Henan's courts stirred controversy last month when they introduced a pilot system to hold judges responsible for their rulings even after they resign, retire or are reassigned, in an effort to reduce the number of wrongful convictions.
The measure was launched with good intentions, no doubt. The Henan judiciary's image has suffered from several high-profile wrongful convictions in recent years. And on the first Monday after the scheme was announced, 800 people showed up at the province's high court seeking redress.
The courage involved in introducing the measure should be applauded. However, some legal professionals question whether judges should shoulder all the blame for wrongful rulings, as under the mainland's legal system they rarely rule on cases alone. And there is concern the move might actually make it harder for wrongful judgments to be overturned.
The case of Nie Shubin in Hebei was also brought up again in discussions. Nie was executed for rape and murder in 1995, but in 2005 a serial killer claimed responsibility. Despite years of petitioning, Nie's mother has been unable to have the conviction overturned.
The system introduced by Henan works like this: a judge is held responsible and punished for wrongful judgments resulting from deliberate breaking of the law or court rules, or gross negligence. Six specific categories are listed, including fabricating evidence and hiding relevant information from the court's adjudication committee. Wrongful judgments that result from ambiguity in the law or misinterpretation of it are exempt.
The system has already yielded one result: a judge who blamed 'blurred eyesight' for wrongfully reducing the sentence of a person convicted over a traffic accident was found to have taken bribes.
A corrupt judge was clearly to blame in this instance, and held accountable. But some legal specialists caution that for the Henan approach to work, the focus should be on wrongful behaviour on the part of judges, not on the judgments themselves. Bad rulings are not always the result of a judge's improper behaviour; likewise, wrongful behaviour does not always result in wrongful judgments.