The Epidemic of Domestic Violence in China

Ma Jinyu, a victim of domestic violence, recounts her traumatic past: “my clothes were soaked in blood” (James). Dong Ru’s story is too gruesome to hear: “I was beaten to the point of being unable to move and then tied up for sterilization operation” (Tang). What can be more heartbreaking than these stories of domestic abuse? In China, 1 in 4 married women suffers domestic abuse, and this rate is higher if we consider unmarried women (Rauhala). In the 1995 State Council’s National Program for Women’s Development, the term “domestic violence” first entered the Chinese lexicon (qtd. in Ogletree and de Alwis 270). Thirty years later, the Chinese government legislated the first Anti-Domestic Violence Law, in which Article 2 defines domestic violence as “physical, psychological or other infractions between family members affected through the use of methods such as beatings, restraints, maiming, restrictions on physical liberty as well as recurrent verbal abuse or intimidation” (“Anti-Domestic Violence Law”). I will solely focus on domestic violence against women because in China, “more than ninety percent of the [domestic violence] victims are women” (de Alwis 266). Although there is Anti-Domestic Violence Law in place, China’s domestic violence problem remains a dilemma because of the severity clause, short sentences, and a low frequency of convictions. For guidance, we can imitate Sweden’s legislation to remove the severity clause and adopt the United States’ mandatory arrest law and Canada’s domestic violence court programs to increase the rate of issuing domestic violence charges. Lastly, to increase prison time for abusers, China should elongate sentences to be longer than intentional injury crimes charges. Although an ultimate transition from party-state to citizen-state is an ideal solution, I believe these legal reforms would provide a more realistic plan to prevent domestic violence in China.

While the unequal distribution of power between men and women emboldens domestic violence against women, the traditional cultural values of China are the root cause of domestic violence. Confucianism, the pillar of traditional Chinese culture, spreads patriarchal values of female inferiority. Because society deems man as “一家之主” (the head of the family), he has the absolute authority over his inferior wife. As a result, domestic violence “has never been considered as a significant social and legislative issue simply because it pertains to a [man’s] ‘private matter’” (Zhao 220). This cultural phenomenon explains why China excluded domestic violence in family and marriage laws for years until the implementation of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law in 2015. In fact, “violence against female family members is normalized and even encouraged, as shown in sayings like ‘a beating shows intimacy and a scolding shows love’” (Mak). To further dissect the implication of Confucian values, women are encouraged to focus on the family so that men can tend to work. Consequently, women, cut off from the outside world, may not even realize their abusive partners are in the wrong.

To understand why domestic abuse persists at such a high rate, we need to examine why attempts to combat the problem have failed. In 2015, the Chinese government took a huge step forward with the legislation of Anti-Domestic Violence Law (Rauhala). This was a progressive step forward because a stand-alone body of Anti-Domestic Violence Law better protects victims than scattered and individual legislations in family law. Despite public optimism at the time, I believe the national legislation has not worked effectively to be the end-all solution to domestic violence. In hindsight, why did the much-celebrated legislation fail to meet the expectations?

The Anti-Domestic Violence Law’s severity clause weakens the policy for it quantifies the protection of female victims by the seriousness of the abuse. Even though domestic abuse is now considered a crime and a valid reason for divorce, “criminal liability can only arise if the violence constitutes ‘severe harm’” (qtd. de Alwis 267). The legislation does not express what level of violence constitutes ‘severe harm,’ leaving the interpretation of the law to local judges. As a result, judges may narrow the scope of protection to only hospitalized victims. With no medical records, women with minor injuries such as bruises and wounds do not receive the protection of the Law. A victim of the severity clause, Dai Xiaolei comments that “nobody will care unless [she is] beaten to death” (Rauhala). This complaint seems to be an exaggeration because I can not believe that the authorities would not take her claim seriously unless she is moribund. But the reality proves me wrong. The judges and the police simply sent her back home with a tone-deaf reply that “I do not live in your home and I have not seen him beating you” (ibid.). The severity clause places the burden of proof overly on the battered women because the legal process requires the plaintiffs to submit convincing evidence to the court. Often threatened, women risk their lives to seek help, only to be defeated by a lack of evidence presented to the court for it is impossible to videotape their partner’s abusive behavior. As a result, the offender can easily get away with his alleged crime, “abusing” the legal process. I think this problem looms large because the abusers’ disrespect of the legal process diminishes the credibility and authority of the law. Much to the disappointment of feminists who fought hard for the Anti-Domestic Violence Law, the weak enforcement of the legislation adds to the problem of the severity clause.

