Procedural Justice and the Fair Trial in Contemporary Chinese Criminal Justice

Nesossi, Elisa; Trevaskes, Susan

doi:10.1163/9789004386389

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since its first introduction in the Criminal Law (‘ CL ’) 1979, social dangerousness has long been recognized as the theoretical bedrock of characterizing an illegal act and imposing ensuing penalty in the criminal law (Zhao and Chen, 2013). While this notion has yet to acquire any formal legal definition (Epstein and Wong, 1996; Nesossi and Trevaskes, 2018), social dangerousness has been portrayed as involving ‘judgment about the severity of an illegal act, the harms inflicted to the individual victim(s), and pertinent social relations’ (Nesossi and Trevaskes, 2018: 3). Technically, it draws a distinction between crime (criminal wrong) and unlawful (civil wrong) behaviors.…”

Section: Risk and A Multifaceted Concept Of ‘Social Dangerousness’ In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

In the Name of Prevention? Policing ‘Social Dangerousness’ Through Arrest in China

2020

Social & Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past half-century, the nexus between risk and prevention has increasingly become a constant preoccupation among many criminal justice regimes around the globe. In China, while the significant rise in crime following the marketization has been envisaged as an important source of risk, a criminal law concept of ‘social dangerousness’ has gained increasing prominence in the country’s crime control, policing and punishment systems. This article aims to shed light on how social dangerousness has been juxtaposed with and informed China’s preventative state through critical inquiry into the police power of arrest. I argue that the recent legal consolidation of social dangerousness as a prerequisite to arrest has enabled this coercive measure to become more preventive in purpose. By creating an ever-expanding purview of arrest, the police become more capable of capturing the largest possible cohort of suspects deemed ‘socially dangerous’. This is exacerbated by the legal opacity and ambiguity of social dangerousness, which allows manipulation and liberal application by police in diverse scenarios. My analysis suggests that the preventive dimension of arrest manifests itself largely as a punitive power, which runs the risk of turning arrest into a ‘punitive-preventive measure’. This will, inevitably, impose the same amount of intrusiveness and harsh treatment on suspects regardless of their risk levels. It is more concerning that the fusion of preventiveness and punitiveness has managed to circumvent close scrutiny of the justification for the preventive end of arrest by failing to see the need for periodic review.

show abstract

Section: Risk and A Multifaceted Concept Of ‘Social Dangerousness’ In Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%