China's Jury System

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

--Thomas Jefferson

Two days ago, I had the pleasure of talking to Hon. Duan, a senior justice on the Supreme People's Court of China, who is currently on administrative leave to study American administrative laws here at SMU Law School. In our two hour long conversation, we talked about many different topics regarding the Chinese and American legal and judicial systems. One of the most interesting discussions concerns the jury systems in both countries. The United States has a very unique jury system that is often vilified and glorified by people of different philosophies. However, many people probably do not know that China actually has its own jury system, at least on the books. So, I think the importance of this subject deserves a little discussion on this blog.

A. History of the Chinese Jury System:

My cursory research reveals that a rudimentary jury system existed even during the early days of the communist revolution. The idea was that common people would be selected to participate in rendering justice. However, the jury system formally established in the 1954 Constitution, along with the entire justice system, came to a halt during the horrific Cultural Revolution. The end of the Cultural Revolution gave the Chinese jury system a second chance. In 2004, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress promulgated the Resolution/Decision Regarding Improving the People's Jury System ( 关于完善人民陪审制度的决定) ("Jury System Decision"), which came into effect on May 1, 2005. Currently, the Chinese jury system theoratically operates under this piece of legislation.

B. The Criteria for Selecting Jurors:

Pursuant to Articles 4-6 of the Jury System Decision, a candidate for the people's juror must meet the following requirements:

a. must uphold the Chinese Constitution;

b. must be older than 23 years of age;

c. must be of good moral character;

d. must be physically fit and healthy;

e. must have a minimum of a junior college degree (大学专科文凭);

f. must not be a lawyer, a member of the National's People of Congress, employee of the Public Security Bureau, People's courts, People's procuratorate, or National Security;

g. must not have committed a crime;

h. must not have been terminated from public office.

C. Method of Selection:

Assuming that candidates meet the above-criteria, they can be nominated by their work units (Danwei) to the local people's court for consideration. After nomination, the local people's court and the justice department of local government coorporate to evaluate such individuals before they could be recommended to the chief judge of the local court, who can then petition the local people's congress to officially appoint the recommended individuals as jurors.

The number of jurors is determined by the local people's courts on a as-needed basis.

D. Working Procedures:

First of all, Chinese jurors, unlike American jurors, have the same authority as other judges who serve on the presiding panel. They could ask questions during court proceedings, and can cast votes regarding the final decision and outcome of cases. In fact, Chinese trial courts, much like appellate courts, decide cases based on the principle of majority rule. In other words, if the juror vote is in accordance with the vote of another judge panelist, then the majority votes determine the outcome of the case.

Second, jurors can participate in cases of varying nature. Except for summary judge proceedings (简易程序审理) and other cases provided for by law, jurors could hear, along with his/her judge panelists, the following types of cases:

a. criminal, civil and administrative cases of significant social impact;

b. criminal, civil and administrative cases where criminal defendant or plaintiff in administrative case requests juror presence.

Third, the law requires that where jurors participate, there must be at least one juror for every two judges.

Fourth, the normal term for jurors is five (5) years.

Fifth, jurors, like judges, must avoid conflicts of interest during legal proceedings, and must undergo professinal training regarding procedures and substantive law.

E. Compensation for Jurors:

Chinese jurors, like their American counterparts, are entitled to monetary compensation for their service. However, much like their American counterparts, their compensation is minimal. The source of such compensation lies in the budget of the local courts and governments.

F. The Reality of the Jury System in China:

While I applaud the jury system as established by Chinese law, I have to say that the system exists largely on paper. Based on the facts above, it is obvious that severe impediments exist for the actual functionaity of the Chinese jury system. First, the selection criteria post a high bar for many Chinese people. The intent behind such criteria is that only people with good education and connections could possibly be nominated, not to mention being appointed. Second, because of budgetary limitations, courts and local governments are not going to fork out more money to conduct jury trials. Third, I doubt that litigants in China actually prefer to have jurors serving on their presiding panel (this is to be debated and researched.). As a result, the jury system does not play a significant part in the Chinese justice system.

