Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Criminal Justice in China: The Place of Incarceration

Criminal Justice in China: The Place of Incarceration 14 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.1,2011 7. RobertG.Sutter,Chinese Foreign Relations: Power and Policy Since the Cold War 2nd ed. (Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,2010),p.37. 8. MasakoIkegami,"NewImperialChina:AChallengefortheU.S.-JapanAlliance,"Asia Pacific Bulletin,no.122(July12,2011). KlausMühlhahn.Criminal Justice in China: A History.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress,2009.pp.365.Hardcover$29.95,isbn 978-0-674-03323-8. ExaminingtherespectiveeffortsoftheQingcourt(1901­1911),the"Beiyang Government"(1912­1927),theGuomindang(GMD),andtheCommunistParty (CCP)tomodernizethecriminaljusticesystem,KlausMühlhahn's Criminal Justice in Chinaexploresthevalues,theories,practices,andpoliticalexigencies thatshapedthestruggletotransformtheinstitutionsofcriminaljusticein t wentieth-centuryChina.AlthoughthetitleisCriminal Justice in China,tobe precise,theprimaryfocusofthebookisthereform,rationale,purposes,andgoals ofjudicialandpoliticalincarceration.SpanningtheperiodfromthelateQing reformsinthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcenturytothebeginningofthepostMaoerain1978,thetimeframeisbriefbyChinesehistoricalstandards,butit includestheoverthrowoftheQingdynasty,thewarlordera,theriseofthe Guomindang(GMD)andtheChineseCommunistParty(CCP),theJapanese invasion,full-scalecivilwar,andtheestablishmentofthePeople'sRepublicof China(PRC).Notsurprisingly,giventhelackofconsistency,consensus,and stabilitythatiscrucialtothelegitimacyofanycriminaljusticesystem,previous scholarlyeffortstoconstructacoherentnarrativeoflegalmodernizationin wentieth-centuryChinahaveoftenfoundered.ForMühlhahn,"threekeydiment sions"formthebook'sinterpretiveframework:legaldiscourse,cultureorsociety, andexperience.Withthisframework,theauthorsetshimselfadauntingtask: "By combiningthreelevelsofhistory(discourse,societyandsocialinstitutions, andhumanexperience)Iintendtouncoverthedynamicsthatunfoldbetween theselevels,andtobringtotheforethecomplexityofhumaninstitutionsandthe ambiguityofhumanagencyinhistory"(pp.9­10).Thankfully,theauthormostly succeedsatthedelicatetaskofintegratingthesethreelevelsofhistory. Attheheartofthisworkarethreeexcellentchaptersthatexaminetheultimate consequenceofcriminaljustice:theadministrationofpunishments.Basedonthe © 2012 by University of Hawai`i Press Features 15 author'sown"extensiveempiricalresearchandfieldworkinChina,Taiwan,and HongKong,"thesechaptersarerichlydocumentedwithsourcesrangingfrom "governmentdocumentsandlegaltextstomemoirsandwitnessinterviews"(p.13). Mühlhahnjudiciouslyandeffectivelyusesthesediversesourcestorevealthebroad consensusforreformofcriminaljusticeaswellasthemanifoldstrategies,competingphilosophies,andcontentiouspoliticsthatinformedthedifferentcriminal justicepoliciesofthevariousChineseregimes.Chapter2coverstheill-fatedQing reforms(1901­1911),theinitialeffortsoftheBeiyangGovernment(1912­1927),and thefirstdecadeofGMDrule(1927­1937).Chapter3examinesthetumultuous yearsofwarandcivilwar(1937­1949),fromboththeGMDandCCPperspectives. Chapter4analyzesthehighlypoliticizedeffortsoftheCCPfrom1949to1978.This discerningperiodization,coupledwiththeprecisefocusonincarceration,enables Mühlhahntocompareandcontrastattemptstomodernizecriminaljusticeina centuryfraughtwithupheavals.Thechoiceofjudicialandpoliticalincarceration, bothofwhichweredesignedtorehabilitateandtransform,providesanexcellent vehicletostudythebroadergoalofmodernizationthatwassharedbyChinese