{"title":"中国减刑的程序化与功利化——法官减刑观与改革观","authors":"Yao Ding, Ivan Y. Sun, Qianwei Zhao, Eric W. Rise","doi":"10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In China, courts review and determine commutation petitions proposed by prisons. However, the judicial process and procedures of commutation decisions tend to be rubber-stamping and symbolic, with more than 98% of petitions being approved. This study focuses on judges’ attitudes toward current trial practices and proposed commutation reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 judges responsible for handling commutation cases in a northern Chinese province. Findings suggest that the dispositions of commutation cases are highly ceremonial and routinized, supporting the street-level bureaucratic and bounded rationality arguments in judicial behavior. Besides high workload, inadequate resources, legal and procedural constraints, the judicial culture of emphasizing inter-agency collaboration over adversary processes, and the concern about the management of inmates are instrumental in shaping judges’ decision-making. Moreover, judges have reservations about the recently proposed reforms of commutation practices because of the staffing shortage, waste of trial resources, and excessive interference of judicial power into administrative power. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45526,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Criminology","volume":"18 3","pages":"273 - 295"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Routinization and Utilitarianism of Sentence Reduction in China: Judges’ Views of Commutation and Reforms\",\"authors\":\"Yao Ding, Ivan Y. Sun, Qianwei Zhao, Eric W. Rise\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In China, courts review and determine commutation petitions proposed by prisons. However, the judicial process and procedures of commutation decisions tend to be rubber-stamping and symbolic, with more than 98% of petitions being approved. This study focuses on judges’ attitudes toward current trial practices and proposed commutation reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 judges responsible for handling commutation cases in a northern Chinese province. Findings suggest that the dispositions of commutation cases are highly ceremonial and routinized, supporting the street-level bureaucratic and bounded rationality arguments in judicial behavior. Besides high workload, inadequate resources, legal and procedural constraints, the judicial culture of emphasizing inter-agency collaboration over adversary processes, and the concern about the management of inmates are instrumental in shaping judges’ decision-making. Moreover, judges have reservations about the recently proposed reforms of commutation practices because of the staffing shortage, waste of trial resources, and excessive interference of judicial power into administrative power. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"273 - 295\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11417-023-09401-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Routinization and Utilitarianism of Sentence Reduction in China: Judges’ Views of Commutation and Reforms
In China, courts review and determine commutation petitions proposed by prisons. However, the judicial process and procedures of commutation decisions tend to be rubber-stamping and symbolic, with more than 98% of petitions being approved. This study focuses on judges’ attitudes toward current trial practices and proposed commutation reforms. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 judges responsible for handling commutation cases in a northern Chinese province. Findings suggest that the dispositions of commutation cases are highly ceremonial and routinized, supporting the street-level bureaucratic and bounded rationality arguments in judicial behavior. Besides high workload, inadequate resources, legal and procedural constraints, the judicial culture of emphasizing inter-agency collaboration over adversary processes, and the concern about the management of inmates are instrumental in shaping judges’ decision-making. Moreover, judges have reservations about the recently proposed reforms of commutation practices because of the staffing shortage, waste of trial resources, and excessive interference of judicial power into administrative power. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Electronic submission now possible! Please see the Instructions for Authors. For general information about this new journal please contact the publisher at [welmoed.spahr@springer.com] The Asian Journal of Criminology aims to advance the study of criminology and criminal justice in Asia, to promote evidence-based public policy in crime prevention, and to promote comparative studies about crime and criminal justice. The Journal provides a platform for criminologists, policymakers, and practitioners and welcomes manuscripts relating to crime, crime prevention, criminal law, medico-legal topics and the administration of criminal justice in Asian countries. The Journal especially encourages theoretical and methodological papers with an emphasis on evidence-based, empirical research addressing crime in Asian contexts. It seeks to publish research arising from a broad variety of methodological traditions, including quantitative, qualitative, historical, and comparative methods. The Journal fosters a multi-disciplinary focus and welcomes manuscripts from a variety of disciplines, including criminology, criminal justice, law, sociology, psychology, forensic science, social work, urban studies, history, and geography.