The Anti-Domestic Violence Law is poorly enforced because the level of punishment is too low to be taken seriously. According to Article 260 of Criminal Law in China, the domestic abuse sentence is less than two years in prison, and if the conduct results in severe harm or death, the sentence may go up to seven years (“Full Text of the Criminal Law”). However, the editors of the Journal of Shandong Women’s University believe that in contrast to the legislation, if the wife abuses the husband to death, she will face a life sentence or a death sentence with reprieve (“Differences between Chinese and Foreign Marriage Laws”). Here, the editors present a double standard for male and female victims because female abusers receive longer jail sentences than their male counterparts. Even though the Law does not explicitly outline a double standard based on gender, the practice in real life can not be ignored. More worrisomely, “these punishments are rarely issued” (de Alwis 267) because traditional judges classify domestic violence cases to be family matters that need no intervention. This is concerning because, with a low level and frequency of punishment, abusers do not feel intimated by domestic violence legislation and are not scared to continue their horrendous crimes. For a country with strict laws and regular use of death penalties, it is ironic that the imprisonment sentences for domestic violence are loose and short. Due to the infrequent issuing of domestic violence charges and the mild consequences of violating protection orders, the laws in China fail to prevent perpetrators from being abusive. I am not saying that the Anti-Domestic Violence Law is a complete misstep, but we need to learn from its disadvantages and create better solutions to domestic violence.

For judicial reforms, China should first imitate the domestic violence legislation in Sweden to remove the severity clause. In Sweden’s domestic violence laws, a perpetrator can be punished legally even if his abuse does not constitute “severe harm.” As long as the abusive behavior occurs multiple times, the court would convict abusers that conduct minor acts of violence, such as shoving and slapping, or even intimidation without actual injury (The First “Anti-Domestic Violence Law”). The success of Sweden’s legislation is easily translatable to the Chinese legal code once China removes the severity clause in its Anti-Domestic Violence Law. Without the qualification of “severe harm,” China’s legal code can save victims before they suffer from serious and life-threatening injuries.

While Sweden’s legislation resolves the theoretical weakness in China’s Anti-Domestic Violence Law, the mandatory arrest policies in the U.S. and Canada’s domestic violence court programs provide a solution to the Law’s poor enforcement. As of 2000, 23 states have implemented a mandatory arrest order for reports of domestic violence (Hirschel et al. 265). Mandatory arrest law serves as a deterrent for perpetrators because it significantly increases the likelihood of arrest in intimate partner violence (Hirschel et al. 296) and decreases the probability of abusers escaping the penalty of the domestic violence law. While the mandatory arrest law guarantees that police officers are not ignoring their obligations, Canada’s domestic violence court programs “ensure that offenders are sentenced to either jail time or fines depending on the time committed” (qtd. in Alsehaimi and Helal 110), giving the judges a strict framework to work with. The combination of the U.S.’ mandatory arrest law and Canada’s domestic violence court programs can help China increase its frequency of issuing domestic violence charges, starting with arrests from the police and resulting in sentences from the courts.

However, the models of developed countries fail to address the issue of short sentencing; therefore, my recommendation is to increase the domestic violence sentences to be longer than the sentences for intentional injury, which applies to non-family members. I recommend this because research shows “what matters is the comparative severity of the [domestic violence] sentencing compared to non-[domestic violence] sentencing, not the severity of the sentencing itself” (Klein et. al 35). For reference, the Chinese Criminal Law issues two years of imprisonment for violent acts that cause minor injury, three to ten years for severe harm, and life-long or death penalties for deaths (“Full Text of the Criminal Law”). By elongating the domestic violence sentences to be longer than intentional injury sentences, the Chinese legislators could establish the precedent that abusing an intimate partner is more dishonorable than hurting a stranger.

Moving past an ideal solution toward a realistic strategy, we need to understand that the biggest barrier is the Chinese government’s reluctance for judicial reforms because of its belief in social harmony. While the government resorts to the statute which publicly punishes domestic violence, it encourages the use of mediation instead of protecting the victims (Jiang 4). This contradiction in the efforts to combat domestic violence arises from the Chinese government’s aim of maintaining social harmony. Behind this government agenda is the traditional Chinese saying “家和万事兴” (harmonious families cultivates prosperity). So instead of protecting the victims, the cultural inclination is to repair toxic and abusive marriages. For example, the police encouraged a victim named Zhang Wenxia to seek reconciliation: “you have a special relationship with him, he is your ex-husband, you guys should work this out by yourself” (Rauhala). Similarly, the courts leave domestic violence parties to resolve the matter in hopes of reconciliation even though there are legal statutes in place.

To overcome this barrier, there needs to be more representation of women in government for “[Xi’s] Politburo Standing Committee is still all male,” (“China Says It Defends Women’s Rights. So Why Attack Feminists?”) and there is only 27.9% of women in the Chinese Communist Party (Peng). Female government officials are more likely to advocate for judicial reforms and rewrite legislation that favors abused females. Indeed, “as the percentage of women in the legislature increases by about 10 percent, countries are about 10 percent more likely to adopt full legal protections against domestic violence” (Richards and Haglund). As the classic feminist slogan goes, “girls help girls.”

