Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China
In China, the dramatic increase in the number of trials and convictions of corrupt officials leads to the question of how they were sentenced and by what criteria. The puzzle is, in particular, to what extent judicial discretion plays a role in sentencing corrupt officials and, if judicial discretio...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of contemporary China 2019-03, Vol.28 (116), p.245-259 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 259 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 116 |
| container_start_page | 245 |
| container_title | The Journal of contemporary China |
| container_volume | 28 |
| creator | Gong, Ting Wang, Shiru Li, Hui |
| description | In China, the dramatic increase in the number of trials and convictions of corrupt officials leads to the question of how they were sentenced and by what criteria. The puzzle is, in particular, to what extent judicial discretion plays a role in sentencing corrupt officials and, if judicial discretion does exist, how the discretionary power is exercised. This article addresses these questions based on 7304 court judgments in 2014-15, which were obtained from the official website of the Supreme People's Court. The authors' analysis reveals strong evidence of the presence of a high level of judicial discretion and considerable inconsistency in court judgments. This article further explores the possible explanations for sentencing disparities in corruption cases to show how extra-judicial factors may influence judicial decisions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/10670564.2018.1511395 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2179754668</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2179754668</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f421406c0c519b912045f9c80d8fb704baea33b4617076306758097f49d0aa663</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsfQSh43jqz-be5KdWqUPCgnkN2m2hKm6zJFum3N6X16mkew3tvhh8h1whThAZuEYQELti0BmymyBGp4idkhEyoSjGA06KLp9qbzslFzisAEErBiNA3GwYbOh8-Jw8-9yb5wds88WEyiylt-8HHIk0-7r58MJfkzJl1tlfHOSYf88f32XO1eH16md0vqo7SZqgcq5GB6KDjqFqFNTDuVNfAsnGtBNYaayhtmUAJUtDyIG9AScfUEowRgo7JzaG3T_F7a_OgV3GbQjmpa5RKciZEU1z84OpSzDlZp_vkNybtNILe89F_fPSejz7yKbm7Q84HF9PG_MS0XurB7NYxuWQKkqzp_xW_Z2BpkQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2179754668</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>EBSCOhost Political Science Complete</source><creator>Gong, Ting ; Wang, Shiru ; Li, Hui</creator><creatorcontrib>Gong, Ting ; Wang, Shiru ; Li, Hui</creatorcontrib><description>In China, the dramatic increase in the number of trials and convictions of corrupt officials leads to the question of how they were sentenced and by what criteria. The puzzle is, in particular, to what extent judicial discretion plays a role in sentencing corrupt officials and, if judicial discretion does exist, how the discretionary power is exercised. This article addresses these questions based on 7304 court judgments in 2014-15, which were obtained from the official website of the Supreme People's Court. The authors' analysis reveals strong evidence of the presence of a high level of judicial discretion and considerable inconsistency in court judgments. This article further explores the possible explanations for sentencing disparities in corruption cases to show how extra-judicial factors may influence judicial decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1067-0564</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-9400</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2018.1511395</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>Asian studies ; Convictions ; Corruption ; Corruption in government ; Court decisions ; Criminal sentences ; Criteria ; Discretionary power ; Inconsistency ; Judicial discretion ; Supreme courts</subject><ispartof>The Journal of contemporary China, 2019-03, Vol.28 (116), p.245-259</ispartof><rights>2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2018</rights><rights>2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f421406c0c519b912045f9c80d8fb704baea33b4617076306758097f49d0aa663</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gong, Ting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shiru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Hui</creatorcontrib><title>Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China</title><title>The Journal of contemporary China</title><description>In China, the dramatic increase in the number of trials and convictions of corrupt officials leads to the question of how they were sentenced and by what criteria. The puzzle is, in particular, to what extent judicial discretion plays a role in sentencing corrupt officials and, if judicial discretion does exist, how the discretionary power is exercised. This article addresses these questions based on 7304 court judgments in 2014-15, which were obtained from the official website of the Supreme People's Court. The authors' analysis reveals strong evidence of the presence of a high level of judicial discretion and considerable inconsistency in court judgments. This article further explores the possible explanations for sentencing disparities in corruption cases to show how extra-judicial factors may influence judicial decisions.