leadersacrossthepoliticalspectrum.Giventhatthepoliticalsurvivalofthe regimesthatroseandfellduringthetwentiethcenturydependedontheirability tostabilizesocietyandstaveoffpoliticalrivals,thehistoryofjudicialandpolitical incarcerationalsoprovidesacommonthreadforthestudyofcriminaljustice amongsomeratherdiverseregimes. BeginninginthelateQingandcontinuingintotheRepublicanperiod,chapter2tracesthedevelopmentofprisonsasinstitutionsthatcouldbothincapacitate andrehabilitatecriminals.Theauthoridentifiestwobroadthemesthatdistinguishedthetwentiethcentury:theexpansionofcriminaljusticeapparatusdeeper intosocietyandtheuseofcriminalandpenallawstoenforce"anewsetofstatesponsoredsocialvalues"(p.58).AccordingtoMühlhahn,prisonsbecameimportantsitesofmoralinstructionandexhortationthatweredesignedtotraincitizens. Instructionincludedreligioustexts(ChristianandBuddhist),popularethics, excerptsfromChineseclassics,andguidestomodernpoliticaldoctrines.The principlesthatunderpinnedthemodernprisonsnotwithstanding,Mühlhahnuses prisonmemoirstorevealthat,inpractice,prisonsbecamea"powerfulsymbol for miseryandalienationintheChineseRepublic"(p.105).Explicatingboththe high-mindedintentionsandtheuntowardrealityoftheprisonsystemprovidesan excellentexampleofthepoweroftheauthor'stripartiteinterpretiveframeworkof discourse,culture,andexperience. Chapter3reconstructsthecomplexsystemofsecretprisons,lockups,and prisoncampsinareasunderGMDcontrolintheperiodfromthemid-1930sto 1949.Undertheadministrationofregularpolice,intelligenceservices,andthe military,theseformsofdetentionwerenotsubjectedtojudicialreview.AsMühlhahnnotes,theGMD"learneddirectly"fromtheSovietUnionandGermany but also"reliedonassistancefromwaralliesliketheUnitedStates"(p.145).An 16 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.1,2011 internmentcampinXifeng,Jiangxi,providesagruesomeexampleofthedetention forpoliticalenemies.Theostensiblegoalofthecampwas"coercive"reeducation, butitwas"juxtaposedwithtraditionalformsofphysicalviolenceandConfucianstylemoralcultivation"(p.146).MühlhahnalsoexaminesCCP-controlledareas wherethepenalregimewasbasedonreeducation,thoughtreform,and"the benefitsofhardphysicallabor"(p.147).Confinementwas"anopportunityforan offendertocorrecthimselfandtobecomeanewperson"(p.147).CCPcriminal justice,likerevolutionarystrategy,wasshapedbythe"aconstanttensionbetween theglobalcurrentofcommunismandthelocalparticularitiesofsocialisminthe contextoftheChineseRevolution."TheCCP'sambitiousapproachtothecriminal justicesystemwaspartofan"overallmission"tochangeChinesesocietyand "createanewkindofman"(p.147).Thechapterconcludeswithadiscussionof the regrettabletrendtowardthebrutalizationofcriminaljusticeunderbothCCP andGMDruleandtheuseofcriminaljusticeasaninstrumentofpowerand politics. Chapter4beginsin1949andendsin1978,whenChinawasonvergeof far-reachinglegalandeconomicreforms.Hereagain,theauthorpresentsacogent narrativeofcriminaljusticeduringaperiodofmomentouspoliticalandsocial changes.Astheauthorpointsout,theestablishmentofthePRCdidnotautomaticallyleadtoacoherentsystemofcriminaljustice.Reformthroughlabor(laogai) remainedthecenterpieceofcriminaljustice,buttensionsoverthepurposeand personnelofthecriminaljusticesystemarose.CCPleadersdifferedoverthe purposeoflaogai,reeducationversusproduction,andthesourceoftheadministrativepersonnel,holdoversfromtheGMDjudiciaryordemobilizedPLAsoldiers employedinpublicsecurity.After1958,criminaljusticewasincreasinglyfreed fromjudicialandadministrativerestraintsthatcoincidedwithMao'scallfor protractedclassstruggle.Laogaibecamethepreferredpunishmentandit"slowly andinexorablyassumedaprominenteconomicroleinChina,tothebenefitofthe socialiststate"(p.230).Prisonlaborerperformedthelessdesirableworkprojects