G. Future of the Chinese Jury System:

One thing is certain--the Chinese government obivously thinks that jurors do have a role to play in the justice system, given the relatively long history of the system in Communist China. The question is how the jury system can actually be implemented or reformed to function. On that note, Justice Duan thinks that the American jury system appears to guarantee procedural fairness, while the Chinese system appears to strive for substantive fairness by imposing high standards on juror candadates. She believes that China can actually borrow the spirit of the American system to ensure procedural fairness in Chinese legal proceedings. How the Chinese jury system be fashioned in the future remains to be seen.

Extraordinary Time is No Excuse for Extra Judicial Partiality

Two camps of lawmakers are debating what role Chinese courts should play in China during this extraordinarily trying time.

One camp believe that the courts should remain neutral, irrespective of how the financial and economic crisis is impacting businesses, and that the courts should be the instruments of justice in China's market economy.

For example, lawmaker Peng Xuefeng, director of the All China Lawyers Association, believes that:

"Prudent handling of company owners suspected of breaking the law is not a good option to solve current disputes resulted from financial woes."

[Market economy was fundamentally] "an economy ruled by law" and the economic development in the long run especially needed an integral legal guarantee, ..., adding there was no place for sentiment in judicial organs.

Peng represents the group of lawmakers who are of the view that the courts should not be taking sides, should not in any way favor businesses and companies in violation of the law, despite the macro economic circumstances.  They essentially believe that the courts are there to enforce the law.  Period.  There is no need to venture beyond the bounds of the law and the facts as they relate to the law.  In a certain sense, these are the pure jurists.

On the other hand, the second camp, which includes the current President of the Supreme People's Court of China, believes that the courts should play a more constructive and active role in assisting defendant businesses  weather the economic storm so as to contribute to social stability in China.  Specifically, they believe that 

...courts at all levels should "prudently use such compulsory measures as sealing up, impounding or freezing assets of companies," and should "promptly offer judiciary advisories to help enterprises in operational difficulty tide over economic woes." 

In helping enterprises deal with the economic hard times, courts, as the second camp believe, should uphold the law, while at the same time soften the way the law is to be enforced.  For example, when it comes to freezing the assets or impounding equipments of businesses, the courts should take into consideration how many jobs will be lost, and what collateral social consequences of such enforcement actions would result.  

This debate is nothing new, and it represents the tough situation Chinese courts are in.  They are painfully dependent upon other administrative organs in the Chinese government; therefore, they must bend in the direction that the prevailing political wind is blowing.  If the country is in tough financial times, courts are expected to be soft on enterprises in violation of the law; if the country needs to strike down on piracy or IP infringements, courts should act accordingly.  Courts are always caught up in politics.

The debate also reveals the reality of the rule of law in China.  The rule of law serves a political purpose.  It should serve purpose whereby the courts dispenses justice ONLY, free of political tides.  

I believe the second camp of people are short-sighted.  They see only the short-term benefit of lenient law enforcement on the part of the courts, but they fail to see the long-term ill of a judicial system that obeys both the law and political leaders.  They see only the upside of courts taking a temporary pro-business stance, but they fail to see the consequence of the same courts taking a pro-labor/pro-consumer/pro-whatever stance under different circumstances.  What they need to see is the value of a judicial system with courts and judges that are neutral and bound by the law only.

 

Judicial Committees Reformed for Fairer Rulings

Judicial reform has been a pretty hot topic these days on the Chinese judges’ mind. When Grand Justice Wang Erxiang last visited the United Stated to deliver his speech at a function organized by the Organization of American States, he detailed past reforms to the Chinese judiciary, and sketched out a blueprint for future reform targets. At the U.S.-China Rule of Law Forum held at SMU Dedman School of Law this month, the topic also surfaced during the program.

