Transparency, Punishment, and Judicial Behavior: Analyzing Criminal Sentencing Under China's Mass Publication Reform.

Abstract

Crime and punishment remain central concerns in China's justice system, yet little is known about how transparency reforms shape judicial decision-making at the local court level. This study examines public scrutiny effects in criminal sentencing in one basic-level court through the lens of focal concerns theory. Drawing on a novel complete dataset of judgments rendered from 2012-2017 and interviews with eight judges from diverse courts, the analysis reveals that transparency requirements trigger multiple adaptive responses in how judges assess focal concerns. Post-reform judgments are generally longer, particularly in cases involving serious crimes, suggesting more thorough articulation of assessments. Results show a reduction in sentence length after controlling for case characteristics, suggesting transparency moderates how judges balance punitive concerns against proportionality and defensibility. While initial implementation of the reform improved sentencing consistency, standardization effects diminished over time, revealing the institutional challenges of sustaining transparency-driven changes. The qualitative findings highlight variations in reform responses, with judges in first-tier cities and those with stronger professional backgrounds reporting less dramatic changes than colleagues from other backgrounds. These findings advance understanding of how visibility mechanisms influence judicial decision-making and offer insights for policy reforms aimed at channeling discretion through transparency measures.