region. Ma advanced the interest of lay judges (individuals’ assessors) inside trials, urged cases to be taken care of in circuit tribunals rather than courts and empowered the dynamic, direct inclusion of citizens in the legal procedure. [53] Such a methodology supported a casual, non-bureaucratic way to deal with the justice system. “It advanced the capital trial as a vehicle for political promulgation and mass “education” to strengthen public confidence in the new communist regime.”[54] As such, the most notable method justice turned into the predominant method of punishment effective in activating support from the public, and support for, the regime that ruled.

As punishments got to be harsher, and the death penalty utilized, all the more widely prominent justice got to be further fortified. The crest of executions in Mao’s period the Suppression of the Counter-progressives (1950–1951), was joined by an outlandish presentation of popular justice.  Because of the civil wars, the disruptive political campaigns, and the Second World War of the twentieth century, the Chinese lawful establishments had minimal opportunity to create and finished with the Great Cultural Revolution in the mid-60s to the mid-70s. Amid the Cultural Revolution, all the foundations of law were abrogated; there were no law schools, lawyers, prosecutors, or courts.  Since Deng Xiaoping’s arrangement of opening to changes from 1979, legitimate organizations started to recuperate, graduate schools had revived, and legal foundations and prosecutors’ employments had been reproduced.

China began to embark on the transforming from a backwards society to more economic reforms during the 80s and the 90s, to a market economy.  Deng took the society to a more modernized state in which they focused on national defense, technology, agriculture, and industry.  As for the punishment system Post-Mao era, the system saw a series of reforms, proliferated by legal codification, that saw an increase in offenses, while a decrease in capital offenses. Punishments varied from fine, asset forfeiture, but kept the capital penalty for executing offenders. They evolved to more “humane” forms of execution to deter criminals, including a single gunshot to the back of the head, lethal injection, a popular method of punishment. In which a “mobile execution” van went through provinces conducting lethal injections to inmates. [55]

As Johnson and Zimring[56] have contended, the Chinese the capital punishment system is ‘political at its center’. In existing criminological writing, the idea of ‘well known equity’ has been comprehensively characterized to incorporate a wide exhibit of casual, non-proficient and non-bureaucratic corrective practices, and additionally customs and choice making procedures started or supported by the sovereign. It can likewise allude to mass-line hones in progressive communist social orders or grassroots populist discussions in industrialist welfare states. [57] Capital punishment within China, are created by political powers at specifically recorded crossroads. China’s methods of punishment have served a particularly political capacity for over a large portion of a century: to reconfirm the political authenticity of the Party and to reinforce the political force of the state. In any case, the elements of the administration have moved over the long run. It served as an apparatus of political constraint in the Maoist period and a gadget to battle wrongdoing in Deng-Jiang’s time. These change in the mechanisms and variety of populist ethos is a vital part of a more extensive realignment of corrective philosophy and power accordingly to more profound political, cultural, and social changes over 60 years. Their views on crime and punishment has been instrumental in shaping their philosophies that have intertwined with the way in which they exact “justice”.

Forgiveness and death penalty in old and modern age China

The people of China, as a country with a particularly long history of primitive rulers, had resorted to capital punishment distortedly in confronting with social issues. The purpose of this section is to look at the aspects of “forgiveness” that has been translated into amnesty, clemency, or mercy in old and the modern age of China’s legal system. Capital punishment is profoundly established in Chinese social society, which has dependably been the central discipline in the criminal law framework of China for a few thousand years. Despite the fact that the legitimate change toward the end recently Qin dynasty in the early 20th century had presented progressed correctional regulations and extraordinarily diminished the severity of executions. No break of execution of capital punishment has happened in this antiquated nation, which is incomplete because of an excess of changes previously. The malevolence way of capital punishment, be that as it may, has been acknowledged by the instinct of elite class, despite the fact that not until the present, has the irrationality of capital punishment has stirred significant and complete faults. In the mid-1950s, the Chinese government declared capital punishment arrangement to murder less and circumspectly, the criminals who are not so much to be killed should not be sentenced to death. As per the criminal approach of “discipline joined with tolerance”, which, regardless of the intrusion by social changes and interim extreme discipline crusades. Has served as the pertinent rule and foundation for Chinese enactment and legal work on concerning capital punishment from that point on.

In view of the procurements of the criminal law of 1979, a few confinements on capital punishment have been made and culminated in the general procurements of the reexamined criminal law of 1997. The material articles were all the more unequivocally stipulated as crooks who have carried out to a great degree genuine wrongdoings. Additionally capital punishment might not be forced on individuals who have not come to the age of 18 in the event of the wrongdoing is perpetrated or at the time of trial, women who are pregnant. The shameful procurement of respite of capital punishment in the criminal law of 1979. The suspension of capital punishment is material to those youthful offenders somewhere around 16 and 18 years of age was erased off. The deadly infusion was supplemented by another strategy for execution. The arrangement of capital punishment respite was consummated in its outcome. In developing a stricter control of capital punishment from the point of view of criminal procedural were likewise stipulated in the overhauled criminal law.[58] In spite of the fact that the privilege of favoring capital punishment has dishonorably been qualified for the Higher People’s Court actually. Be that as it may, with the exception of more strict and express procurement of the constituent components of a couple of criminal acts, the wild pattern of capital punishment enactment is still exceptionally self-evident.

A paradoxical methodology as to the death penalty could be seen in Imperial China: cruelty and unbending nature versus humankind and adaptability. Law in Imperial China was fundamentally concerned with family issues, wrongdoings of savagery, and criminal acts against the regime. The unforgiving and unbending part of discipline was because of the solid punitive accentuation of the rule of law. A typical highlight imparted by corrective codes of numerous antiquated administrations was the requirement of “unforgiving and exact disciplines”. For instance, an arrangement of “five disciplines” consistently conveyed a capital punishment. [59] Capital punishment basically took three structures in old China: strangulation, execution, and cutting of the body. The general population executions were gone for teaching and deflecting the overall population into submission and constancy with the legislature.

As opposed to the unforgiving and inflexible treatment of wrongdoers under the supreme law, the Confucian way to deal with wrongdoing and discipline was significantly more others conscious and adaptable. Confucians accepted that social request was best kept up by the consensual method for excellent direct from the leader and a readiness to bargain from the common individuals, and that when discipline was lamentably fundamental, it must be joined by instruction in place that the wrongdoer may be improved.”[60] The philanthropic estimations of Confucian belief system were against discipline of distraught classes; for instance, the elderly, the sick, minors, and other extraordinary classifications of people were exempted from being sentenced to capital punishment forced on them in ancient China. Since 1949, with the foundation of the P.R.C. there were two contending perspectives concerning wrongdoing and discipline. One was the casual and progressive methodology roused by Mao’s philosophy of consistent insurgency and class battle. This populist approach frequently depended on impromptu individuals’ tribunals, synopsis equity, and cruel discipline to administer equity.[61] Amid the 1950s and the 1960s, capital punishment was connected widely, principally focusing on political offenses-the counterrevolutionaries.[62] Undoubtedly, the Chinese government had since a long time ago asserted that wrongdoing would wilt away as the communist framework advanced into Communism, and capital punishment was just depended on briefly to manage the wrongdoing issue. [63] Second, as the nations were agreeable until the very end punishment, communist nations indicated that capital punishment was saved just for the most genuine offenses. Third, the avocation for capital punishment in communist nations was its obstacle or educative quality. The Chinese believed that they sentenced individuals to death not to look for vengeance yet to instruct others by slaughtering one we teach one hundred.”[64]  At long last, general sentiment had a tendency to be unequivocally for capital punishment in these communist nations.

