Violent Crime and Intentional Killing Recent years have seen a narrowing of the range of violent and lethal crimes that are likely to result in the death penalty. Article 232 of the Criminal Law states that whoever intentionally kills (guyi sharen) shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years. The Criminal Law, article 14 also states that “an intentional crime occurs where there is clear knowledge that the act will have socially harmful consequences, and there is an intention or indifference to the occurrence of those consequences. Criminal responsibility shall be borne for intentional crimes.” Thus, any person who is aware that his act may result in death is guilty of ‘intentional’ killing. (see Chapter 2 on vulnerable defendants for more on criminal responsibility in Chinese law.) Article 234 of the criminal law, however, also stipulates that, “intentional injury” (guyi shanghai) resulting in death or, if by “especially cruel means, causes severe injury to the person, reducing the person to utter disability”, is also eligible for the death penalty. For this crime, the death penalty is placed in a different position in the list of available punishments from the article for intentional killing suggesting that it is not the recommended punishment. Article 234 lists the available punishments for “intentional injury resulting in death” as “fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment or death.” Whereas for “intentional killing” the punishments are listed as “death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years”. Although the National People’s Congress does not state the reasoning behind the order of the punishments, it has been inferred that the recommended punishment is given first, and this is borne out in evidence of sentencing.16 In some cases, lawyers have pressed the court to revise a murder charge to “intentional injury resulting in death” in an attempt to mitigate the sentencing. Court judgments provide limited explanation of the sentencing decision and, often, there is no reasoning given about aggravation or mitigation. However, one forensic expert observed that while there may be multiple factors contributing to the death of a person, courts in China tend to hold the defendant responsible if they were involved. Although judges seem to show little interest in distinguishing between intentional killing and other violence with lethal consequences, courts may eventually reduce the sentence where the circumstances are complex and death sentences are most likely to be given for the crime of “intentional killing”. In cases of domestic violence in which the victim has murdered the perpetrator, there has, however, been a move away from death sentences and a recognition of mitigating factors. This is a development from previous policy in which cases of battered wives accused of murdering their husbands were treated as intentional killing and many were sentenced to death with immediate execution. In March 2015, the SPC, the SPP, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued the "Opinions on Handling Domestic Violence Criminal Cases in accordance with the Law" ("Opinions"). This is China's first criminal justice guidance document focused on comprehensively punishing and preventing domestic violence crimes, clarifying a series of issues in the application of the criminal law including considerations for sentencing, such as the fault of the victim. In December 2015, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) also passed China’s Anti-Domestic Violence Law, which came into effect in March 2016. In judicial practice, there has been a trend 16 Bricker, Cary and Vitiello, Michael. ‘Chinese Homicide Law, Irrationality, and Incremental Change’, 27 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 43. 2013. 16