Thanks

On the other hand, it does link the law to the people in a way that no other system really does.

Appreciate the very detailed and insightful explanation.

In a country in which a truly independent legal system doesn’t exist, it certainly seems to me a jury system would be really far more appropriate than a judge-led sysetm. It still gives the Communist Party some control over the process (by deciding jurisdiction, and by deciding what cases to accept/reject/appeal), but it still puts the ultimate scale of justice within the hands of “the people”.

The origin of PRC law is in the German high law, and so comes from the civil law tradition. The civil law system comes mainly from the Roman tradition, in which a judge applies the law to the facts of the case. In the northern mainland-European tradition this is balanced out by the use of lay judges, with each judge having a vote in deciding the trial – fairly obviously there is a tendency for the lay judges to follow the lead of the professional judge and this is why an independent judiciary is so important. Since 2002, to become a professional judge in China you have to pass the State Judicial Exam, but it may be that many who became judges before 2002 are still sitting and have not had to take the exam.

How about you write an article and tell us more about your brother’s experience? I’d love to learn a lot too!

Democracy is a safety valve, it allows people to vent with their vote. If democracy can not be implemented over night in China, what are the alternative safety valves to let some steam out ?

You’re asking the right question, definitely.

I really don’t think we need a “safety value” for letting steam out, to be honest. I don’t know if people are really such animals that we need an opportunity to scream once in a while. I believe we just need to know that there’s justice in the world, that there is fairness in the world.

For decades, the Communist Party convinced the Chinese that it was justice, that they’d take care of you. That’s obviously no longer the case, not in this age when ideology has long ago melted away. While I believe there are many good Party members, there are also many evil Party members… and the Chinese people interacting with them on a daily basis are only too aware of that.

In my opinion, what we need is *legal reform*. We absolutely need rule of law to deal with these problems. The Chinese should know that no matter how much money they have, no matter who their relatives are, they can and will have their conflicts considered by a professional, objective person on the basis of what the law of the land is.

I don’t hear too many people complaining about the national policy coming out of Zhongnanhai. But we hear constant complaining about implementation of this policy. If we don’t have elections tomorrow, we still need rule of law, today.

Any legal scholars out there? Dan from China Law Blog? What’s the story with reform of the jury system? What keeps China from adopting an American style jury system, with a jury of “peers”? Instead of the existing system, which from what I understand uses “jury-judges” (I have no idea what the proper term is)… amateur people appointed to a part-time judge position sitting beside professional judges?

I wouldn’t put so many conditions on the DL for now. He’s gone much farther than Beijing. Unfortunately, the signs indicate that a radical message will prevail from the CCP and there’s little indication of a good-faith search for an interim solution. A quiet accommodation would suit both sides but I don’t think the leadership in Beijing is strong enough to deliver, particularly with its hands full with some many other challenges.

Personally, I am not against Dalai Lama and have attended to his speech last year. Actually I am a fan for Tibetan culture since about 10 years ago, not the religion part though. What frustrate me is the significant difference between the claims of Dalai Lama himself and TGIE, even sometimes his own envoy. Are they incompetent messengers or just good guy/bad guy strategy? What he did is more convincing than what he said. We had came through the propaganda in Mao era, only nice speeches won’t work to us, though they work perfectly well to westerns (I don’t mean to offend westerns, but the truth is we are vaccinated). The information about Chinese education in exile schools provided by The Trapped! is new for me. If that’s true, I will start to swing to the side believing middle way is really what he wants. Dalai Lama and, most importantly, his envoys should make this information well known for Chinese all around the world. Moreover, if Dalai Lama can publicly declare TYC or any other NGOs seeking independent Tibet are against his will (actually, they are) and should be condemned, I will definitely be a Han supporter to his middle way. If he can’t persuade a potential supporter like me, what can he expect from Beijing government as both parties have been playing tricks on each other for decades?

Democracy is a safety valve, it allows people to vent with their vote. If democracy can not be implemented over night in China, what are the alternative safety valves to let some steam out ?

I know that village level election has been implemented, my brother-in-law ran for the village head and failed, I learned quite a bit from him about the process.

Though , this Weng’an incident is a tragedy, but it is a good lesson for Chinese public and government to figure out a way to prevent future event like this. It seems like the government is trying to deal with this incident more openly now than pass cases. maybe it is because of the upcoming olympic though.

You’re wasting your time, here. We’re well aware what the Dalai Lama claims to be calling for, but we remain concerned by what he really means. The fact that he’s the moderate to “militant, violent” separatists is political theater.

Refer to:
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/tag/dalai-lama/

If the protesters in March call for “freedom in Tibet” instead of “free Tibet”, there will be a lot more Han sympathizer. You can count me one at the least.