Canadian man sentenced to death in first instance

[hiseen]

Does China allow independent hired counsel in legal affairs (esp for criminal law)? Or is the statute only public appointed defenders are allowed?

He was tried in public. And You can hire lawyers you think are the best, Or let the court arrange one for you.

By the way, the review of the death penalty in China is very strict. He needs at least the approval of the Supreme Court of the State before the death penalty is finally imposed.

But if the police have conclusive evidence, You can't plead not guilty, Lawyers can only seek the most favourable sentence for you.

 

[zectech]

Schellenberg trial shows Canada's arbitrary view of rule of law

Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/14

Canadian drug smuggler Robert Lloyd Schellenberg was sentenced to death on Monday by the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian, Liaoning Province. This is the latest ruling after the Liaoning Provincial High People's Court sent back the case and the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian opened a public retrial. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused China of "arbitrarily" applying death penalty to Canadian on Monday evening, Beijing Time.

Drug trafficking is a felony in China. Since the beginning of this century, many foreign citizens have been sentenced to death for smuggling drugs in China. Among them, at least six were Japanese. When Pakistani-British citizen Akmal Shaikh was sentenced to death in 2009, his case aroused wide attention from Western media. Then British prime minister Gordon Brown personally interceded for him, yet Shaikh was eventually executed.

Schellenberg's trial happened after the arrest of Chinese tech giant Huawei's senior executive Meng Wanzhou. Some Canadian and Western media immediately linked the case with that of Meng's, arguing Beijing is putting pressure on Ottawa through the case. This unreasonable speculation is a rude contempt toward Chinese law.

Before the court announced the verdict on Monday, many Western media outlets had speculated that Schellenberg could face the death sentence. They arrived at the conclusion after understanding China's Criminal Law and the previous rulings of drug smugglers. The amount of meth that Schellenberg had jointly smuggled was too large.

However, Trudeau's words suggested that Canada views the verdict from a value perspective, not a judicial one, and used Canadian law as reference. Canadian law doesn't have the death penalty, while China's Criminal Law clearly stipulates that drug smugglers could face the death sentence. Public opinion in Canada has claimed recently that China is "politicizing" Schellenberg's case, but what Canada is doing is actually politicizing law.

Western centrism has been very obvious in recent disputes between China and Canada. Whatever Canada does, it is the rule of law, but whatever China does is not. Canadian elites are feeling so righteous with this double standard, and it is time for them to wake up from such cultural and value narcissism.

Schellenberg's case has received much attention from the West. Some people may misread the case, but an important message will be delivered to Canada and the West: drug smuggling faces higher risks in China than in the West because the death sentence awaits the risk-taker here. The trial will also send the message that China won't yield to outside pressure in implementing its law.

The trial of Schellenberg shows China practicing its judicial sovereignty. Western media should cover this case responsibly to avoid misleading potential offenders of Chinese law. Schellenberg's trial is not a "political verdict." Otherwise, if there were no special political reason, would it be okay to smuggle drugs in China? Of course not.

Canada seems to be bewitched recently and is keen to draw the US and other Western countries over to its side to speak for it, as if that could make China yield. This is an underestimation of Chinese law and China's national will. When it comes to China's own laws and national interests, the country's perseverance is unbreakable.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1135762.shtml

The forcing of opium on the Chinese in the 1800s to steal most of China's silver, left a mark on Chinese history. Chinese hate Western drug dealers.

 

[jhungary]

The point is they didnt give this punishment originally (if they did, then its no issue...their country their rules like others are saying here). They changed it now because of the political souring over the Huawei thing. If that didn't happen, then China would never have revisited this penalty. Quite a shameless behaviour by China in the end like @HannibalBarca said. Basically China has shown politics does indeed change/influence their jurisprudence process. There will be retaliation and escalation now, you can count on it....it takes time to teach lessons to hypocrite bullies, but they need to learn them all the same.

@jhungary @VCheng @gambit @F-22Raptor @Joe Shearer @Vergennes

China does not have a jurisprudence system...