Amnesty, or forgiveness in ancient China, has long existed, since China was greatly influenced by Confucius, as well as Buddhist principles.  However during Imperial times in China, legalists advocated for harsher punishment without mercy, while Confucian scholars emphasized mercy, benevolence, and virtue.  While they were influenced by these principles, the only acts of mercy or forgiveness that was seen in regards to the death penalty were the acts of voluntary surrender, in which an individual could have judicial leniency, and be pardoned from the death penalty. This is seen in the Western Zhou Dynasty, in which criminals that were thought to be a “casual or negligent” offender would not be sentenced to the death penalty. [65] Based on earlier literature since the Qin Dynasty, the act of voluntary surrender has been established throughout the laws. When a criminal were to surrender or admit fault then their punishment would be lesser, by money penalty or penal servitude.

Tang Dynasty further consummated the arrangement of voluntary surrender, and initially stipulated the arrangement of voluntary surrender in the subtle element. In the Tang Dynasty Laws the relevant states of the voluntary surrender framework, the punishments, and the circumstances which couldn’t be connected with the willful surrender and the equivalent deliberate surrender framework were stipulated in subtle element.[66] The material states of the deliberate surrender framework incorporated four focuses. In the first place, the wrongdoing had not been found, and if the wrongdoing more substantial, even the criminal surrender himself to the government official, he couldn’t be dealt with as a criminal that surrendered.[67] Second, the criminal ought to advise against him independent from anyone else. Third, the deliberate surrender ought to be completely complete and honest. [68]Fourth, the willful surrender ought to be made to the government official.  Once the criminal were to voluntarily surrender, their punishments were either lightened or exempted.

There were three circumstances under which the criminal’s obligations could be exempted. Initially, when the wrongdoing had not been found, when the criminal surrendered, their punishments were exempted. Another situation, was when the criminal carried out over two wrongdoings with diverse levels, and if the lighter wrongdoing had been found yet the heavier wrongdoing had not been unveiled,  the heavier crime, is what the criminal would surrender to, so the criminal obligation of the heavier wrongdoing could be exempted, i.e. at the point when one criminal carried out different wrongdoings and just surrendered the heavier wrongdoing, he could be exempted from the punishment of the heavier wrongdoing and be run just for the unlawful acts without surrendering. Third, in the joint offense, when the criminal with lighter wrongdoing caught the criminal with heavier wrongdoing and surrendered, or one of the crooks could find above a large portion of different offenders and surrendered, the criminal could have their punishment waivered.[69] The reason of these three circumstances was that the surrender must be complete and fair, or else, the criminal couldn’t have the punishments exempted. During the Laws of Ming Dynasty and Ming Li Law, the system of voluntary surrender was inheritably established from the former dynasties, with only a few amendments made. The laws fundamentally acquired previous traditions, and just the solid substance were included or decreased. Case in point, in the “Ming Li Law”, “the criminal debased the law and didn’t distort the stolen things, and he lamented and gave back the stolen items to the owner, so that the criminal could be treated as a surrendered, and his punishment would be forgiven. What’s more, if he knew somebody would reveal he and he gave back the stolen things to the proprietor, his discipline could be decreased for two classes.”[70]

The above substance was selective in laws of Ming Dynasty, and aggregate talking, the substance about the deliberate surrender framework changed little during the Ming Dynasty criminal system. The “Ming Li Law” of “Laws of Qing Dynasty stipulated the deliberate surrender framework, as well as entirely recognized the diminished discipline of the undisclosed surrendered criminal, and the punishment of the surrendered criminal, the disclosed “Zi Xin” criminal, and the surrendered and incomplete conditions and treatments.[71] Contrasting and previous traditions, the reach and time farthest point of the surrender discipline were amplified, also, in the “Du Pu Ze Li” in time of Kangxi Emperor, “the families of pennant men got away in one year and surrendered, and their disciplines could be forgiven, the  Article of “Escaper Surrender” of “Volume An of Du Pu Ze Li”)”.[72] For the crooks who caught the culprits in the same criminal activities and surrendered to the government official, they reduced the punishment level seen in other dynasties. Additionally the criminals that showed regret for their crimes by surrendering would have their punishment reduced.

After the Qing Dynasty, was the establishment of the Republican China, due to the grounds that the political circumstance was not steady, and the rights were from different governments, so the substance about the deliberate surrender were not stable. In 1928, Nanjing Kuomintang Government, ordered the “Usage Regulations of Criminal Laws” ordered, the substance of the voluntary surrender didn’t be contained. In the “Criminal Laws” of 1934, the intended framework for voluntary surrender started to happen, “for the criminal whose wrongdoing has not been uncovered and who complies with the judgment, the discipline should be decreased, however in the event that there is the unique regulation, the discipline is performed by the uncommon regulation (Criminal Laws of Republican China authorized by Nanjing Kuomintang Government in 1934, P. 62).[73]

The requirements for voluntary surrender consisted of the wrongdoing had not been unveiled, and the criminal complied with the judgment, and the punishment for the crime was either exempted or reduced in unique circumstances. The division regulations of Criminal Laws likewise stipulated the willful surrender framework, for instance,” in the article 172, “for the surrendered offenders who submitted the prevarication wrongdoing and the false charging wrongdoing, their disciplines could be diminished or exempted”. [74][75]The Criminal Laws of Republican China was adjusted a few times. However, the substance of the little changes were made to the implications of voluntary surrender, and just the particular words were included or erased.

The adjusted Criminal Laws of Republican China has been utilized as a part of Taiwan territory in the past.  In other uncommon declarations authorized by Nanjing Kuomintang Government, the substance about the voluntary surrender was invariably contained. For instance, in the statement about rebuffing backstabbers, “the criminals, who conferred the wrongdoing are dismissed by the traitor surrender decree. In this phase in China’s history, the factors of voluntary surrender continued to change, and then by the Manchukuo, in the urgency punishment law. The offenders that committed the crime, and then surrendered before being disclosed, had their penalties reduced. For the self-ruling grievance wrongdoing, the criminal’s punishment was the same. Under the Nanjing Kuomintang government, the content of the voluntary criminal laws changed but were not exerted because of the belief that the corresponding functions because the government was illegal or presented a false legal system for peace.

Forgiveness was never a term that was spelled out in the laws of Imperial China. The terms that have been closely associated with the terms, are leniency, amnesty, or exemption. In which is given to many criminals when they acknowledge their wrongdoings, or in circumstances when the criminals is pregnant, or an older woman. The death penalty is considered the ultimate capital punishment, and used as a means for social control, and to deter other criminals from following the same criminal activities.  Later in the People’s Republic of China, death sentence with reprieve is given as a criminal punishments, in which the criminal that is on death row has their execution suspended in which, if they commit further crimes they were executed. However, if they didn’t do otherwise, than they would either have a fixed-term imprisonment, or a reduced life imprisonment. Unlike clemency, the reprieve that is given is pronounced directly in place of the criminal’s sentence. The aspects of voluntary surrender, are among just a few elements to the concept of forgiveness in Chinese perspective on capital punishments. For Chinese offenders, confessions are required and are expected for correctional value and probative reasons. Although Chinese law now prohibits confessions obtained from physical torture or coercion, the potential legal reward and cultural expectation are a greater attraction for criminals.

The attitudes towards confessions in ancient China, have been helpful in obtaining a lighter sentence, those that didn’t admit guilt were given heavier sentence, than those that either voluntarily surrendered, showed repentance, or confessed. [76] In these cases the judge can apply leniency to the criminal, and when crimes are more serious, than only under extraordinary circumstances would leniency be granted. Pardons a special institutional forgiveness had played a critical role in influencing the death penalty throughout China. The aspects of voluntary surrender, as well as obtaining leniency when admitting wrongdoing was grounds applicable of being pardoned from their punishment.

