Way to improve
Cheng, the Renmin University associate professor, said he was glad to see the top court issue several typical cases related to state compensation last year, when wrongful verdicts and correcting previous judicial decisions entered public discourse in a big way.
In December, the Inner Mongolia High People's Court exonerated a man who was executed in 1996 after being wrongfully convicted of raping and murdering a woman in a toilet.
After the man, Hugjlitu, was acquitted, his family was awarded about 2 million yuan ($323,000) in compensation.
"The case aroused attention among the public and Chinese courts, and the amount of money that should be paid in compensation became a heated topic at the time.
Meanwhile, the top court explained that the State compensation rules as seen in typical cases is sensible and timely," Cheng said.
But Cheng said that because the cases function only as references, judges cannot write them into verdicts. "After all, we are not a case-law country. What judges do is to integrate the cases and apply what they learn in making a judgment," he said.
Lawyer Li Guifang said cases should carry more weight.
"We'd better give them legal effect or legality. Otherwise, they cannot play a bigger role in guiding the grassroots courts," he said.
Steps in selecting a guiding case
1. Departments of the Supreme People's Court, provincial high people's courts and military courts recommend cases they handled to the top court's office specializing in selection.
2. Deputies of people's congresses, political advisers, legal scholars, lawyers and the public can make suggestions.
3. The top court's office conducts a preliminary review of recommended cases and chooses some candidates in accordance with a 2010 rule.
4. The office is asked to summarize the main ideas of the candidates and solicit review by various departments, including the top court's other offices, social institutes, legal experts and government bodies. For example, if a criminal case is chosen as a candidate, it will be sent to criminal professors and criminal departments of the top court.
5. A think tank of scholars in various legal specialties provide advice after regular communication.
6. After the preliminary review and opinion collection, the candidates are handed to the research center of the top court for discussion.
7. The research center then compiles a report on the candidate cases and provides them to a special committee of the top court.
8. Candidate cases are finally issued after committee approval.
