{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014141414141414142, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010774410774410775, 'mean_word_length': 5.016194331983805, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Chinese Criminal Procedure Reform of 2012 How Much Reform did it Bring?

The 2012 reform of the Chinese Criminal Procedure Code may be taken as evidence that a new democratic openness has pervaded Chinese political and social life. The protection of individual rights was improved. On the other hand, traditional powers of the police were retained and sometimes extended. This article will offer critical comments on some of the most important changes the 2012 reform brought. At the same time, the article will indicate alternative solutions that can be found in other countries and that might serve as a model for further changes of the Chinese system. The following problems will be discussed: The exclusionary rules that were added to the Code suffer from several shortcomings. The newly introduced privilege against self-incrimination is irreconcilable with the traditional duty of the suspect to tell the truth. To retain the prosecutor's power to decide on arrest is hardly in line with international law and the law of other countries. The new residential confinement at a “designated residence” must be considered unsupervised police custody – an official measure that does not exist anywhere else. General wide and uncontrolled investigatory powers of the police would have needed restriction. As criminal justice systems must be considered living organisms that develop in dynamic ways, there is hope that problems left by the 2012 revision will be solved by future reforms.