A pardon in the Chinese legal system wen from a judicial principle influenced by the cultural context of Confucius influence, into a legal policy, in which the main catalyst was retribution. To achieve the purposes of self-interest and deterrence, the rulers in ancient China, invented complex devices while granting pardons. It helped to reduce the judicial arbitrariness that resulted from autocracy, while rendering the unique color in Imperial China, to the capital punishment execution. Pardon in ancient China was the broad and narrow sense meant amnesty or mercy, largely related to forgiveness, in which was used in redemption penalties, used as an alternative means to the death penalty. The application of the death penalty in Ancient China is influenced by several institutional constraints and cultural factors in which has drawn complexity for many rulers in supplying numerous methods of torture to its citizens. Forgiveness in the legal system change the way in which the death sentence was applied in China. Early dynasties fear that the death penalty meant that it would cause opposition against the ruling party, while others felt it was an appropriate means of social deterrence.

Forgiveness is not a notion that is seen as so that is closely subjected to many criminals in the Chinese court system, unlike court systems in Iran. A capital punishment can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation of Iran, which can deny or affirm the punishment of the death sentence. In the event that the Supreme Court of Cassation discovers anomalies, it can send the case to a lower court for a retrial.[77] There is no restriction on the quantity of times that a respondent may request, however in the event that blame is made the Court will confirm the sentence. In homicide and assault cases, the culprit can ask forgiveness from the exploited person’s family.[78] In different cases, the culprit can request forgiveness from the “Absolution and Pardons Commission” of Iran to diminish their sentences.

Regularly execution is deferred until the individual finishes a jail sentence. Some homicide and assault cases are postponed for a long time to amplify the likelihood of absolution and coming to a settlement. In Iran (as in other Muslim nations), there are two sorts of sentences bringing about death.[79] The principal is a “qesas-e-nafs” (retaliation) sentence, when the family of the murder victim declines to forgive the killer. The other sort is a consistent capital punishment, “hokm-e-edam”, for criminal acts, for example, drug trafficking or rape.[80] These sentences are entirely separate in Iranian law, and this has made some perplexity for the news media, in which authorities say that a homicide won’t bring about “execution”, however in “qesas”.[81] Islamic law differs greatly from the Chinese legal system. It is only in recent times that China’s judicial system has taken their past policies of forgives (pardon) into sentencing the death penalty to criminals. The death penalty is reviewed and approved by the Supreme People’s Court before any execution, and in many cases, the Supreme People’s Court will show mercy in cases in which the offender were to ask for forgiveness from the family, compensation to the victim or their family, and other instances.[82] A reprieve from the death penalty is a justification that is given when the victim chooses to forgive.[83] In some and in many cases, the criminal act cannot be forgiven, and the death penalty is justified. China has increased their ideal of clemency or mercy when dealing with criminals that commit less offensive crimes, but still stick to applying capital punishment when it serves the country.

Avenues for the application of mercy in modern Chinese law

Mercy is not a factor that has been highlighted as much within China’s history, it is through their philosophical teachings that people are aware of the application of mercy. However this section will examine how through different avenues mercy can be applied within modern Chinese law. Within China’s legal system, the origins of mercy in their practices and thinking, can be linked back the Autumn and Spring periods of (770BC-476BC) and Eastern Zhou Dynasty (770BC-256BC). The Confucian School (???Ru) was organized by Confucius himself.  His considerations comprised of an assemblage of ideas and thoughts that all in all fill the need of building congruous human-culture connections and symphonious human instinct connections.[84] Three fundamental legitimate standards could be summed up from Confucian musings and works: consideration (?), appropriateness (?), and moral honesty (?). Ren or benevolence is the beginning stage in comprehension Confucianism as it is significant to lawful considering. The essential significance of Ren, or altruism, is “adoring others” (????).[85] “Loving others” is the fundamental rule of Confucius on interpersonal connections. On the premise of “adoring others”, Confucius extended the extent of Ren to “Fan Ai Zhong” (???)[86], which underlines cherishing, however, many others as would be prudent. He further pushed that the primitive government practice “administer by altruism” (??) to construct a congruous society.

Legitimacy, or Li, started in conciliatory service as a standard practice of family society.[87] Duke of Zhou, of Western Zhou Dynasty, led a large scale of Li-based exercises (?). Li guaranteed the correct behavior of social individuals inside the primitive political and group code of morals and supported the status pecking order. Li reflected the predominant social relations, as well as the distinctive levels of status, obligations, and rights of the members of society.[88]  It was the term generally used for every social standard, with the importance of law. Confucius accepted that Ren, or kindheartedness, was the center of respectable profound quality, which took the type of Li or appropriateness.

As such, Li is the sign of Ren, the handy aide of Ren. One should have been called Ren just when acting as per Li  in Confucius’ advocating of “Wei Guo Yi Li” (????), or “dealing with a state by respectability”, was dealt with as a situated of lawful standards also.[89] De (?), implies moral trustworthiness. Confucius accepted that an individual who is generous additionally has moral integrity. In place for individuals from society to carry on as per legitimacy, Li, it is fundamental for the legislature to manage by De, or, moral integrity, which consists of two levels of implications: one alludes to rulers’ own particular good uprightness, and alternate alludes to teaching individuals by enough goodness (????). [90]

It ought to be noticed that alongside the advancement of De, Li, and Re the idea of Xing (?), that implies discipline, has turned into a fundamental piece of Confucian lawful thinking too. Confucius, nonetheless, accepted that Li ought to command the legitimate framework. Just when all manifestations of Li have been depleted could Xing be utilized. Confucius contradicted the utilization of discipline without former cautioning and education and the thought of “guideline by discipline just”. Confucius analyzed the three standards, “rule by penalty” and rule by propriety”, and “rule by moral integrity”, and accepted the previous two were better. In light of the fact that manage by punishment couldn’t delete wrongdoing from individuals’ contemplations, while run by profound quality could stop crimes from happening. Therefore, Confucius supported training as a method of wrongdoing anticipation. His outline on the correlation between Xing, De, and Li serves a definitive objective of equity, Wu Song (??), no claim.[91] Confucius contended, “The way I attempt a claim is not unique in relation to others. At the same time, it would be better still if there were no lawsuits.” When there are claims, there is a general public with clashes and debate. Until a time when there are no claims can a society restore peace, and achieve harmony.  A society whose individuals are big-hearted and act with good trustworthiness and as per appropriateness.

After the demise of Confucius, Confucianism slowly advanced into eight separate subgroups among which an essential was Mencius, a critical scholar/supporter who further created Confucianism. Mencius considered “concentrating on from Confucius”14 as his labor of love. While keeping up the guideline of altruism (Ren, ?), Mentius propelled Confucianism to another level to shape in the Pre-Qin Period, the “moral school.”[92]  One of the best commitments of Mencius is presumably his “great human instinct” contention, which merges the thought of “tenet by consideration” and “govern by genuine honesty”. In particular, Mencius accepted that human ability was high and brimming with empathy. He hence proposed the thought of “guideline by kindness” or “administer by empathy.”  While although this does not imply that discipline can’t be connected with criminal acts or trouble making. Maybe, the decision class must be extremely careful of utilizing discipline.[93]  Moreover, Mencius unmistakably contradicted merciless discipline or torture. Confucianism overall had a significant effect on the antiquated Chinese lawful framework. It turned into the wellspring of mercy and helped to proliferate in ancient China, the tradition of mercy.