andshieldedpeasantsandworkersfromthemoredangerousprojects.Bythelate 1950s,Mao'sconcernsoverthe"persistenceofbourgeoisvalueswithinthesocialist state"begantoinfluencecriminaljustice.Partycontrolovercriminaljustice enabledpublicsecurityforcesto"responddirectlyandswiftlytocriminalityand deviantbehavior"(p.194),whileunderminingthejudiciary. Byblurringthelinesbetweenpoliticalmovementsandlaogaipractices,Mao tookthetwentieth-centurymodernizationagendatoanextremethathaddire consequencesforChinesesociety.Indeed,laogaiwasanextremeandtwisted versionofthetwentieth-centurygoaltomodernizesociety,whichwasmanifested intheorganizationofprisons,schools,andfactories.Sadly,whilelaogaifrequently failedinitsstatedgoalstotransformandreeducate,"thesystemwasveryadeptat generatingterrorandgettingpeopletoturnononeanother"(p.280).Chinese eliteshadrecognizedtheneedtomobilizetheChinesepopulaceandtotransform Features 17 peopleatleastsincetheMayFourthMovement,andboththeGMDandCCP sharedthisbroadgoal.UnderMao,thepracticesdevelopedforcriminaljustice hadabroadimpactonallsocialandpoliticalinstitutions.PerhapsmostfrighteningwasMao'semphasisonreeducation,which,coupledwiththeperceivedthreat ofpersistentbourgeoisvalues,ledtosegmentsofsocietybeingsubjectedtothe "thesamecombinationofthoughttransformationandphysicallabor"(p.239)that wasthehallmarksoflaborcamps. Criminal Justice in Chinaisanundeniablysuperbpieceofscholarship,butit is notwithoutfaults.Onapracticalnote,specialistswillbedisappointedtofind thatthebookdoesnotincludeabibliography,aseparatelistofprimarysources, or acharacterglossary.Twoadditionalproblemsarerelatedtotheefforttoreach outtononspecialists.Inordertoprovideahistoricalcontext,chapter1provides an overviewofChina'slegaltradition.Specialistswillundoubtedlyquibbleover anysummaryoftwomillenniaoflegalhistory,butpeccadilloesaside,theauthor's ownpersuasivenarrativeofthetwentieth-centurymodernizationofcriminal justiceundercutsthelargehistoricalframework.Manyofthecriminaljustice practicesintwentieth-centuryChinarepresenteddramaticbreakswiththepast. Mostincongruously,imprisonmenthadneverbeenapunishmentpriortothe twentiethcentury.IntheQingdynasty,prisonersmightbebanishedtodistant placesandsubjecttoforcedlabororjailedforyearswhileawaitingafinaldecision onadeathsentence,butincarcerationwasneveralegalpunishment,let alone ameanstorehabilitateortransformconvicts.Theuseofimprisonmentas punishmentwasadecidedbreakwithChina'slegalheritage.Similarly,theclaim thatthe"valuesembodiedinclassicalConfucianwritingsalsoinformedthefirst comprehensivelawscodifications,suchastheTangCode"(p.25)andthat"similar rulescanfoundinthecodesofallsubsequentdynastiesuntiltheQingdynasty (1644­1911)"(p.25)istrue.Butthese"classicalConfucianvalues"(p.25)were contestedandgeneratedthelegaldilemmasthatgaverisetothe1892substatutes in thefinalpublishedrevisionoftheQingcodein1870.(Theauthorgivesafigure of1079substatutesonpage44,butthiswasthetotalnumberofsubstatutesatthe timeofthe1740revisionoftheQingCode.)Forexample,grantingleniencytoa sonwhokilledwhiledefendinghisfatherwasinspiredbynotionsoffilialpiety, but duringtheeighteenthcentury,aseriesofsubstatutesdefined,clarified,and limitedtheconditionsforthistypeofpardon.Likewise,whateversuperficial semanticsimilaritiesexisted,referringtotheGMD-runXifengconcentration campashaving"acarefullyarrangedConfucianizatonofthedetainmentpolicy" (p.146)hasaneerieOrwellianring.Clearly,theGMDhadusedtheterminology http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png China Review International University of Hawai'I Press

Criminal Justice in China: The Place of Incarceration

