Previous 3 / 3 Next

陆和其他地区属于公有领域。注：中⽂维基⽂库社群认为，中华⼈民共和国公务演讲，不总是具有⽴法、⾏政、司法性质的⽂件。检索⾃“https://zh.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=贾敬⻰故意杀⼈死刑复核刑事裁定书&oldid=1870170”

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Jia Jinglong (贾敬龙)

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

China

Case Title: Jia Jinglong’s Intentional Homicide Case

Age at Offence: 28

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Unknown

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 35.8617

Longitude: 104.1954

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): China

Contributing TRP Partner

The Rights Practice (United Kingdom)
The Rights Practice Partner (China)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Executed

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2015

Method of Execution: Firing/Shooting: One to one

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Excessive and disproportionate punishment
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to adequate legal representation at all stages
Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to appeal

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Single Victim

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: DNA/Serology/Biology
Forensic/Medical evidence: Mobile/Computer/Digital evidence
Mental Health: Psychiatrist

Case Background (300 words max): The defendant, a 28-year-old villager, fatally shot the village chief on the Chinese New Year’s Day. The murder followed a long-standing land dispute caused by a forced demolition before the defendant's wedding.

The defendant was sentenced to death on 14 November 2015 and the verdict was upheld on appeal. His case sparked national debate, with thousands petitioning for clemency. Legal scholars publicly critised the ruling and the rapid proceedings that affected his rights for defence and appeal, requesting for leniency. Ultimately, the Supreme People’s Court upheld the sentence and he was executed shortly.

At the time, forced demolitions were common across China, and cases similar to Jia's were given death sentences. His case became a symbol of demolition conflicts, with some arguing it was an extreme response to an illegal act, while the court upheld the ruling due to the severity of the crime.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

The final judgment provided little in-formation on defence arguments. The following information is based on pub-licly available legal counsel’s arguments and Jia’s statement.

Defence lawyers' key arguments:

Jia’s property was demolished forcibly without proper legal process and notice. Jia’s acts were an act of re-sistance to the violent demolition. The victim thus had culpability.
Jia was on his way to the police station to turn himself in when he was intercepted and injured. He proactively confessed to his offences. These factors should qualify as self-surrender, a mitigating factor.
Jia’s offences qualify the mitigating circumstances stipulated by the SPC’s judicial interpretation on addressing crimes caused by land and other disputes in rural areas.
The killing was targeted at a single individual who was responsible for the demolition. Jia did not harm others or endanger public safety.

The defendant’s statement:

Jia maintained that he was on his way to surrender. He never intended to evade responsibility.
The demolition shattered his future, including his marriage. He was repeatedly subjected to threats and intimidation before the crime. The nature of his acts was resistance.
He expressed regret and voluntarily donate his organs for medical purpose after the execution, showcasing his remorse and willingness to contribute to society.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

The appeal court rejected the defence’s argument on the demolition’s legality. The court did not conclude that the demolition was illegal and ruled that the dispute over the procedure did not justify the crime.
The appeal court denied Jia’s claim of voluntary surrender. The court determined that because Jia did not physically reach the police station, he did not qualify for self-surrender leniency.
Citing premeditation, the use of a modified firearm, and public execution of the crime, the appeal court ruled that the severity of the crime warranted the death penalty.
The Supreme court upheld the appeal court’s ruling. It found that Jia planed the killing for two years and shot the victim on the day of Lunar New Year during a village gathering. The crime was exceptionally brutal, had a severe social impact, demonstrated a high degree of personal danger, and was deemed extremely serious, warranting strict legal punishment.
No mental health assessment was issued, as the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPC) found it unnecessary and cited the defendant had not requested for one. Shortly after the SPC approved the execution, the defendant's family submitted a joint letter to the SPC to seek clemency and explain his potential mental health issues. Nevertheless, this last-minute effort failed to prevent the execution.

Legal Representation Received

Trial: Private
Appeal: Private
Second Appeal: Private
Pre-trial: Unknown

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Article 232, Article 36, Article 57(1) and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.