Confucian, in the Western Han Dynasty, officially made the main guideline managing lawful practice and thinking. Confucianization of law and legitimate methods came to its crest in the Tang Dynasty and was integrated and reflected in the Tang Code, which stipulated punishments as indicated by the ethical quality and respectability at the time. All in all, the guideline that “everything needs to take after profound quality and appropriateness” was the primary rule directing the Tang Code.[94] Nonetheless, this does not imply that punishments were not pertinent by any stretch of the imagination. As far as the relationship in the middle of profound quality and discipline, the essential contention was that ethical quality and instruction were the basic standards in governing the nation. Punishments were just supplemental intends to profound quality. At the point, when connected to mischievous activities moral and instructive systems were qualified for need over punishment. Affected by Confucianism, the quantity of criminal penalties and the quantity of legitimate procurements alluding until the very end punishment were essentially decreased amid the Tang Dynasty.

After the passing of Confucius, Confucianism slowly developed into eight separate subgroups, with Mencius, was considered the most critical savant/pupil who further created Confucianism. Mencius considered “concentrating on from Confucius” as is an all-consuming purpose. While keeping up the rule of generosity (Ren, ?), Mencius propelled Confucianism to another level during the Pre-Qin Period, to form the moral school.[95] One of the best commitments of Mencius is most likely his “great human instinct” contention, which unites the thought of “tenet by generosity” and “control by real uprightness”. In particular, Mencius accepted that human ability was great and loaded with sympathy. He consequently proposed the thought of “principle by altruism” or “run by sympathy” However, this does not imply that discipline can’t be connected against wrongdoings or misconduct. Maybe, the decision class must be extremely wary of utilizing discipline (“Shen Xing”, ??).[96] Besides, Mencius unmistakably restricted brutal discipline or torture.

Confucianism overall had a significant effect on the legal system in the early ages of China. It proliferated the systems of mercy, in which help to shape in ancient China, a tradition of mercy. Confucianism was in Western Han Dynasty formally made the main guideline controlling the legal practice and thinking. Confucianization of law and lawful practices came to its crest in the Tang Dynasty and was integrated and reflected in the Tang Code, which stipulated punishments as indicated by the ethical quality and respectability at the time. When all is said in done, the guideline that “everything needs to take after profound quality and legitimacy” was the primary standard managing the Tang Code.

Then again, this does not imply that punishments were not relevant by any means. Regarding the relationship in the middle of profound quality and punishment, the essential contention was that ethical quality and training were the principal standards in controlling the nation. Punishments were just supplemental intends to moral quality. At the point when connected to mischievous activities moral and instructive strategies were qualified for need over punishment. Affected by Confucianism, the quantity of criminal punishments and the quantity of lawful procurements alluding until the very end punishment were fundamentally decreased amid the Tang Dynasty.

An ordinary lawful practice which shows Confucianism in managing criminal cases in modern China is the people’s practice of mediation, in which, to a substantial degree, is perfect with practices of restorative justice. In understanding the different avenues that can be used in applying mercy in China’s legal system, it is important to highlight the lenient features of Chinese legal and law practices, that revolve around these restorative practice. The traditional Western idea of justice is to assign accuse and discipline.[97] Rather, restorative justice, includes all the gatherings to try to restore the broken relationship through such courses as exploited person wrongdoer intervention. It regards the sentiments and mankind of both the victimized person and the guilty party.[98]  In addition it can be actualized under the assent of both sides. Remedial equity advocates the part of casual strategies in taking care of criminal cases so as to restore the social relationship that was demolished by wrongdoing. China’s long convention of intervention practice is exceptionally good for the soul of remedial equity. This intercession instrument has assumed an imperative part in taking care of criminal cases that are minor. \It is assessed that the quantity of cases intervened by the People’s Mediation Committee has been far greater than the quantity of cases arbitrated by the courts.[99]

Moreover, spearheading projects, for example, Yantai’s ‘peace of equity’ project, are continuous. The compass of cases settled by intercession or criminal compromise has been extended to incorporate minor damage cases, as well as adolescent wrongdoing cases, criminal carelessness cases, wrongdoings by college understudies in school, auto collision unlawful acts and burglary.[100] Complete use of criminal compromise brings about the compelling settlement of question and quicker treatment of cases. So, the greater part of criminal cases, particularly the misdemeanor or less severe cases, are taken care of through mediation, a casual method of taking care of them. Serious crimes, which speak of a little rate of general wrongdoing, experience the standard court procedure. As a consequence of the way that it is more improbable for more genuine offenses to get parole and probation, it is not a shock to see a lower rate in China of parole and probation. Despite the fact that China’s mechanism of mediation is profoundly parallel with the Western practice of helpful equity, the simple thought process of applying mediation or victimized person guilty party compromise in China is unique in relation to that in numerous Western social orders. The ordinary Western movement for restorative justice is a reaction to the problems such as increased rates of recidivism of the legal and criminal system.[101] In modern China, restorative justices have largely developed from the independent influential

Modern Chinese group rectification practices, for example, surveillance, probation, and parole that are characterized by the Chinese Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, accentuate supervision in groups.[102]  Practices that are used contemporary of community corrections is another activity in Chinese criminal equity change. In spite of the fact that it may not duplicate precisely the same secluded methodology secured in Western social orders, Chinese group revisions is very predictable with the Western strategies in that it underscores the rebuilding of a broken human relationship, reintegration, communities, victims, pardons and repentance among victims, back into society through group supervision and interest[103] [104] In August 2002 Shanghai began the first pilot group Amendment extend in three regions. The Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Public Security, the Supreme Procuratorate, and the Supreme Court, in 2003, mutually issued a Notification about Pilot Studies on Community Corrections. The Notification distinguished three regions (Tianjing, Shanghai, and Beijing) as the first level to do group adjustments.[105]

A Notification about Expanding Pilot Studies on Community Corrections in 2005 was declared.[106] In 12, more additional areas were incorporated into the second level to go for group revisions. Data have demonstrated that more than 50,000 criminals from the 18 areas/districts served sentences in groups. A dominant part of the wrongdoers were parolees and probationers. [107] Before the end of 2006, this number expanded to 65,616, among which, 15,092 had finished the group programs and been discharged.[108]  Despite the fact that the quantity of guilty parties serving group sentences is much littler contrasted and the aggregate number of wrongdoers in the restorative framework (844,717 guilty parties in 2005).[109]  The act of corrections to a community has been growing and esteemed as a win. The Decision on Major Issues in Constructing Harmonious Socialist Society in 2006 affirmed the constructive outcome of group adjustments in the development of concordant society. By 2008, the quantity of regions that connected group adjustments came to 25, or 78 percent of the 31 areas.[110]

All the more as of late, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Public Security, the Supreme Procuratorate, and the Supreme Court, had jointly issued in 2009, the Opinions on Trying out Nation-Wide Community Correction, enumerating the standards, hierarchical structure, and assignments of group rectifications. Group amendments have become quickly. All 31 provinces, 64 percent of streets, 72 percent of counties, by the end of 2010, had implemented community corrections. Contemporary practice of group remedies in China mirrors the restorative values of the customary Confucianism in developing a symphonious society. Such practice mostly focuses on the first time criminals that are either in need of assistance, the elderly, minors or commit minor offenses.[111]  In particular, community corrections cover five noteworthy sorts of guilty parties: the individuals why should sentenced serve customary probation, the individuals who serve parole in groups, the individuals who are denied of political rights and serve sentences in groups, the individuals who are sentenced to incidentally serve their sentences while not in the prisons, (for example, those who receive surveillance or control sentences, seriously sick offenders, or pregnant offenders). [112]

China’s practices of group amendments have both remarkable highlights and downsides. Case in point, various researchers have termed China’s restorative justice systems as a model of control restorative, in light of the fact that it shows such angle as coerciveness and deficient insurance of wrongdoers. In modern China, fervently debated policy on criminal justice is the integration of rigidity and leniency policy that was introduced at the National Work Conference on Politics and Law in 2004. In 2005 and 2006, were additional work conferences that affirmed that the policy for China is the basic policy for criminal justice.[113]  China’s Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixteenth Central Committee of the Communist Party in 2006, unmistakably pushed the execution of the policy of criminal justice, in transforming the system for juvenile justice, and progressing towards community corrections.