</description><subject>Asian studies</subject><subject>Convictions</subject><subject>Corruption</subject><subject>Corruption in government</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Criminal sentences</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Discretionary power</subject><subject>Inconsistency</subject><subject>Judicial discretion</subject><subject>Supreme courts</subject><issn>1067-0564</issn><issn>1469-9400</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE9LAzEQxYMoWKsfQSh43jqz-be5KdWqUPCgnkN2m2hKm6zJFum3N6X16mkew3tvhh8h1whThAZuEYQELti0BmymyBGp4idkhEyoSjGA06KLp9qbzslFzisAEErBiNA3GwYbOh8-Jw8-9yb5wds88WEyiylt-8HHIk0-7r58MJfkzJl1tlfHOSYf88f32XO1eH16md0vqo7SZqgcq5GB6KDjqFqFNTDuVNfAsnGtBNYaayhtmUAJUtDyIG9AScfUEowRgo7JzaG3T_F7a_OgV3GbQjmpa5RKciZEU1z84OpSzDlZp_vkNybtNILe89F_fPSejz7yKbm7Q84HF9PG_MS0XurB7NYxuWQKkqzp_xW_Z2BpkQ</recordid><startdate>20190304</startdate><enddate>20190304</enddate><creator>Gong, Ting</creator><creator>Wang, Shiru</creator><creator>Li, Hui</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C18</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190304</creationdate><title>Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China</title><author>Gong, Ting ; Wang, Shiru ; Li, Hui</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-f421406c0c519b912045f9c80d8fb704baea33b4617076306758097f49d0aa663</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Asian studies</topic><topic>Convictions</topic><topic>Corruption</topic><topic>Corruption in government</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Criminal sentences</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Discretionary power</topic><topic>Inconsistency</topic><topic>Judicial discretion</topic><topic>Supreme courts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gong, Ting</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shiru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Hui</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The Journal of contemporary China</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gong, Ting</au><au>Wang, Shiru</au><au>Li, Hui</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of contemporary China</jtitle><date>2019-03-04</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>116</issue><spage>245</spage><epage>259</epage><pages>245-259</pages><issn>1067-0564</issn><eissn>1469-9400</eissn><abstract>In China, the dramatic increase in the number of trials and convictions of corrupt officials leads to the question of how they were sentenced and by what criteria. The puzzle is, in particular, to what extent judicial discretion plays a role in sentencing corrupt officials and, if judicial discretion does exist, how the discretionary power is exercised. This article addresses these questions based on 7304 court judgments in 2014-15, which were obtained from the official website of the Supreme People's Court. The authors' analysis reveals strong evidence of the presence of a high level of judicial discretion and considerable inconsistency in court judgments. This article further explores the possible explanations for sentencing disparities in corruption cases to show how extra-judicial factors may influence judicial decisions.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/10670564.2018.1511395</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1067-0564 |
| ispartof | The Journal of contemporary China, 2019-03, Vol.28 (116), p.245-259 |
| issn | 1067-0564 1469-9400 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2179754668 |
| source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; EBSCOhost Political Science Complete |
| subjects | Asian studies Convictions Corruption Corruption in government Court decisions Criminal sentences Criteria Discretionary power Inconsistency Judicial discretion Supreme courts |
| title | Sentencing Disparities in Corruption Cases in China |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T06%3A53%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sentencing%20Disparities%20in%20Corruption%20Cases%20in%20China&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20contemporary%20China&rft.au=Gong,%20Ting&rft.date=2019-03-04&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=116&rft.spage=245&rft.epage=259&rft.pages=245-259&rft.issn=1067-0564&rft.eissn=1469-9400&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/10670564.2018.1511395&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2179754668%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2179754668&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |