Cui Yingjie’s Sentence–a Lawyer’s View
Apr 13th, 2007 by LKS
On caopeng’s blog, Cao Peng (曹鹏) evaluates Cui’s verdict and discusses whether it meets his expectations and those of the Chinese law community. This blog is in Chinese–I’ve translated it below:
A Disappointing Verdict
If this case were classified according to the methodology of the Beijing Impact Law Firm, it would fall under “impact litigation.” Our interest in this case not only concerns whether Cui Yingjie will or will not be sentenced to die—we put more hope in how his case will influence the progress of the rule of law. When this case had just begun, many people organized discussion groups regarding city governance. I believe that this demonstrates the public’s expectations regarding this case.
As my friends have pointed out, Cui Yingjie’s case carries a number of similarities with that of Sun Zhigang (孙志刚) several years ago. At that time, Sun’s death caused the abolishment of methods for “detainment and relocation.” (收容遣送办法) Therefore, after the Cui case, we naturally would focus our attention on the notorious chengguan (城管) system, and we also hope that this case could further stimulate improvement in the rule of law without loss of life.
However, the sentence clearly destroys this kind of hope. Regarding the essential issues in this case—are chengguans a legal administrative body? Were the actions of the victim in this case, Li Zhiqiang, and his co-workers legal? (Substantial law 实体法 and procedural law 程序法)—the court did not clearly answer. (Note: At present, I have not seen the full text of the sentencing statement; I’m basing my comments on media reports.) But it is clear that these issues have a great influence on the severity of the accused’s crime. This is also an important opportunity for the court to assume its constitutional role as judicial supervisor of administrators. So while I am relieved that Cui Yingjie’s life will be spared, I am also heartily disappointed in the ambiguous nature of the court’s decision.
I also understand the so-called “Chinese characteristics,” in that we can’t make our “People’s Court” completely identical to courts under capitalist “separation of powers” systems. Although the People’s Court and the People’s government are different, in many respects they are essentially integrated, especially on important, princpled, or fundamental issues. But for cases of this level, I’m still disappointed that when the issue of whether or not the [CCP] is acting legally arises, this government that waves the flag of “legally governing the country, legally administering…” has no ability to supervise itself, criticize itself, or assume responsibility in cases when it’s actions are clearly illegal. This was such a great opportunity to create an image of jurisdiction over the government’s authority, and strengthen the people’s confidence in the rule of law! A pity it was thrown away in this way!
Of course, it is possible that my expectations are too high, and perhaps it is too early to know whether this case will cause the People’s government to gradually reform the chengguan system and clarify the legality of their actions. Exactly as the State Council abolished the incarceration methods [after the Sun case]. Back then, didn’t we feel extremely grateful?