In the west, under common law, jurisprudence is independent from any political system and is insulated from anything other the jurisprudence itself (The law is self) which make the 3 separate pillar in western civilization (Executive, Judiciary and Legislative Branch)

ON the other hand, Chinese court system is basically controlled by People's Committee, with the only one remotely not affected is the basic court (akin to local court system) but the basic court is not to deal with any serious offense.

The Appeal process is also inheritancely flawed. Instead of appeal system toward different level of court of appeal (eg in common law, we have district/circuit court, court of appeal, supreme court and Federal Court in the US) and what more important is that appeal court only work if the defendant initiate it. Meaning, as a government (Prosecution) you are not allowed to appeal the sentence if you win, otherwise it would be subject to double jeopardy.

In China, there are only 1 appeal court, that is the supreme court level, and while we use the term appeal, it's more of a review of the case and its circumstance, and as a matter of fact, supreme court in China are controlled by People Committee again, which make the decision depends on the political influence.

While I don't have sympathy to drug runner, this is actually not a surprise move from the Chinese. Were it fair? If you compare to US or UK court system, it wasn't, because the prosecution review would be subject to an action akin to "Retrial" which mean it's basically barred by the fact of common law does not allow a man to be trial twice for the same offence (Double Jeopardy), hence in face of common law, it's unfair. However, China does not use common law, (they uses a legal system called organic law) which mean they can and have the power to retrial people that was already convicted or acquitted of any crime. And it is fair game on Chinese system.

Don't forget, what kind of trial you may get is depends on the local system, if you know the risk of you are not getting a fair trial and still willingly committed the crime, then you should be expect to face up to the same system, not yours , when you get caught. As the old saying goes, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

I'm kind of surpirsed that a lots of people from the west didn't know the resaon why he recived the death stentence in the second trial, this is all over the news in Chinese media and clearly explained.

That's probably because the west does not, I say again, DOES NOT, distinguish between "Accessories" and "Principal" of a crime, both carry the same penalty, and more often than not, the "Principal" actually serve less time than "Accessories" the same crime, if the principal of the crime either started a plea deal, or the crime cannot be committed without the help of the accessories. (Especially in serious crime such as murder)

In Common Law, the person who smuggle the drug Is equally culpable than the person who finance the drug smuggling operation. Because the whole operation cannot work without runner on the ground, however, since runner on the ground are more common, and stopping them won't actually stop the operation, most of the time, DA would make deal with the drug runner, to take down the bigger fish. And the prosecution is more inclined to offer deal to the runner than to the dealer.

On the other hand, the second "trial" would not happened at all in the west, you can review its sentence but you cannot provide EXTRA evidence, because that would constitute a "Retrial" and in the west, you cannot retrial a person if a judgement has been handed down, which mean if the accused is to lodge a appeal, in the west, the court system would go over the transcript and see if there are aggravated factor or mitigated factored to either increase or decrease the sentence. But the scope only work on evidence already existed, not providing new evidence.

The second "Trial" would be unheard of in the west. but as I said in previous post, it is allowed in China, and this case happened in China, so there are no surprise there.

 

[hiseen]

China does not have a jurisprudence system...

In the west, under common law, jurisprudence is independent from any political system and is insulated from anything other the jurisprudence itself (The law is self) which make the 3 separate pillar in western civilization (Executive, Judiciary and Legislative Branch)

ON the other hand, Chinese court system is basically controlled by People's Committee, with the only one remotely not affected is the basic court (akin to local court system) but the basic court is not to deal with any serious offense.

The Appeal process is also inheritancely flawed. Instead of appeal system toward different level of court of appeal (eg in common law, we have district/circuit court, court of appeal, supreme court and Federal Court in the US) and what more important is that appeal court only work if the defendant initiate it. Meaning, as a government (Prosecution) you are not allowed to appeal the sentence if you win, otherwise it would be subject to double jeopardy.

