Talented Youths or Dangerous Criminals? Exploring Judicial Attitudes in the Sentencing of Data Crime Cases in Chinese Courts

Abstract

The focal concerns framework stands as the leading theoretical approach in criminology to account for differences in sentencing outcomes. Despite extensive empirical research, this framework has yet to be thoroughly examined in the context of cybercrime or data crime and in non-Western legal cultures. This study examines the following question: to what degree and in what ways do Chinese judges take into account the original focal concerns of blameworthiness, protecting the community, and practical limitations when making their sentencing decisions? By analyzing 2,052 cases and focusing on 34 detailed sentencing remarks from cases adjudicated in China from 2013 to 2023, along with insights from semi-structured interviews with 14 judges specializing in data crime, our research indicates that sentencing decisions in data crime cases in China are consistently shaped by the blameworthiness and community protection, although rather different factors associated with these concerns impact the assessment of data crime case severity.

Keywords

data crime cybercrime sentencing focal concerns China

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abubakari

Blaszczyk

(2024). Politicization of economic cybercrime: Perceptions among Ghanaian Facebook users. Deviant Behavior, 45(4), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2253487

Albonetti

C. A.

(1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991–1992. Law & Society Review, 31(4), 789–822. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053987

Alford

W. P.

(1995). To steal a book is an elegant offense: Intellectual property law in Chinese civilization. Stanford University Press.

Anhui Fuhu People’s Procuratorate v. Wang and others, 2015.

Anhui Lingbi County People’s Procuratorate v. Chu and Tao, 2018.

Anhui Xuancheng People’s Procuratorate v. Qin Fengda and Others, 2016.

Auerhahn

Henderson

J. S.

McConnell

P. R.

Lockwood

(2017). Are you judged by the residence you keep? Homicide sentencing, attribution and neighborhood context. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 18, 28. https://ccjlsscholasticahig.com/

Bond

C. E.

Jeffries

(2014). Similar punishment? Comparing sentencing outcomes in domestic and non-domestic violence cases. British Journal of Criminology, 54(5), 849–872. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu034

Button

Shepherd

Blackbourn

Sugiura

Kapend

Wang

(2022). Assessing the seriousness of cybercrime: The case of computer misuse crime in the United Kingdom and the victims’ perspective. Criminology & Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221128128

10.

Cheng

(2016). Financial crime in China: Developments, sanctions, and the systemic spread of corruption. Springer.

11.

Cheung

T. M.

(2018). The rise of China as a cybersecurity industrial power: Balancing national security, geopolitical, and development priorities. Journal of Cyber Policy, 3(3), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2018.1556720

12.

Chongqing Yunyang People’s Procuratorate v. Tan , 2016.

13.

Citron

D. K.

Solove

D. J.

(2022). Privacy harms. Boston University Law Review, 102, 793–864.

14.

Crow

M. S.

Goulette

(2022). Judicial diversity and sentencing disparity across US District Courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101973

15.

Doerner

J. K.

Demuth

(2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902926197

16.

Galvin

M. A.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2022). Expanding our understanding of focal concerns: Alternative sentences, race, and “salvageability.” Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1332–1353. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2021.1954234

17.

Gaub

J. E.

Holtfreter

(2015). New directions in intersections, inequality, and sentencing. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(5), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989299

18.

Gibbs

B. R.

Ten Bensel

(2022). Sentencing females convicted of sex offenses: Examining measures of perceived dangerousness and the decision to incarcerate. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211032708

19.

Gottschalk

(2019). Policing and prosecution of cybercrime. In Mitsilegas

Hufnagel

Moiseienko

(Eds.), Research handbook on transnational crime (pp. 344–355). Edward Elgar Publishing.

20.

Sun

Chen

(2022). Criminal law responses to data crimes in the digital age. Shanghai Law Review, 1, 134–142.

21.

Guangdong Nanxiong People’s Procuratorate v. Hu Dongbao, 2022.

22.

Han

J. Y.

(2022). The judicial dilemma of data crimes and approaches to governance. Shanghai Law Review, 17, 217–224.

23.

Hartel

Wegberg

van Staalduinen

(2023). Investigating sentence severity with judicial open data: A case study on sentencing high-tech crime in the Dutch criminal justice system. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 29(4), 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-021-09503-5

24.

Holt

T. J.

Bossler

A. M.

(2014). An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behavior, 35(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.822209

25.

Holtfreter

(2013). Gender and “other people’s money”: An analysis of white-collar offender sentencing. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(4), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2013.821015

26.