China Review International , Volume 18 (1) – Aug 9, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/criminal-justice-in-china-the-place-of-incarceration-D9PbNKB3B7
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9367
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

14 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.1,2011 7. RobertG.Sutter,Chinese Foreign Relations: Power and Policy Since the Cold War 2nd ed. (Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield,2010),p.37. 8. MasakoIkegami,"NewImperialChina:AChallengefortheU.S.-JapanAlliance,"Asia Pacific Bulletin,no.122(July12,2011). KlausMühlhahn.Criminal Justice in China: A History.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversityPress,2009.pp.365.Hardcover$29.95,isbn 978-0-674-03323-8. ExaminingtherespectiveeffortsoftheQingcourt(1901­1911),the"Beiyang Government"(1912­1927),theGuomindang(GMD),andtheCommunistParty (CCP)tomodernizethecriminaljusticesystem,KlausMühlhahn's Criminal Justice in Chinaexploresthevalues,theories,practices,andpoliticalexigencies thatshapedthestruggletotransformtheinstitutionsofcriminaljusticein t wentieth-centuryChina.AlthoughthetitleisCriminal Justice in China,tobe precise,theprimaryfocusofthebookisthereform,rationale,purposes,andgoals ofjudicialandpoliticalincarceration.SpanningtheperiodfromthelateQing reformsinthefirstdecadeofthetwentiethcenturytothebeginningofthepostMaoerain1978,thetimeframeisbriefbyChinesehistoricalstandards,butit includestheoverthrowoftheQingdynasty,thewarlordera,theriseofthe Guomindang(GMD)andtheChineseCommunistParty(CCP),theJapanese invasion,full-scalecivilwar,andtheestablishmentofthePeople'sRepublicof China(PRC).Notsurprisingly,giventhelackofconsistency,consensus,and stabilitythatiscrucialtothelegitimacyofanycriminaljusticesystem,previous scholarlyeffortstoconstructacoherentnarrativeoflegalmodernizationin wentieth-centuryChinahaveoftenfoundered.ForMühlhahn,"threekeydiment sions"formthebook'sinterpretiveframework:legaldiscourse,cultureorsociety, andexperience.Withthisframework,theauthorsetshimselfadauntingtask: "By combiningthreelevelsofhistory(discourse,societyandsocialinstitutions, andhumanexperience)Iintendtouncoverthedynamicsthatunfoldbetween theselevels,andtobringtotheforethecomplexityofhumaninstitutionsandthe ambiguityofhumanagencyinhistory"(pp.9­10).Thankfully,theauthormostly succeedsatthedelicatetaskofintegratingthesethreelevelsofhistory. Attheheartofthisworkarethreeexcellentchaptersthatexaminetheultimate consequenceofcriminaljustice:theadministrationofpunishments.Basedonthe © 2012 by University of Hawai`i Press Features 15 author'sown"extensiveempiricalresearchandfieldworkinChina,Taiwan,and HongKong,"thesechaptersarerichlydocumentedwithsourcesrangingfrom "governmentdocumentsandlegaltextstomemoirsandwitnessinterviews"(p.13). Mühlhahnjudiciouslyandeffectivelyusesthesediversesourcestorevealthebroad consensusforreformofcriminaljusticeaswellasthemanifoldstrategies,competingphilosophies,andcontentiouspoliticsthatinformedthedifferentcriminal justicepoliciesofthevariousChineseregimes.Chapter2coverstheill-fatedQing reforms(1901­1911),theinitialeffortsoftheBeiyangGovernment(1912­1927),and thefirstdecadeofGMDrule(1927­1937).Chapter3examinesthetumultuous yearsofwarandcivilwar(1937­1949),fromboththeGMDandCCPperspectives. Chapter4analyzesthehighlypoliticizedeffortsoftheCCPfrom1949to1978.This discerningperiodization,coupledwiththeprecisefocusonincarceration,enables Mühlhahntocompareandcontrastattemptstomodernizecriminaljusticeina centuryfraughtwithupheavals.Thechoiceofjudicialandpoliticalincarceration, bothofwhichweredesignedtorehabilitateandtransform,providesanexcellent