And just a few days ago, Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of China, Xiao Yang, announced some more reforms to the judiciary. Changes introduced by the reforms focus on how judicial committees in each court conduct their business. Judicial committees are “the highest decision-making bodies in the Chinese judicial system.” From now on, judicial committee members must cease to make their rulings behind the curtains, and must “join the bench to hear or try cases themselves.” With respect to decisions, the judges of judicial committees will cast secret ballots to reach agreements (assuming that majority vote controls).

If these changes do occur in the first instance courts (trial courts), it is hopeful that quality of judicial decisions might improve. After all, judicial committees used to rule on cases without sitting on the bench. I understand that a heavy portion of trials is about written advocacy and examining real evidence, but it is quite baffling to have trial judges making final rulings on cases without taking a single look at the parties involved. Maybe, forcing decision-making judges to be present on the bench will have a positive impact on the overall quality of rulings. At least, they will have a better picture/understanding of cases by hearing or trying them on the bench, rather than in their chambers.

Well, for whatever its worth is, here is the report on this out of the Supreme People’s Court.

U.S.--China Rule of Law Forum

Today, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the U.S.-China Rule of Law Forum. The U.S.—China Rule of Law Forum is an exchange program, sponsored by Senator Kaye Bailey Hutchinson (Texas), and it is hosted by Dean Attanasio at the SMU Dedman School of Law. Because of the high profile of the Chinese delegation and the lively discussions during the program, it is one hour well spent, and I’d like to share what I witnessed.

First, the Chinese delegation consists of a group of people from various legal backgrounds. Some are law professors, such as Professor Lixin Yang; some are from the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress; some are from the Ministry of Justice; some are from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China; and a few are from private practice; and a Grand Justice, Mr. Liu Jiachen of the Supreme People’s Court, was also a member. In sum, the delegation is good mix of people with substantial knowledge about the development and reform in China’s legal system.

Second, Madam Liu gave a 30 minute keynote speech, titled the Legal Situation and Law Reform in China. During her speech, she briefly highlighted China’s achievement in comprehensive legal reform since the late 1970s. She cited some interesting statistics: in the past 30 years, China enacted about 230 laws, 1000 administrative regulations, and over 10,000 local rules and regulations throughout the country. In the meantime, China also amended and appealed many laws to weed out those no longer in sync with the Chinese society. As a result of these developments, China has established political, social, economic relationships in a brand new legal system governed by law. And the establishment of the legal system has led to specifications of rights and duties of parties, methods of dispute resolution, and a fundamental state policy—rule by law.

Madam Liu was also quick to note the long way ahead of China’s efforts to build a society ruled by law. Much has been accomplished, yet much remains to be done. In the long way ahead, China is willing and ready to borrow from legislative successes from other nations, including those in the common law system. She specifically noted the legal accomplishments of the United States in building a system of the rule of law that works for the U.S., and in training “an army of a million lawyers.”

Her identification with the U.S. legal system quickly turned into a discussion about the importance of building individual legal systems appropriate for each sovereign nation. Each nation has the right to choose a legal system based its own historical, social, and economic backgrounds. And a recognition of the uniqueness of legal systems in different countries help build a world with diverse and colorful legal systems.

Then, Madam Liu calls on the U.S. and China to cooperate in building stronger mutual understanding on the rule of law. In the context of increasing globalization, nations need to work together to achieve justice, build equality, and resolve conflicts. To achieve that, many Chinese students are choosing the study of law, making law practice a fast growing professional area.

Third, I post only the highlights of the Q & A session that I was able to jot down.

Question 1 (SMU law student)—How much deference do courts give to the Chinese communist party opinions/directions in reaching their decisions?

Answer (Grand Justice Jiachen Liu)—Judicial independence is protected by the Chinese Constitution. The judiciary works very hard to try cases independently and their work is in line with the will of the people. Some people in the West misunderstand judicial independence in China, and ignores that China has chosen its own path for its judiciary, which serves China well.

Question 2 (SMU law student)—How will Hong Kong’s common law system mesh with China’s legal system in the coming years?

