Abstract

The Chinese public prosecution service, the procuracy, is modelled on the Soviet Union system and has been accorded the controversial function of supervising other legal institutions in the criminal justice system. Drawing upon my own empirical data on the prosecution of crime in China, this article critically examines the way the power of supervision operates from an internal perspective. It argues that the power of supervision has been used as an institutional asset to secure the interests of the procuracy by analysing its oversight of police investigations and court decisions, the way prosecutors perceive themselves, and the efficacy of the supervision in a comparative context. The current status of the procuracy dictates that it is unable to undertake the role of supervision to safeguard the criminal process.

Highlights

  • In his comparative study of prosecuting crime in Japan and the U.S, Johnson (2002) enumerates the valuable resources that Japanese prosecutors possess and argues that the authority enjoyed by them is unmatched elsewhere. 1 It is true that prosecutors in Japan benefit from a number of socio-political advantages in facilitating their prosecution of crime.[2]

  • The Chinese prosecution service, the People's Procuracy, is modelled on the procuracy system in the Soviet Union, which is not limited to a prosecution service, but is broadly defined as a legal supervisory body

  • 3 This supervisory role allows the procuracy to engage with all critical stages of the criminal process to ensure the legality of the performance of the criminal justice institutions

Read more

Summary

Yu Mou

The Chinese public prosecution service, the procuracy, is modelled on the Soviet Union system and has been accorded the controversial function of supervising other legal institutions in the criminal justice system. Drawing upon my own empirical data on the prosecution of crime in China, this article critically examines the way the power of supervision operates from an internal perspective. It argues that the power of supervision has been used as an institutional asset to secure the interests of the procuracy by analysing its oversight of police investigations and court decisions, the way prosecutors perceive themselves, and the efficacy of the supervision in a comparative context. The current status of the procuracy dictates that it is unable to undertake the role of supervision to safeguard the criminal process

INTRODUCTION
THE SOVIET LEGACY AND THE INTRICACY OF THE SUPERVISORY POWER
SUPERVISING THE POLICE INVESTIGATION
OVERSEEING THE COURTS
THE ETHOS OF CHINESE PROSECUTORS
Findings
CONCLUSION

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.