vehicletostudythebroadergoalofmodernizationthatwassharedbyChinese leadersacrossthepoliticalspectrum.Giventhatthepoliticalsurvivalofthe regimesthatroseandfellduringthetwentiethcenturydependedontheirability tostabilizesocietyandstaveoffpoliticalrivals,thehistoryofjudicialandpolitical incarcerationalsoprovidesacommonthreadforthestudyofcriminaljustice amongsomeratherdiverseregimes. BeginninginthelateQingandcontinuingintotheRepublicanperiod,chapter2tracesthedevelopmentofprisonsasinstitutionsthatcouldbothincapacitate andrehabilitatecriminals.Theauthoridentifiestwobroadthemesthatdistinguishedthetwentiethcentury:theexpansionofcriminaljusticeapparatusdeeper intosocietyandtheuseofcriminalandpenallawstoenforce"anewsetofstatesponsoredsocialvalues"(p.58).AccordingtoMühlhahn,prisonsbecameimportantsitesofmoralinstructionandexhortationthatweredesignedtotraincitizens. Instructionincludedreligioustexts(ChristianandBuddhist),popularethics, excerptsfromChineseclassics,andguidestomodernpoliticaldoctrines.The principlesthatunderpinnedthemodernprisonsnotwithstanding,Mühlhahnuses prisonmemoirstorevealthat,inpractice,prisonsbecamea"powerfulsymbol for miseryandalienationintheChineseRepublic"(p.105).Explicatingboththe high-mindedintentionsandtheuntowardrealityoftheprisonsystemprovidesan excellentexampleofthepoweroftheauthor'stripartiteinterpretiveframeworkof discourse,culture,andexperience. Chapter3reconstructsthecomplexsystemofsecretprisons,lockups,and prisoncampsinareasunderGMDcontrolintheperiodfromthemid-1930sto 1949.Undertheadministrationofregularpolice,intelligenceservices,andthe military,theseformsofdetentionwerenotsubjectedtojudicialreview.AsMühlhahnnotes,theGMD"learneddirectly"fromtheSovietUnionandGermany but also"reliedonassistancefromwaralliesliketheUnitedStates"(p.145).An 16 ChinaReviewInternational:Vol.18,No.1,2011 internmentcampinXifeng,Jiangxi,providesagruesomeexampleofthedetention forpoliticalenemies.Theostensiblegoalofthecampwas"coercive"reeducation, butitwas"juxtaposedwithtraditionalformsofphysicalviolenceandConfucianstylemoralcultivation"(p.146).MühlhahnalsoexaminesCCP-controlledareas wherethepenalregimewasbasedonreeducation,thoughtreform,and"the benefitsofhardphysicallabor"(p.147).Confinementwas"anopportunityforan offendertocorrecthimselfandtobecomeanewperson"(p.147).CCPcriminal justice,likerevolutionarystrategy,wasshapedbythe"aconstanttensionbetween theglobalcurrentofcommunismandthelocalparticularitiesofsocialisminthe contextoftheChineseRevolution."TheCCP'sambitiousapproachtothecriminal justicesystemwaspartofan"overallmission"tochangeChinesesocietyand "createanewkindofman"(p.147).Thechapterconcludeswithadiscussionof the regrettabletrendtowardthebrutalizationofcriminaljusticeunderbothCCP andGMDruleandtheuseofcriminaljusticeasaninstrumentofpowerand politics. Chapter4beginsin1949andendsin1978,whenChinawasonvergeof far-reachinglegalandeconomicreforms.Hereagain,theauthorpresentsacogent narrativeofcriminaljusticeduringaperiodofmomentouspoliticalandsocial changes.Astheauthorpointsout,theestablishmentofthePRCdidnotautomaticallyleadtoacoherentsystemofcriminaljustice.Reformthroughlabor(laogai) remainedthecenterpieceofcriminaljustice,buttensionsoverthepurposeand personnelofthecriminaljusticesystemarose.CCPleadersdifferedoverthe purposeoflaogai,reeducationversusproduction,andthesourceoftheadministrativepersonnel,holdoversfromtheGMDjudiciaryordemobilizedPLAsoldiers employedinpublicsecurity.After1958,criminaljusticewasincreasinglyfreed fromjudicialandadministrativerestraintsthatcoincidedwithMao'scallfor protractedclassstruggle.Laogaibecamethepreferredpunishmentandit"slowly andinexorablyassumedaprominenteconomicroleinChina,tothebenefitofthe