In China, there are only 1 appeal court, that is the supreme court level, and while we use the term appeal, it's more of a review of the case and its circumstance, and as a matter of fact, supreme court in China are controlled by People Committee again, which make the decision depends on the political influence.

While I don't have sympathy to drug runner, this is actually not a surprise move from the Chinese. Were it fair? If you compare to US or UK court system, it wasn't, because the prosecution review would be subject to an action akin to "Retrial" which mean it's basically barred by the fact of common law does not allow a man to be trial twice for the same offence (Double Jeopardy), hence in face of common law, it's unfair. However, China does not use common law, (they uses a legal system called organic law) which mean they can and have the power to retrial people that was already convicted or acquitted of any crime. And it is fair game on Chinese system.

Don't forget, what kind of trial you may get is depends on the local system, if you know the risk of you are not getting a fair trail and still willingly committed the crime, then you should be expect to face up to the same system, not yours , when you get caught. As the old saying goes, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

I admit that China’s legal system does require a lot of effort. But I don't want China to completely copy the Western legal system.

 

[Nilgiri]

I admit that China’s legal system does require a lot of effort. But I don't want China to completely copy the Western legal system.

I'm just happy that some of you took the time to explain it calmly to me....without having to add all the spice and emotion that comes too frequently in the forum. Thanks!

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

Does China allow independent hired counsel in legal affairs (esp for criminal law)? Or is the statute only public appointed defenders are allowed?

Does India allow to kill as much cows as you want ?
In China you can kill as much cows as we want it they belong to you.

 

[jhungary]

I admit that China’s legal system does require a lot of effort. But I don't want China to completely copy the Western legal system.

thing is, we are not talking about western legal system (such as common law, or constitutional law) we are talking about jurisprudence, which is a Latin legal theory which include legal reasoning and transparency.

For me, each country should have its distinct law, but still, the whole legal system of any country (west or otherwise) should follow the fundamental principal of jurisprudence

 

[hiseen]

thing is, we are not talking about western legal system (such as common law, or constitutional law) we are talking about jurisprudence, which is a Latin legal theory which include legal reasoning and transparency.

For me, each country should have its distinct law, but still, the whole legal system of any country (west or otherwise) should follow the fundamental principal of jurisprudence

I never worship a certain civilization or theoretical system, will not dislike some. I am an art worker, Because I study Western art history, So also understand some Western history.

In my opinion, everything is generated by the environment. So everything has good and bad two planes, The only difference is that it is suitable for an environment at some time.

For example, judging in the United States is whether this violates the law. Black, white, indian, european, asian...No good or bad! But in my opinion, people have grades. If he does not love the elderly and children, he does not honor his parents, I will treat them as lower class people below the basic level of humanity, thereby stay away from him.

 

[YeBeWarned]

Wow that's amazing to see such sympathy and support for a scum who bring death and destruction to a society , his stuff would have killed many , destroyed lives of many and yet people are saying why death penalty? In USA biggest democracy treason is punishable by death irony isn't it ?

 

[jhungary]

I never worship a certain civilization or theoretical system, will not dislike some. I am an art worker, Because I study Western art history, So also understand some Western history.

In my opinion, everything is generated by the environment. So everything has good and bad two planes, The only difference is that it is suitable for an environment at some time.

I don't think you understand the term jurisprudence

It's an abstract theory, not an actual system. It entail the theory of law. It's on the same level as to how physical properties dictate physical law (like newton third law and so on)

You can have a complete different system than in the west, it doesn't matter, but you still need to follow jurisprudence, that is because jurisprudence is what make law - a law, it doesn't matter whether or not your law is based on religion aspect or people aspect or any other aspect.

 

[hiseen]

I don't think you understand the term jurisprudence

It's an abstract theory, not an actual system. It entail the theory of law. It's on the same level as to how physical properties dictate physical law (like newton third law and so on)

You can have a complete different system than in the west, it doesn't matter, but you still need to follow jurisprudence, that is because jurisprudence is what make law - a law, it doesn't matter whether or not your law is based on religion aspect or people aspect or any other aspect.