The center of the civil argument for this approach has been on the best way to translate and equalization mercy and inflexibility[114] Numerous researchers translated the strategy as far as the mercy component and contended that tolerance may be deciphered in four perspectives.  1) for criminals in minor  cases, permissive discipline ought to be connected; 2) wrongdoers offenses that are more serious,  if demonstrating any great conduct, for example, admission or great deeds as the law stipulates,  may get more tolerant discipline contrasted with the circumstances under which they don’t carry on well; 3) amid the criminal procedures of examination, indictment also, trial.

Many procedures to the criminal legal system have come under complaint, as in 2007, the Standing Committee of the 10^th National People’s Congress made changes to the three procedure laws in China, Civil Procedure Law, Administrative Procedure Law, and the Criminal Procedure Law. This was due to the need for China’s legal system to comply with the legal reform in line with the international standards. When China became a part of the WTO in 2001, it placed much pressure to change their judicial system to reflect the modern times. For a while during the early 2000s, China had undertaken a series of legal reforms that focused on improving their existing court and judicial systems. However, their pace has been piecemeal, and still not as quick, as the international community would like it, in revising the law into a cohesive legal framework. Legal experts have pointed out many of the problems in the present system. Less serious offenses that cause little harm is not deemed a crime. 4) At the sentencing stage group rectifications may request the individuals who are blameworthy of minor criminal acts.[115] This “integration of rigidity and leniency policies is applicable to both juveniles and adults.  Practices in criminal justice that are related to juveniles, particularly those under the 16 years of age, are mainly lax, and consistent with the restorative justice principles. They mirror the Confucian rule of the “prevailing part of training and supplemental method for discipline”. Like the Western “parens patriae” tenet, the juvenile justice system in China, aims to save, persuade, and educate the juvenile offenders.

The general rule of the Law on Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (1999) is unmistakably characterized as an assurance of the solid improvement of young people. The procedure to avoid adolescent misconduct is a “complete treatment” including every single conceivable party, for example, urban/rural residential communities, families, schools, criminal justice agencies, social organizations, and the government. Article 44 further anxieties that adolescent equity practices take after the guideline that “instruction has the need and discipline is just a supplement.” The general standards and articles of adolescent laws have demonstrated that the Confucian standards on no lawsuits, education, and benevolence, proceed in the juvenile justice practices in China. Such practices are profoundly perfect with the Western practices of restorative justice also. Within the integration of leniency and rigidity policy, both the community corrections and mediation mechanisms are highly encouraged, and the best avenues in implementing mercy in the legal system. Extensively and frequently, are measures that are lenient carried out in order to cover those who show good behavior during the investigation and commit minor offenses. However, the policy does not exclude the utilization of rigid criminal punishment. The aspects of implementing mercy, as well as leniency into the legal system is still a hotly debated principle in modern China, and aspect that divides world leaders.

Conclusion

When looking at the differences in the Chinese legal system, there are several factors that have been influential in crafting the principles and practices that have been passed down throughout the different Chinese periods.  In looking at the history and culture of China, as one of the world’s greatest civilizations, but also one of the more isolated civilizations in the world. They were born out of a desire to in order to be dominant they had to be barbaric in their approach to ruling over others. While also implementing the principles of Confucius that looks to instilling peace, harmony, and forgiveness throughout society. While also being influenced by legalism, Taoism, and Buddhism to assets the presence of forgiveness, clemency, and mercy. Throughout this research, it has been dedicated to point out the importance of laying the theoretical cultural constitution for applying CRF to Chinese law.

Past examination has demonstrated that Chinese legal history in no way, shape or form fundamentally reformatory in nature. The greatest impact on molding the criminal justice practices and legal thinking in China has been Confucianism.  Education and benevolence have been advocated throughout Chinese legal history, by practices influenced by Confucius.  A highlight of benevolence is reflected in cutting edge Chinese lawful practices also. The contention that China is incredibly corrective in rebuffing culprits is an inadequate comprehension of the Chinese legal practices and legal traditions. In spite of the fact that in China, the death penalty still exists, many scholars have long assumed that it will be used less frequently.  In 2011, the quantity of unlawful acts that conveyed capital punishment was lessened from 68 to 55. The way that a substantial segment of criminal cases is taken care of through additional lawful means, intercession routines specifically, has brought about in China, a low rate of probation. Probation itself is liable to talk as far as its permissive nature. From one viewpoint, researchers accepted that probation, as a type of group remedy, takes after benevolence theory illustrated by Confucius and therefore shows more mercy to criminals.

As already implied, a critical component of the modification of China’s legal systems is the general public.  The role of the public is less characterized and not about as involved as the cultural factors that are illustrated throughout the research. However, the part of general conclusion plagues the talk encompassing how to properly combine severity, leniency, mercy, and forgiveness. Conventional wisdom holds that the people of China, firmly remains behind the death penalty in China. While this is not that surprising to scholars that seek to abolish the practice. It has been a tradition that has been generally pushed by the elite, instead from the opinions of the mainstream public. Public concern in China is rampant over concerns of corruption, which is largely contributed to the decision to not remove economic crimes such as corrupt dealings, and bribery from the scope of the death penalty.

There has been a shift from the concern of the public towards leniency in the desire for a reprieve from the death penalty. There is very little chance, for the practice of sentencing people to death that the execution will actually occur. However, the press has already sparked attention on the expansion of reprieved death sentences, which are closely associated with the selective enforcement that is influenced by political and economic power lines. The only citizens that are able to get out of the death sentence seems to be those that are either wealthy or powerful enough to receive a reprieve. There has been causes from Amnesty groups, as well as leaders from around the world, in which they try to influence the legal practices in China. From the backings of international groups, the media, and public opinion, China in modern times has conceded to many of the desires of the public. This means learning from the barbaric acts of justice in other countries such as Muslim countries, that have a different justice system, in which allows for mercy, leniency, and forgiveness to dictate their punishments. However, Muslims countries, still practice many backwards principles that have been called barbaric, and in need of a reboot. In trying to implement new factors into the legal framework of China, there is many changes that China has already made to their system, in which this paper has touched on.

Then again, if probation is abrogated or utilized, less often wrongdoers have a tendency to serve shorter times of time in jail. Thus, it is hard to reason that more continuous utilization of probation is a representative of a criminal justice practice that is more lenient. In spite of the fact that the debate on how to balance rigidity and leniency is on-going, the integration of leniency and rigidity for the policy in criminal justice is influential on the practices that includes the decriminalization of offenses in which create less harm, or the de-penalization of criminals by placing criminals that are considered minor under community surveillance. These types of lenient laws have been introduced in order to provide appeasement to not only the general public but also to many around the world, which feels that the legal and justice system in China has been barbaric.

Many scholars in China have written numerous policy reports and academic publications advocating for such practices.  This backing of balance is likewise seen in works by Kechang Ma (2008), a main criminal law researcher in China. Mama (2008) perspectives the moderate pattern in criminal law as the vital result of conventional Chinese lawful society and the interest of amicable communist society.[116] Presently Western practices and principles of restorative justice have been introduced by a few scholars to China.  These Western elements of restorative justice and the traditional legal culture of China will co-exist and will take transformative systems in which will reflect unique characteristics of the Chinese justice system in the future.

