Introduction to Chinese Criminal Law To provide some context for understanding the application of the death penalty in China this introductory chapter provides a brief background to the criminal law. A short bibliography at the end of this report provides some additional reading. China’s criminal law cannot be understood outside the political environment in which it operates. Chinese law draws on imperial legal traditions, reforms introduced by early 20th century modernisers, post-1949 legislation and the political-legal role of the Chinese Communist Party. China is also a State Party to a number of international human rights treaties. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policy informs all aspects of governance in China, including the legal system. The death penalty in China, therefore, takes place within the context of a criminal justice system that is subject to the CCP’s interests. The Party’s overriding concern is to maintain the ‘stability of society’ and the environment for Party rule. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policy informs all aspects of governance in China, including the legal system. Among the ways that the CCP furthers its interests are policy directives, appointments and political legal committees which oversee the functioning of the police, the prosecution and the courts. These three institutions are known collectively as the gongjianfa for the gong’an (police), jianchayuan (procuratorate) and the fayuan (court). They operate ‘within the system’ (tizhinei) and share privileged information among themselves. Lawyers are outside this system. In recent years, the Party has sought greater control over the legal profession, including the establishment of Party committees within law firms. Lawyers and law firms are subject to annual reregistration leaving them vulnerable to political pressure (see Chapter 5 for further discussion on the role of lawyers). At the individual level, a performance management system keeps officials, including judges, in line. Perverse incentives in this system, however, can influence behaviour. Unrealistic targets for the police to secure convictions in homicide cases have been attributed to high rates of coerced confessions. Overall, there is a strong preference for ‘substantive correctness’ over ‘procedural fairness’ in criminal proceedings: ensuring the ‘correct’ outcome takes precedence over the right to a fair trial. The ‘strike hard’ (yanda) anti-crime policy, beginning in the 1980s and in place, through periodic campaigns, until the mid-2000s, resulted in a high rate of executions from the death penalty throughout this period. The policy required offenders to be punished ‘swiftly and severely’ giving rise to many accusations of miscarriages of justice. Hu Jintao’s ‘harmonious society’ reform agenda enabled a shift in the official rhetoric on sentencing. In 2006, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) 7