Original
Rightful Challengers: How Chinese Criminal Defense Lawyers Encourage Judge-Prosecutor Disagreement
Abstract
abstract: In autocracies, courts are often perceived as tools of the autocrats, with lawyers viewed as lacking influence. The authors reassess these assumptions by examining criminal defense lawyers as "rightful challengers" within China's legal system. Analyzing an original data set of drug cases in Chinese criminal courts from 2014 through 2018, the authors find that when a lawyer is present, judges are three times more likely to reject prosecutors' arguments and twice as likely to deviate from prosecutors' sentencing recommendations. The deviation on average results in sentences that are shorter than the prosecutor's recommendation—shorter by more than two months in addition to the already shorter sentences judges give compared to prosecutors' recommendations. These findings suggest that lawyers can exert a substantial impact on judicial decisions by encouraging judge-prosecutor disagreement, particularly in cases that are less politically sensitive. Original interviews and close examination of lawyers' arguments reveal that the quality of defense is crucial for understanding lawyers' effectiveness in influencing court decisions. These results highlight how seemingly powerless societal actors, such as lawyers, can act as rightful challengers to powerful state actors within authoritarian regimes.
中文
正当挑战者：中国刑事辩护律师如何促成法官与检察官分歧
摘要
在威权政体中，法院常被视为独裁者的工具，律师则被认为缺乏影响力。本文通过考察中国法律体系中的刑事辩护律师作为“正当挑战者”，重新评估上述假设。基于2014年至2018年中国刑事法院毒品案件的原创数据集，作者发现，当有律师在场时，法官驳回检察官主张的可能性提高至三倍，偏离检察官量刑建议的可能性提高至两倍。这种偏离平均导致判决比检察官的建议更短——在法官本就比检察官建议判得更短的基础上，再短两个月以上。这些发现表明，律师可以通过促使法官与检察官之间产生分歧，对司法裁判产生实质性影响，尤其是在政治敏感性较低的案件中。原创访谈和对律师辩护论证的细致考察显示，辩护质量对于理解律师影响法院裁判的有效性至关重要。这些结果凸显了在威权政体中，看似无力的社会行动者（如律师）如何能够成为对抗强大国家行动者的正当挑战者。
关键词
中国、刑事辩护律师、法官—检察官分歧、司法裁判、威权体制、毒品案件、量刑建议、辩护质量