Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
One of that organization’s source links is dead, the other is here. Haven’t had time to read through it all to see if the claims about conviction rates stand up.
Also ran across this site. Not sure how reliable it is, but it does not appear to be friendly towards the PRC. This part was interesting:
Chinese prosecutors tend to explain low acquittal rates as an indicator of good work. In 2012, a Beijing prosecutor told Legal Daily that a high level of “judicial precision” allowed good prosecutors to “filter out” cases likely to result in acquittal so that the majority of people standing trial were “guilty"…
Local procuratorates followed suit by putting forth “zero acquittals” as the ultimate goal in their annual work reports. Among various performance indicators, the acquittal rate was the most important, legal scholar Yuan Yicheng told Legal Daily in 2012.
Rather than risk acquittal, it is an unspoken rule that prosecutors decide to withdraw indictments.
The approach seems to be to only prosecute cases you’re sure you’ll win. This is largely the approach in the U.S. federal system, and is pretty prevalent among state and local prosecutors, too.
the 99% conviction rate is a very common statistic provided by the supreme people’s court of China
“This is so common, it’s everywhere, everyone knows it, it’s so easy to find, but I’m going to link to fucking Wikipedia instead so I can use it to launder a number from some bullshit NGO”
“Are U.S. federal courts a sham?”
How bad does your conviction rate need to be for you to accept that a judicial system has fair trials? Do you want police and prosecutors pursuing a bunch of cases they can’t adequately prove?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
I just linked the first source, but the 99% conviction rate is a very common statistic provided by the supreme people’s court of China.
1.2 million tried, 1039 found not guilty according to the court.
“Are U.S. federal courts a sham?”
Yes. pretty clearly. in many senses of the word “sham”.
So your source is a Wikipedia article that cites “Safeguard Defenders”, a western anti-china NGO?
One of that organization’s source links is dead, the other is here. Haven’t had time to read through it all to see if the claims about conviction rates stand up.
Also ran across this site. Not sure how reliable it is, but it does not appear to be friendly towards the PRC. This part was interesting:
The approach seems to be to only prosecute cases you’re sure you’ll win. This is largely the approach in the U.S. federal system, and is pretty prevalent among state and local prosecutors, too.
“This is so common, it’s everywhere, everyone knows it, it’s so easy to find, but I’m going to link to fucking Wikipedia instead so I can use it to launder a number from some bullshit NGO”
How bad does your conviction rate need to be for you to accept that a judicial system has fair trials? Do you want police and prosecutors pursuing a bunch of cases they can’t adequately prove?
fair trials are not simply about the conviction rate, they are about the rights of the citizens holding up under the oppression of the court.
Then why are you citing (alleging, really, without a citation) conviction rates in China as evidence that their judicial system isn’t fair?
because the conviction rate in China is pretty good. evidence that their judicial system isn’t fair.
Why do you keep making comments when you know almost nothing about the topic and clearly haven’t thought any of this through?
people keep asking me questions about a topic I’m familiar with, so I keep answering them.
You mean you keep evading them, sometimes by pretending to lack objective permanence.
The classic tactic of evasion through clear answers, a public record, facts and sources.
no, that’s not what I mean.