Homer

E. M.

Higgins

G. E.

(2023). The role of blameworthiness in the federal probation sentencing of corporate environmental offenders. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(3), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-02-2022-0054

27.

Hubei Huangshi Tieshan District People’s Procuratorate v. Zhan, 2015.

28.

Jackson

S. M.

Ratcliff

Gruenewald

(2023). Gender and criminal justice responses to terrorism in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 69(5), 1044-1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211047535

29.

Kádár

D. Z.

Ning

Ran

(2018). Public ritual apology: A case study of Chinese. Discourse, Context & Media, 26, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.01.003

30.

Kubat

(2018). Morality as legitimacy under Xi Jinping: The political functionality of traditional culture for the Chinese Communist Party. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 47(3), 47–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810261804700303

31.

Kutateladze

B. L.

Andiloro

N. R.

Johnson

B. D.

Spohn

C. C.

(2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52(3), 514–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12047

32.

Larson

R. B.

(2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305

33.

Lei

(2019). Makeup or fakeup? The need to regulate counterfeit cosmetics through improved Chinese intellectual property enforcement. Fordham Law Review, 88, 309.

34.

(2015). China’s community corrections: An actuarial model of punishment. Crime, Law and Social Change, 64, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-015-9574-6

35.

(2022). Preliminary determination and application of legal interests protected against data crimes in the internet era: A perspective based on social trust. Shanghai Law Review, 16, 180–193.

36.

Liu

X. Q.

(2022). Study on the improvement of criminal law regulation of data crimes. China Criminal Law Journal, 5, 20–35.

37.

Lynch

(2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1686163

38.

Maddan

Hartley

R. D.

Walker

J. T.

Miller

J. M.

(2012). Sympathy for the devil: An exploration of federal judicial discretion in the processing of white-collar offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-010-9094-y

39.

H. X.

(2021, December 31). Constructing a legal great wall against organized crime. Procuratorial Daily. https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/llyj/202112/t20211231_540461.shtml

40.

Nanjing Gulou District People’s Procuratorate v. Zhang Junjie and Others: Guiding Case No. 145, 2022.

41.

Nederhof

A. J.

(1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303

42.

Payne

B. K.

Pitman

(2023). Technology, white-collar cybercrime, and white-collar crime: An analysis of Utah’s white-collar crime registry data. Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime, 4(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631309X221128622

43.

Shao

(2015, August 12). Study of Comrade Xi Jinping’s thoughts on anti-corruption. Hongqi Wengao. http://theory.people.com.cn/n/2015/0811/c143844-27443418.html

44.

Shen

P. M.

(2021). Governing through corruption: The symbolism of the death penalty for Chinese corrupt officials. National Taiwan University Law Review, 16, 81.

45.

Shenzhen Longgang District People’s Procuratorate v. Nie, 2021.

46.

Spohn

Holleran

(2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40(2), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00959.x

47.

Steffensmeier

Demuth

(2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 65(5), 705–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240006500505

48.

Steffensmeier

Painter-Davis

Ulmer

(2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416679371

49.

Steffensmeier

Ulmer

Kramer

(1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x

50.

Sun

(2021). Between rigidity and arbitrariness: The empirical scale of criminal justice decision-making. Global Law Review, 3, 100–116.

51.

Testa

(2019). Examining federal criminal sentencing of white-collar and common property offenders: The case of embezzlement and larceny. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 681–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417709313

52.

Ulmer

J. T.

Silver

Hanrath

L. S.

(2023). Back to basics: A critical examination of the focal concerns framework from the perspective of judges. Justice Quarterly, 40(6), 813–836. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2132274

53.

Wall

D. S.

(2024). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. John Wiley.

54.

Wang

D. J.

Hooper

(2015). Shame and authority: Tracing the origins of internal control practices in China. Research Bank.

55.

Wang

L. G.

Liu

S. D.

(2017). An empirical study on the decision-making of pressure cases by the trial committees of grassroots courts. Legal Science Research, 39(1), 80–99.

56.

(2021). Freedom and security: China’s solution for cross-border data flow. Global Law Review, 1, 22–37.

57.

Yang

Z. Q.

(2019). The judicial dilemma and solution of data crimes in China: Focused on data security rights and interests. Global Law Review, 6, 151–171.

58.

Zhang

(2022). “Safety overrides all other concerns”: On why collective discipline in China fail to rehabilitate female prisoners. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 70, 100547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2022.100547

59.

Zhejiang Jinhua Wucheng District Procuratorate v. Qin Youtao, 2017.