While scholars believe that an ultimate transition from party-state to citizen-state is the only solution to solving domestic violence from its roots (Jiang 245), I would argue that the removal of the severity clause, the lengthening of sentences, and the increase in convictions present a more realistic strategy to combat domestic violence in China. A visiting scholar at the U.S.-Asia Law Institute at New York University, Jue Jiang believes the government’s crackdown on anti-domestic violence activism and the encouragement of mediation in domestic violence lawsuits forms a U-turn away from the Anti-Domestic Violence Law (ibid.). Therefore, he concludes that “the way to fill the gap between law in books and law in action in the Law and extirpate domestic violence in China lies in a transformation from the Party-State to a Citizen-State that challenges the inherently patriarchal structure” (ibid.). However, I think not all problems need a dramatic political solution, and Jiang fails to see the bigger implications of judicial reforms. By bigger implications, I am referring to how judicial reforms lead to cultural shifts. In this case, with a more strictly defined and enforced system of anti-domestic violence law, the Chinese government is spreading a message that combatting domestic violence is a national priority. This especially works well in China because the authoritarian state largely controls public opinion. The revised Anti-Domestic Violence Law can be a transformative tool for suppressing domestic violence against women by punishing perpetrators, providing justice to survivors, and serving as a deterrent.

Works Cited

“Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People’s Republic of China (Chairman Order No. 37).” The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, edited by Song Yan, www.gov.cn., 28 Dec. 2015, www.gov.cn/zhengce/2015-12/28/content_5029898.htm.

“China Says It Defends Women’s Rights. So Why Attack Feminists?” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 28 Oct. 2021, www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/28/china-says-it-defends-womens-rights-so-why-attack-feminists.

De Alwis, Rangita de Silva. “Opportunities and Challenges for Gender-Based Legal Reform in China.” East Asia Law Review, vol. 5, 2010, pp. 266–7. scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=ealr.

“Differences between Chinese and Foreign Marriage Laws and the Actual Status of Chinese Women. Are Chinese Men and Women Really Equal?” Journal of Shandong Women’s University, 7 Sept. 2012, xuebao.sdwu.edu.cn/info/1114/1745.htm.

“Full Text of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (2021).” Beijing Duty Crime Defense Lawyers Network, Beijing Haowei Law Firm, 15 May 2021, www.bjlaw995.com/xsfg/12.html.

Hirschel, David, et al. “Domestic Violence and Mandatory Arrest Laws: to What Extent Do They Influence Police Arrest Decisions.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 98, no. 1, 2007, pp. 265–96. scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7284&context=jclc.

Jiang, Jue. “The Family as a Stronghold of State Stability: Two Contradictions in China’s Anti-Domestic Violence Efforts.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, vol. 33, no. 2, 2019, p. 245. ​​DOI:10.1093/lawfam/ebz004.

Klein, Andy, et al. “Impact of Differential Sentencing Severity for Domestic Violence Offenses and All Other Offenses over Abusers’ Life Spans.” 2013, p. 35. DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR34571.v1.

Mak, Sophie. “China’s Hidden Epidemic: Domestic Violence.” The Diplomat, Diplomat Media Inc., 6 Apr. 2020, thediplomat.com/2020/04/chinas-hidden-epidemic-domestic-violence/.

Ogletree, Charles J., Jr., and Rangita de Silva de Alwis. “The Recently Revised Marriage Law of China: The Promise and the Reality.” Texas Journal of Women and the Law, vol. 13, 2004, p. 270. scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1709.

Peng, Zi. “The 100th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China: Women from “Holding up Half the Sky” to Returning to the Family to Build a Harmonious Society.” BBC News, BBC, 2 July 2021, www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/chinese-news-57649035.

Richards, David L., and Jillienne Haglund. “How Laws around the World Do and Do Not Protect Women from Violence.” The Washington Post, Nash Holdings, 11 Feb. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/11/how-laws-around-the-world-do-and-do-not-protect-women-from-violence/.

Tang, Jane. “Interview: ‘He Would Take a Stick to Me … He Beat Me Half to Death.’” Radio Free Asia, translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie, Radio Free Asia, 3 Aug. 2022, www.rfa.org/english/news/china/women-trafficking-03082022070912.html.

“The First ‘Anti-Domestic Violence Law’ was Introduced. What is the Punishment for Domestic Violence in Other Countries?” Central Radio Network, edited by Ren Fang, CNR Culture Media Co., 29 Dec. 2015, china.cnr.cn/qqhygbw/20151229/t20151229_520964930.shtml.

Zhao, Yuhong. “Domestic Violence in China: In Search of Legal and Social Responses.” UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, 2000, p. 220. escholarship.org/content/qt58w796m0/qt58w796m0.pdf?t=n4owwe.