socialiststate"(p.230).Prisonlaborerperformedthelessdesirableworkprojects andshieldedpeasantsandworkersfromthemoredangerousprojects.Bythelate 1950s,Mao'sconcernsoverthe"persistenceofbourgeoisvalueswithinthesocialist state"begantoinfluencecriminaljustice.Partycontrolovercriminaljustice enabledpublicsecurityforcesto"responddirectlyandswiftlytocriminalityand deviantbehavior"(p.194),whileunderminingthejudiciary. Byblurringthelinesbetweenpoliticalmovementsandlaogaipractices,Mao tookthetwentieth-centurymodernizationagendatoanextremethathaddire consequencesforChinesesociety.Indeed,laogaiwasanextremeandtwisted versionofthetwentieth-centurygoaltomodernizesociety,whichwasmanifested intheorganizationofprisons,schools,andfactories.Sadly,whilelaogaifrequently failedinitsstatedgoalstotransformandreeducate,"thesystemwasveryadeptat generatingterrorandgettingpeopletoturnononeanother"(p.280).Chinese eliteshadrecognizedtheneedtomobilizetheChinesepopulaceandtotransform Features 17 peopleatleastsincetheMayFourthMovement,andboththeGMDandCCP sharedthisbroadgoal.UnderMao,thepracticesdevelopedforcriminaljustice hadabroadimpactonallsocialandpoliticalinstitutions.PerhapsmostfrighteningwasMao'semphasisonreeducation,which,coupledwiththeperceivedthreat ofpersistentbourgeoisvalues,ledtosegmentsofsocietybeingsubjectedtothe "thesamecombinationofthoughttransformationandphysicallabor"(p.239)that wasthehallmarksoflaborcamps. Criminal Justice in Chinaisanundeniablysuperbpieceofscholarship,butit is notwithoutfaults.Onapracticalnote,specialistswillbedisappointedtofind thatthebookdoesnotincludeabibliography,aseparatelistofprimarysources, or acharacterglossary.Twoadditionalproblemsarerelatedtotheefforttoreach outtononspecialists.Inordertoprovideahistoricalcontext,chapter1provides an overviewofChina'slegaltradition.Specialistswillundoubtedlyquibbleover anysummaryoftwomillenniaoflegalhistory,butpeccadilloesaside,theauthor's ownpersuasivenarrativeofthetwentieth-centurymodernizationofcriminal justiceundercutsthelargehistoricalframework.Manyofthecriminaljustice practicesintwentieth-centuryChinarepresenteddramaticbreakswiththepast. Mostincongruously,imprisonmenthadneverbeenapunishmentpriortothe twentiethcentury.IntheQingdynasty,prisonersmightbebanishedtodistant placesandsubjecttoforcedlabororjailedforyearswhileawaitingafinaldecision onadeathsentence,butincarcerationwasneveralegalpunishment,let alone ameanstorehabilitateortransformconvicts.Theuseofimprisonmentas punishmentwasadecidedbreakwithChina'slegalheritage.Similarly,theclaim thatthe"valuesembodiedinclassicalConfucianwritingsalsoinformedthefirst comprehensivelawscodifications,suchastheTangCode"(p.25)andthat"similar rulescanfoundinthecodesofallsubsequentdynastiesuntiltheQingdynasty (1644­1911)"(p.25)istrue.Butthese"classicalConfucianvalues"(p.25)were contestedandgeneratedthelegaldilemmasthatgaverisetothe1892substatutes in thefinalpublishedrevisionoftheQingcodein1870.(Theauthorgivesafigure of1079substatutesonpage44,butthiswasthetotalnumberofsubstatutesatthe timeofthe1740revisionoftheQingCode.)Forexample,grantingleniencytoa sonwhokilledwhiledefendinghisfatherwasinspiredbynotionsoffilialpiety, but duringtheeighteenthcentury,aseriesofsubstatutesdefined,clarified,and limitedtheconditionsforthistypeofpardon.Likewise,whateversuperficial semanticsimilaritiesexisted,referringtotheGMD-runXifengconcentration campashaving"acarefullyarrangedConfucianizatonofthedetainmentpolicy" (p.146)hasaneerieOrwellianring.Clearly,theGMDhadusedtheterminology

Journal

China Review InternationalUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Aug 9, 2011

There are no references for this article.