Efficiency and Justice and Fairness: An Empirical Analysis of Criminal Appeals in Hunan Province, China

Abstract

Criminal appeal is an important step in any criminal justice system, as it guarantees criminal defendants’ right to appeal and serves a critical function in correcting potential errors from the trial courts. Though decisions of national and/or state supreme courts draw more media and public attention given their preeminent status, decisions by appellate courts at lower levels are far more numerous and are often the last resort for the vast majority of litigants and for the vast majority of contested legal issues (Cross 2003; Williams 1991). As a unique component of the criminal justice system, the practice of criminal appeals varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another. The majority of studies on criminal appeals reflected such diversity. For instance, many studies debated over the review power and scope of criminal appeals (e.g., the feasibility and practicality of factual review, modification of trial court sentences) (Burr 1971; Orfield 1936; Rickey 1978; Shapiro 1939), while others turned to empirical data to examine the nature of appellate judges’ work and explore how different factors (e.g., partisan ideology) may have affected their daily work (Broscheid 2011; Cross 2003; Davies 1982; Wold and Caldeira 1980). For the latter, in particular, scholars focused on how appellate judges make final decisions in criminal appeals and whether both legal and nonlegal factors (e.g., one’s race) may have influenced their decision-making (Foley 1999; Neubauer 1991; Williams 1991, 1995), and how certain policy changes (e.g., the adoption of sentencing guidelines) may have affected criminal appeals overtime based on longitudinal data (Meeker 1984; White 1975; Williams 1992). Eur J Crim Policy Res (2015) 21:565–590 DOI 10.1007/s10610-014-9266-2