Answer (member from the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress)—Hong Kong is currently governed by its own Basic Law, under which judicial judgments are independent and final. Even though the judicial systems in China and Hong Kong are widely different, the Central Government and Hong Kong (SAR) Government can operate under the Basic Law to resolve differences. However, if issues concerning technicality cannot be resolved that way, the Standing Committee of the People’s Congress has the power and authority to issue its own interpretation, which will be controlling in resolving such technical differences. This has been done and been accepted by the people of Hong Kong.

Question 3 (SMU reference librarian)—China currently has a compilation system for laws based principally on the date of promulgation. What kind of progress has China made in creating a comprehensive code, like the US Code, to make research on Chinese law easier?

Answer (Member from the Standing Committee)—It is still a work in progress; and it has been a problem for our own researcher as well. We have made some progress in building a comprehensive legal database of laws and regulations. That should make researching easier if you have the URL to that website.

Question 4 (SMU student, me)—China recently revised its Lawyer’s Law to make lawyers’ lives easier. But one persistent issue still seems to loom at large. Article 34 of the Lawyer’s Law requires a lawyer to keep his client’s secret information confidential (i.e. past crime), but Article 84 of the Criminal Procedure Law requires any individual to report any information about crimes to law enforcement authorities. If we consider lawyers as individuals in the sense of the Criminal Procedure Law, there is an apparent conflict between the two laws. How should a lawyer deal with this issue in his/her practice?

Answer 4 (Law professor, Bingzhi Zhao)—As a law professor and a part-time practicing attorney, I hope to answer this question. On the surface, there seems to be a conflict. However, there is no direct conflict. If you look at the apparent conflict in the frame of the relationship between laws, it looks very different. Some laws are special, such as the Lawyer’s Law. Because lawyers enjoy an immunity from the reporting duty under the Criminal Procedure Law while representing a client, the conflict goes away in that situation. In the past decade since the promulgation of the Lawyer’s Law, this apparent conflict was consistently dealt that way.

[Sidebar: another delegate told me in private conversation that the Criminal Procedure Law will soon be amended, which will probably deal with the conflict.]

Question 5 (SMU law student)—Would you please talk about China’s efforts in intellectual property protection?

Answer—IPR protection is both a Chinese and a global issue. Since China’s entry to the WTO, China has paid more attention to IPR protection in a three-pronged approach: legislation, administrative agency enforcement, and police involvement. In terms of progress made in China, here are the statistics:
2002—2006, about 54,321 IP cases were filed in various courts; 52,000 cases were adjudicated by courts. Compared to the same 5 year period between 1997 and 2001, those numbers represent a growth of 145% and 141%, respectively.

By 2006, China has 172 courts devoted to try IP cases.

China has 16,600 judges specializing in IP cases.

Question 6 (SMU law student)—What type of legal regime does China have in dealing with product liability in light of the recent product recalls?

Answer (Professor Lixin Yang)—China actually borrowed heavily from the American and British common law in creating its own product liability law. In 1986, the General Principles of Civil Code was passed, whose Article 122 is devoted to tort liability. While China is in the middle of creating its comprehensive Civil Code, the Tort Law will be lifted out of general provisions and be an independent body of law in the Civil Code. In a civil law system, it is rare to have an independent Tort Law. And the Tort Law will probably come out either next year or in 2009.

I hope that you enjoyed my long notes from this function. It was an incredible experience for me.

China’s Judiciary: Past, Present, and Future

China Law Professor Blog’s recent post alerted me to the video recording and outline of a speech delivered by Justice Wan Exiang (万鄂湘) at the Organization of American States.

Justice Wan Exiang had his legal training in Wuhan University in China and at Yale Law School, and he is recognized as an expert in international law. He is a Grand Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of China, and teaches at the Wuhan University Law School. Here is his resume in Chinese; here in English.

On September 25, 2007, he delivered his speech, in his own words, as a law professor so as to promote open discussion on the reforms of China’s judiciary. The speech last about an hour, but he did a nice job of sketching out the grand schemes of reforms undertaken by China as well as work that remains to be done.

It is well worth the time to listen to the speech in its entirety. I advise you to read the outline first so that you don’t miss anything in listening to it.