I understand your expression, But law is not my profession. I am not planning to "worship" the law, Like the country, the "legal system" is just a tool.

China also has a "Shangyang reform", Occurred more than 200 years before BC, Later, there were also many followers, and serving the only major power in thousands of years. You can't say that they are failing, But we can’t ignore the flaws they have.
We continue to work hard for thousands of years, Because the times have continued.

 

[jhungary]

Wow that's amazing to see such sympathy and support for a scum who bring death and destruction to a society , his stuff would have killed many , destroyed lives of many and yet people are saying why death penalty? In USA biggest democracy treason is punishable by death irony isn't it ?

I think the problem is not about why death penalty, but rather "why no death penalty before"

The man should have been executed and should be sentenced accordingly in the first outing, you cannot give the man a retrial for whatever reason and resentence the man, people are mad about this, not the death sentence itself

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

I think the problem is not about why death penalty, but rather "why no death penalty before"

The man should have been executed and should be sentenced accordingly in the first outing, you cannot give the man a retrial for whatever reason and resentence the man, people are mad about this, not the death sentence itself

i guess in US,there is only one trial only.

 

[jhungary]

i guess in US,there is only one trial only.

In the US, if and when a judgement is handed down, you cannot be tried again. So, if you are acquitted with the crime, the constitution is guaranteed you will NOT be tried again for the same crime. It's commonly referred in the US as "You cannot bite the apple twice"

However, multiple trial for the same crime is a frequent outcome if the original trial was declared a mistrial (ie no verdict either because of the jury cannot found one, ie hung jury, or by either prosecution or defence misconduct) but those are often with trial WITHOUT a verdict.

Also, a retrial requested from the defendant who was found guilty are also acceptable by US Law. However, a retrial appeal would require the defence to be able to proof the original trial is tinted and is not of a fair trial. And this is called administrative appeal.

In some serious case, a trial can be "retried" after a verdict if either the prosecution or defence can proof the judgement is tinted by misconduct from the other side, either the witness is lying and can be proven, or the prosecutor committed perjury, or the jury is bribed and tinted. for example, Ohio v D. Ross, the original trial verdict in 1999 was accepted even the jury is tinted, and a retrial was ordered in 2012 to convict Denny Ross who murdered 18 years old teen Hannah Hills. The original trial saw one of the jury disregard the judge rule and discuss current news story with fellow jury, and a non-guilty verdict is found. It take the prosecution 12 years to appeal the double jeopardy rules to retrial ross, it take the Chinese court 3 months to retrial this guy...

 

[Adam WANG SHANGHAI MEGA]

In the US, if and when a judgement is handed down, you cannot be tried again. So, if you are acquitted with the crime, the constitution is guaranteed you will NOT be tried again for the same crime. It's commonly referred in the US as "You cannot bite the apple twice"

However, multiple trial for the same crime is a frequent outcome if the original trial was declared a mistrial (ie no verdict either because of the jury cannot found one, ie hung jury, or by either prosecution or defence misconduct) but those are often with trial WITHOUT a verdict.

Also, a retrial requested from the defendant who was found guilty are also acceptable by US Law. However, a retrial appeal would require the defence to be able to proof the original trial is tinted and is not of a fair trial. And this is called administrative appeal.

In some serious case, a trial can be "retried" after a verdict if either the prosecution or defence can proof the judgement is tinted by misconduct from the other side, either the witness is lying and can be proven, or the prosecutor committed perjury, or the jury is bribed and tinted. for example, Ohio v D. Ross, the original trial verdict in 1999 was accepted even the jury is tinted, and a retrial was ordered in 2012 to convict Denny Ross who murdered 18 years old teen Hannah Hills. The original trial saw one of the jury disregard the judge rule and discuss current news story with fellow jury, and a non-guilty verdict is found. It take the prosecution 12 years to appeal the double jeopardy rules to retrial ross, it take the Chinese court 3 months to retrial this guy...

Make deals with criminals and jury said you are criminal then you are,even if you are innocent!