Bibliography

Bassiouni, M. Cherif & Badr, Gamal M., ‘The Sharia’h: sources, interpretation, and rule-making’, (2002) 1 UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 135.

Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthenum and the sword. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Bodde & Morris. Law in imperial China. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1967)

Cai D. 1999. Lishi yu Biange: Xin Zhongguo Fazhi Jianshe de Licheng  History and Change: The Process of the Construction of Legal System in New China. Beijing: China Univ. Polit. Sci. Law Press.

Casimire, M. J., & Schnegg, M. (2003). Shame across cultures: The evolution, ontogeny, and function of a “moral emotion.” In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga, & A. Scholmerich (Eds.), Between culture and biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, Albert. Constitutionalism in Asia in the Early Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press. 2014.

Chen, J. (1998). “Applying propriety to law”: exploring legal culture, Fu Jian Academic Journal: 2, 7-9.

Chen, X. (1992). Philosophy of Criminal Law. Beijing: Chinese University of Politic Science Press.

Chen, X.-Y., Rubin, K. H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 63, 1336-1343.

Cheng, Shude. (2006). Textural Research of Nine Dynasties’ Laws. Taibei: Zhonghua Book Company. Nov, 2006. P.268 & 335.

Cohen JA. 1966. The criminal process in the People’s Republic of China: an introduction. Harvard Law Rev.Crime, Law & Social Change, 23, 67-87.

Crystal, D. S., Parrott, W. G., Okazaki, Y., & Watanabe, H. (2001). Examining relations between shame and personality among university students in the United States and Japan: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 113-123.

Dong, K., & Ding, T. (2009). Report on the reform of the penal enforcement system. In Li Lin, Report on Development of Chinese Justice (pp. 231-239). Beijing: Social science literature Press.

Dutton, M. (1992). Policing and punishment in China. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eberhard, W. (1967). Guilt and sin in traditional China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Fischer, H. A., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (1999). The role of honor-related vs. individualist values in conceptualizing pride, shame, and anger: Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes. Cognition and Emotion, 13(2), 149-179.

Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Setiadi, B., & Markam, S. S. (2002). Cognitive structure of emotion terms in Indonesia and The Netherlands. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 61-86

Fung, H., & Chen, E. C.-H (2001). Across time and beyond skin: Self and transgression in the everyday socialization of shame among Taiwanese preschool children. Social Development, 10(3), 420-437.

Griffin PE (1976) The Chinese Communist Treatment of Counter-Revolutionaries, 1924–1949.

Hallaq, Wael B., An introduction to Islamic law (Cambridge University Press 2009).

Heider, K. (1991). Landscapes of emotion: Mapping three cultures of emotion in Indonesia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jian, Guo, Jianping, Lu. Death Penalty in People’s Republic of China: Quo Vadis? Penal.org. 2006. http://www.penal.org/sites/default/files/files/DeathpenaltyChinaLU.pdf

Johnson DT, Zimring, FE. The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.

Johnson, Wallace. Status and Liability for Punishment in The T’ang Code. Chicago-Kent Law Review. Vol. 71;217. 1995. http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3018&context=cklawreview

Kong, Defa. Study on the Historical Evolution of Chinese System of Voluntary Surrender. CCSEnet. http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/2308/2166

Lam, Karina Wai-Ling. “The Concern of a Nation’s Face: Evidence in the Chinese Press Coverage of Sports.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 33.1 (1993): 1-79. The University of Hong Kong Libraries. Web.

Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behaviors. Honolulu: University of Hawaii

Lee, M. Happy holidays and busy killing fields. Far Eastern Economic Review, 131 (8) (1986), p. 47

Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian Tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner (pp. 45-67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.

Leng, S., H. Chiu. Criminal justice in post-Mao China: Analysis and documents.  SUNY Press, Albany, NY (1985).

Lepp, A. Note, the death penalty in late imperial, modern, and post-Tiananmen China. Michigan Journal of International Law, 11 (1990), pp. 987–1038

Li VH. 1977.Law Without Lawyers: A Comparative View of Law in China and the United States Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Li, D. (2010). On community corrections in China. Modern Business Trade Industry (China), 11:77-78

Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese “heart and mind for wanting to Learn.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 248-269.;Li, J. (in press). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Li, J., & K. W. Fischer. (2002). Shame, respect, and conflict in Chinese childrearing and relationships. Harvard Children’s Initiative. Published on line at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~hci/hci/pub/shame.pdf.

Li, M., & Duan, Y. (2010). On “leniency and rigidity” Criminal Justice Policy. Commercial Culture, 6:17-18.

Li, W., & Ning, W. (2010). Implementation of the “integration of leniency and rigidity” criminal justice policy. Economic Research Guide, 13: 188-189.

Liu, J. (2007). Philosophical ideas of Confucius and values of restorative justice. Restorative Justice Online. http://www.restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/liujianhong/view

Liu, J., & Palermom, G. B. (2009), Restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture in the context of contemporary Chinese criminal justice reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 7(1), 54.

Liu, J., Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (2001), Crime and Social Control in a Changing China. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 89-105.

Liu, Jianhong, Zhao, Ruohui, Xiong, Haiyan, Gong, Jinlin. Chinese Legal Traditions: Punitiveness versus Mercy. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice Vol.9 No. 1 (2012).

Liu, Q. (2007). A Legal Study of Community Correction. Beijing: Law Press.

Lu, Hong, Miethe, Terance. China’s Death Penalty: History, Law, and Contemporary Practices. Routledge. 2010.

Lui, Jianhong, Zhao, Xiong, Haiyan, Gong, Jinlin. Chinese Legal Traditions: Punitiveness Versus Mercy. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice. Vol. 9 NO. 1. 2012.

Ma X (1959) A written speech of the Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, Ma Xiwu, in administration organs. People’s Judicature (ren min si fa) 10: 35–39.

Ma, Kechang. (2008). Chinese criminal law must also abide by the modest principle. Journal of Yunnan University, 100(5), 1-5. the National Congress of the Advanced Workers from the public security, procuracy and justice.

Markus, H. J., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Mascolo, M. F., Fischer, K. W., & Li, J. (2003). The dynamic construction of emotions in development: A component systems approach. In N. Davidson, K. Scherer & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 375-408). New York: Oxford University Press.

Meiethe, Terrance, Lu, Hong. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 2009.

Menon, U., & Shweder, R. A. (1994). Kali’s tongue: Cultural psychology and the power of shame in Orissa, India. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 241-284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Miao, Michelle. Capital Punishment in China: A populist instrument of Social Governance. Theoretical Criminology 17(2). 223-250. DOI: 10.1177/1362480613476788

Miethe, Terance, Lu, Hong. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge University. 2005.

Nie, X. (1994). A review of Confucian legal thinking, Yunnan Science of Law. 34(4), 75-82.

Palmer, M. The People’s Republic of China. P. Hodgkinson, A. Rutherford (Eds.), Capital punishment: Global issues and prospects, criminal policy series, vol. IIWaterside Press, Winchester, UK (1996), pp. 105–141

Qiao, Wei. (2000). Qiaowei Corpus • Volume Two • History of Chinese Legal System. Jinan: Shandong University Press. P.363.

Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, H. A. (2002). The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition and emotion, 16(1), 143-163.

Rosenberg, Sarah. “Face.” Beyond Intractability. Ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. University of Colorado, Boulder, Feb. 2004.

