Rape-By-Deception in China: A Messy But Pragmatically Desirable Criminal Law

Jianlin Chen, Bijuan Lu
{"title":"Rape-By-Deception in China: A Messy But Pragmatically Desirable Criminal Law","authors":"Jianlin Chen, Bijuan Lu","doi":"10.52214/cjgl.v43i2.11725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"China’s Criminal Law defines rape to include circumstances where a perpetrator “by violence, coercion, or any other means rapes a woman.” We critically investigate whether and how this provision is applicable to the use of deception to obtain sexual intercourse, and make three contributions. First, through a quantitative and qualitative analysis of contemporaneous scholarly commentary and a systematic survey of court judgments from 2015 to 2020, we demonstrate that religious fraudulent sex, medical fraudulent sex, and impersonation of intimate partners are punished as rape in China. Second, we argue that the current Chinese law is normatively desirable vis-à-vis the general consensus among scholarly commentary and legal practices elsewhere. Third, we highlight the unique starting point of Chinese sexual offenses provisions as compared to both common law and civil law jurisdictions, and explain how this “blank slate” contributed to a legal evolution process that prioritizes attaining desired legal outcomes at the expense of neat, coherent principles. More broadly, our case study of China challenges the prevailing assumption in English-language literature that civil law jurisdictions are less receptive towards fraudulent sex criminalization. It also cautions against the practice of reviewing statutory provisions in isolation when determining the substantive law of civil law jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":84468,"journal":{"name":"Columbia journal of gender and law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia journal of gender and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjgl.v43i2.11725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

China’s Criminal Law defines rape to include circumstances where a perpetrator “by violence, coercion, or any other means rapes a woman.” We critically investigate whether and how this provision is applicable to the use of deception to obtain sexual intercourse, and make three contributions. First, through a quantitative and qualitative analysis of contemporaneous scholarly commentary and a systematic survey of court judgments from 2015 to 2020, we demonstrate that religious fraudulent sex, medical fraudulent sex, and impersonation of intimate partners are punished as rape in China. Second, we argue that the current Chinese law is normatively desirable vis-à-vis the general consensus among scholarly commentary and legal practices elsewhere. Third, we highlight the unique starting point of Chinese sexual offenses provisions as compared to both common law and civil law jurisdictions, and explain how this “blank slate” contributed to a legal evolution process that prioritizes attaining desired legal outcomes at the expense of neat, coherent principles. More broadly, our case study of China challenges the prevailing assumption in English-language literature that civil law jurisdictions are less receptive towards fraudulent sex criminalization. It also cautions against the practice of reviewing statutory provisions in isolation when determining the substantive law of civil law jurisdictions.
中国的欺诈强奸:一部混乱但务实的刑法
中国《刑法》将强奸定义为包括犯罪者“以暴力、胁迫或任何其他手段强奸妇女”的情况。我们认真调查了这一规定是否以及如何适用于使用欺骗手段进行性交,并提出了三点建议。首先,通过对同期学术评论的定量和定性分析,以及对2015-2020年法院判决的系统调查,我们证明了宗教欺诈性行为、医疗欺诈性行为和冒充亲密伴侣在中国被视为强奸罪。其次,我们认为,相对于其他地方学术评论和法律实践的普遍共识,中国现行法律在规范上是可取的。第三,与普通法和民法管辖区相比,我们强调了中国性犯罪条款的独特起点,并解释了这一“空白”是如何促成法律演变过程的,该过程优先考虑以牺牲整洁、连贯的原则为代价获得所需的法律结果。更广泛地说,我们对中国的案例研究挑战了英文文献中的普遍假设,即大陆法系司法管辖区对欺诈性行为的刑事定罪不太接受。它还警告说,在确定民法管辖区的实体法时,不要孤立地审查法定条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信