Seay, Pamella. Law, Crime, and Punishment in the People’s Republic of China: A Comparative Introduction to the Criminal Justice and Legal System of the People’s Republic of China. IND. INT’L & Comp. L. Rev. Vol. 9.1998.

Shaver, P. R., Murdaya, U., & Fraley, R.C. (2001). Structure of the Indonesian emotion lexicon. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 201-224.

Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In M. S. Clark (Ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 175-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Shaw, V. N. (1998). Productive labor and thought reform in Chinese corrections: A historical and comparative analysis. The Prison Journal, 78, 186-211

Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between Americans and Chinese in the circumstances evoking pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 616-629.

Tangney, J. P. (1998). How does guilt differ from shame? In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and children (pp. 1-17). San Diego: Academic Press.

Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Tu, W. M. (1979). Humanity and self-cultivation: Essays in Confucian thought. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press.

Vogler R (2005) A World View of Criminal Justice . Aldershot: Ashgate.

Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories: A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child Development, 71, 1329-1346.

Wilson, R. (1981). Moral behavior in Chinese society: A theoretical perspective. In R. Wilson, S. Greenblatt, & A. Wilson (Eds.), Moral behavior in Chinese society. New York: Praeger

Wright, M. (1991). Justice of Victims and Offenders. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Wu, S.-P., & Lai, C.-Y. (1992). Complete text of the Four Books and Five Classics in modern Chinese. [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: International Culture Press.

Xu, X. Y. (1995). The impact of Western forms of social control on China: A preliminary evaluation.

Yan, Zhuang. Saving Face. An Analysis of Chinese Nationalism. Goucher. 2010. http://www.goucher.edu/Documents/verge/papers8/AnAnalysisofChineseNationalism.pdf

Yang, X. (1983). Yi Shi Zai Collected Academic Works, Shanghai: Renmin Press.

Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus of Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.

Zhai, X. W. (1995). The Chinese concept of face. [in Chinese]. Taipei, Taiwan: Gui Guan.

Zhang, B. F., & Han, Z. Q. (2000). The Judicial system in China. Beijing, China: Law Press.

Zhang, Jinpan. (1993). History of Laws in Qing Dynasty. Beijing: Law Press China. Oct, 1993. P.180.

[1] Fischer, H. A., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (1999). The role of honor-related vs. individualist values in conceptualizing pride, shame, and anger: Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes. Cognition and Emotion, 13(2), 149-179.

[2] Casimire, M. J., & Schnegg, M. (2003). Shame across cultures: The evolution, ontogeny, and function of a “moral emotion.” In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga, & A. Scholmerich (Eds.), Between culture and biology: Perspectives on ontogenetic development. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

[3] Heider, K. (1991). Landscapes of emotion: Mapping three cultures of emotion in Indonesia. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Menon, U., & Shweder, R. A. (1994). Kali’s tongue: Cultural psychology and the power of shame in Orissa, India. In S. Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence (pp. 241-284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[5] Benedict, R. (1946). The chrysanthenum and the sword. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

[6] Crystal, D. S., Parrott, W. G., Okazaki, Y., & Watanabe, H. (2001). Examining relations between shame and personality among university students in the United States and Japan: A developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 113-123.

[7] Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese patterns of behaviors. Honolulu: University of Hawaii

Press.

[8] Fontaine, J. R. J., Poortinga, Y. H., Setiadi, B., & Markam, S. S. (2002). Cognitive structure of emotion terms in Indonesia and The Netherlands. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 61-86

[9] Fischer, H. A., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M. (1999). The role of honor-related vs. individualist values in conceptualizing pride, shame, and anger: Spanish and Dutch cultural prototypes. Cognition and Emotion, 13(2), 149-179.

[10] Markus, H. J., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

[11] Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

[12] Tu, W. M. (1979). Humanity and self-cultivation: Essays in Confucian thought. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press.

[13] Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian Tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner (pp. 45-67). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.

[14] Wu, S.-P., & Lai, C.-Y. (1992). Complete text of the Four Books and Five Classics in modern Chinese. [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: International Culture Press.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Wilson, R. (1981). Moral behavior in Chinese society: A theoretical perspective. In R. Wilson, S. Greenblatt, & A. Wilson (Eds.), Moral behavior in Chinese society. New York: Praeger

[17] Zhai, X. W. (1995). The Chinese concept of face. [in Chinese]. Taipei, Taiwan: Gui Guan.

[18] Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, H. A. (2002). The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition and emotion, 16(1), 143-163.

[19] Shaver, P. R., Murdaya, U., & Fraley, R.C. (2001). Structure of the Indonesian emotion lexicon. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 201-224.

[20] Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between Americans and Chinese in the circumstances evoking pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 616-629.

[21] Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In M. S. Clark (Ed.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 175-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[22] Wang, Q., & Leichtman, M. D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories: A comparison of American and Chinese children’s narratives. Child Development, 71, 1329-1346.

[23] Zhai, X. W. (1995). The Chinese concept of face. [in Chinese]. Taipei, Taiwan: Gui Guan.

[24] Eberhard, W. (1967). Guilt and sin in traditional China. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[25] Fung, H., & Chen, E. C.-H (2001). Across time and beyond skin: Self and transgression in the everyday socialization of shame among Taiwanese preschool children. Social Development, 10(3), 420-437.

[26] Li, J., & K. W. Fischer. (2002). Shame, respect, and conflict in Chinese childrearing and relationships. Harvard Children’s Initiative. Published on line at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~hci/hci/pub/shame.pdf.

[27] Tangney, J. P. (1998). How does guilt differ from shame? In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and children (pp. 1-17). San Diego: Academic Press.

[28] Fung, H., & Chen, E. C.-H (2001). Across time and beyond skin: Self and transgression in the everyday socialization of shame among Taiwanese preschool children. Social Development, 10(3), 420-437.

[29] Mascolo, M. F., Fischer, K. W., & Li, J. (2003). The dynamic construction of emotions in development: A component systems approach. In N. Davidson, K. Scherer & H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 375-408). New York: Oxford University Press.

[30] Tu, W. M. (1979). Humanity and self-cultivation: Essays in Confucian thought. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press.

[31] Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese “heart and mind for wanting to Learn.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 248-269.;Li, J. (in press). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology.

[32] Chen, X.-Y., Rubin, K. H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and peer relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A cross-cultural study. Child Development, 63, 1336-1343.

[33] Lam, Karina Wai-Ling. “The Concern of a Nation’s Face: Evidence in the Chinese Press Coverage of Sports.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 33.1 (1993): 1-79. The University of Hong Kong Libraries. Web.

[34] Yan, Zhuang. Saving Face. An Analysis of Chinese Nationalism. Goucher. 2010. http://www.goucher.edu/Documents/verge/papers8/AnAnalysisofChineseNationalism.pdf

[35] Rosenberg, Sarah. “Face.” Beyond Intractability. Ed. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. University of Colorado, Boulder, Feb. 2004.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Johnson, Wallace. Status and Liability for Punishment in The T’ang Code. Chicago-Kent Law Review. Vol. 71;217. 1995. http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3018&context=cklawreview

[38] Johnson, Wayne. 1995. Status and Liability for Punishment in the T’Ang Code. Kent Law Review. http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3018&context=cklawreview

[39] Xu, X. Y. (1995). The impact of Western forms of social control on China: A preliminary evaluation.

Crime, Law & Social Change, 23, 67-87.

[40] Seay, Pamella. Law, Crime, and Punishment in the People’s Republic of China: A Comparative Introduction to the Criminal Justice and Legal System of the People’s Republic of China. IND. INT’L & Comp. L. Rev. Vol. 9.1998.

[41] Dutton, M. (1992). Policing and punishment in China. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[42] Shaw, V. N. (1998). Productive labor and thought reform in Chinese corrections: A historical

and comparative analysis. The Prison Journal, 78, 186-211

[43] Zhang, B. F., & Han, Z. Q. (2000). The Judicial system in China. Beijing, China: Law Press.

[44]  Cohen JA. 1966. The criminal process in the People’s Republic of China: an introduction. Harvard Law Rev.

79:469–533

[45]  Cai D. 1999. Lishi yu Biange: Xin Zhongguo Fazhi Jianshe de Licheng History and Change: The Process of the Construction of Legal System in New China. Beijing: China Univ. Polit. Sci. Law Press.

[46] Li VH. 1977.Law Without Lawyers: A Comparative View of Law in China and the United States Boulder, CO: Westview Press

[47] Miethe, Terance, Lu, Hong. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge University. 2005.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Meiethe, Terrance, Lu, Hong. Punishment: A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press. 2009.

[50] Ibid. pg. 130.

[51] Johnson DT, Zimring, FE. The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.

[52] Griffin PE (1976) The Chinese Communist Treatment of Counter-Revolutionaries, 1924–1949.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

[53]  Ma X (1959) A written speech of the Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, Ma Xiwu, in

the National Congress of the Advanced Workers from the public security, procuracy and justice

administration organs. People’s Judicature (ren min si fa) 10: 35–39.

[54] Miao, Michelle. Capital Punishment in China: A populist instrument of Social Governance. Theoretical Criminology 17(2). 223-250. DOI: 10.1177/1362480613476788

[55] Ibid. pg. 143.

[56] Johnson DT, Zimring, FE. The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009.

[57] Vogler R (2005) A World View of Criminal Justice . Aldershot: Ashgate.

[58] Jian, Guo, Jianping, Lu. Death Penalty in People’s Republic of China: Quo Vadis? Penal.org. 2006. http://www.penal.org/sites/default/files/files/DeathpenaltyChinaLU.pdf

[59] Bodde & Morris. Law in imperial China. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia (1967)

[60] Palmer, M. The People’s Republic of China. P. Hodgkinson, A. Rutherford (Eds.), Capital punishment: Global issues and prospects, criminal policy series, vol. IIWaterside Press, Winchester, UK (1996), pp. 105–141

[61] Ibid.

[62]  Lepp, A. Note, the death penalty in late imperial, modern, and post-Tiananmen China. Michigan Journal of International Law, 11 (1990), pp. 987–1038

[63] Leng, S., H. Chiu. Criminal justice in post-Mao China: Analysis and documents.  SUNY Press, Albany, NY (1985).

[64] Lee, M. Happy holidays and busy killing fields. Far Eastern Economic Review, 131 (8) (1986), p. 47

[65] Kong, Defa. Study on the Historical Evolution of Chinese System of Voluntary Surrender. CCSEnet. http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/viewFile/2308/2166

[66] Ibid.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Zhang, Jinpan. (1993). History of Laws in Qing Dynasty. Beijing: Law Press China. Oct, 1993. P.180.

[72] Cheng, Shude. (2006). Textural Research of Nine Dynasties’ Laws. Taibei: Zhonghua Book Company. Nov, 2006. P.268 & 335.

[73] Cheng, Shude. (2006). Textural Research of Nine Dynasties’ Laws. Taibei: Zhonghua Book Company. Nov, 2006. P.268 & 335.

[74] Kong, Defa. Study on the Historical Evolution of Chinese System of Voluntary Surrender. Journal of Politics and Law. Vol.2. No.2.

[75] Qiao, Wei. (2000). Qiaowei Corpus · Volume Two · History of Chinese Legal System. Jinan: Shandong University Press. P.363.

[76] Lu, Hong, Miethe, Terance. China’s Death Penalty: History, Law, and Contemporary Practices. Routledge. 2010.

[77] Bassiouni, M. Cherif & Badr, Gamal M., ‘The Sharia’h: sources, interpretation, and rule-making’, (2002) 1 UCLA Journal of Islamic and Near Eastern Law, 135.

[78]

[79] Hallaq, Wael B., An introduction to Islamic law (Cambridge University Press 2009).

[80] Ibid.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Liu, Jianhong, Zhao, Ruohui, Xiong, Haiyan, Gong, Jinlin. Chinese Legal Traditions: Punitiveness versus Mercy. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice Vol.9 No. 1 (2012).

[83] Chen, Albert. Constitutionalism in Asia in the Early Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press. 2014.

[84] Liu, J. (2007). Philosophical ideas of Confucius and values of restorative justice. Restorative Justice Online. http://www.restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/liujianhong/view

[85] Nie, X. (1994). A review of Confucian legal thinking, Yunnan Science of Law. 34(4), 75-82.

[86] Ibid.

[87] Chen, J. (1998). “Applying propriety to law”: exploring legal culture, Fu Jian Academic Journal: 2, 7-9.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Chen, X. (1992). Philosophy of Criminal Law. Beijing: Chinese University of Politic Science Press.

[90] Li, M., & Duan, Y. (2010). On “leniency and rigidity” Criminal Justice Policy. Commercial Culture, 6:17-18.

[91] Liu, J. (2007). Philosophical ideas of Confucius and values of restorative justice. Restorative Justice Online. http://www.restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/liujianhong/view

[92] Yang, X. (1983). Yi Shi Zai Collected Academic Works, Shanghai: Renmin Press.

[93] Liu, J., Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (2001), Crime and Social Control in a Changing China. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 89-105.

[94] Nie, X. (1994). A review of Confucian legal thinking, Yunnan Science of Law. 34(4), 75-82.

[95] Yang, X. (1983). Yi Shi Zai Collected Academic Works, Shanghai: Renmin Press.

[96] Liu, J., Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (2001), Crime and Social Control in a Changing China. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 89-105.

[97] Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus of Crime and Justice. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.

[98] Wright, M. (1991). Justice of Victims and Offenders. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

[99] Liu, J., & Palermom, G. B. (2009), Restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture in the context of contemporary Chinese criminal justice reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 7(1), 54.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Liu, Q. (2007). A Legal Study of Community Correction. Beijing: Law Press.

[102] Ibid.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Liu, J., & Palermom, G. B. (2009), Restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture in the context of contemporary Chinese criminal justice reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 7(1), 54.

[105] Ibid.

[106] Lui, Jianhong, Zhao, Xiong, Haiyan, Gong, Jinlin. Chinese Legal Traditions: Punitiveness Versus Mercy. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice. Vol. 9 NO. 1. 2012.

[107] Liu, Q. (2007). A Legal Study of Community Correction. Beijing: Law Press

[108] Liu, J., & Palermom, G. B. (2009), Restorative justice and Chinese traditional legal culture in the context of contemporary Chinese criminal justice reform. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 7(1), 54.

[109] Liu, Q. (2007). A Legal Study of Community Correction. Beijing: Law Press

[110] Dong, K., & Ding, T. (2009). Report on the reform of the penal enforcement system. In Li Lin, Report on Development of Chinese Justice (pp. 231-239). Beijing: Social science literature Press.

[111] Li, D. (2010). On community corrections in China. Modern Business Trade Industry (China), 11:77-78

[112] Ibid.

[113] Li, W., & Ning, W. (2010). Implementation of the “integration of leniency and rigidity” criminal justice policy. Economic Research Guide, 13: 188-189.

[114] Ibid.

[115] Ibid.

[116] Ma, Kechang. (2008). Chinese criminal law must also abide by the modest principle. Journal of Yunnan University, 100(5), 1-5.