Week Six
Along with the rainstorms that filled the Beijing sky, we were finally granted some reprieve from the hot weather. Along with the thunder and lightning, we were visited by weather in the 80s, which was a blessing.
At work, we continue our project on the age of criminal responsibility in the United States and abroad. This is a topic at the center of a media storm in China as many debate whether China should keep its minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) at 12 for serious crimes and 14 for all other crimes. Therefore, our presentation announcement drew probably more attention than we would’ve liked. Even Warren, our landlord, decided he was so interested in hearing more about the American perspective on the MACR that he made the trip to the Fengtai District where our office is located.
For the presentation, we split it between the three of us (Lily, Cameron, and I). We began with a general overview of key American legal concepts such as Federalism and negative and positive rights. These are topics unfamiliar to China which is maintained by the Party based here in Beijing that makes laws for all of China. After this, we followed it up with a discussion on the development of juvenile law in the U.S. as well as an overview of the Juvenile Justice System. We reiterated that while there are similarities to the adult criminal court system, the goal of the juvenile justice system is different. Like in China, the focus is on the rehabilitation and reintroduction of these children to society following a delinquent act. However, also like in China, that is not always what happens. We briefly discuss the disparities of the criminal justice system in the context of racial discrimination. However, the meat of the topic was the discussion of transfer, also known as judicial waiver.
Director Tong mentioned he was particularly interested in understanding when transfer from the juvenile justice system to the adult criminal court occurs and how often it does. We included the three ways a juvenile can be removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court into the adult court: judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and direct file. Within these three ways, it is worth noting that certain jurisdictions in the U.S. will require children over a certain age, usually 17, to have their charges directly filed in criminal court to be tried as adults. Another element at play is the shift in attitudes toward juvenile justice in 1994 wherein many states passed statutes that required certain crimes committed by juveniles to be directly filed in the criminal court.
I’ve recently been in a Law & Order SVU kick, and I just so happened to watch an episode discussing our topic exactly. In the episode “Baby Killer,” a boy of seven obtains a handgun while at his babysitter’s and brings it to school for self-protection against a local gang. However, when the gang members show up at his school, he misfires the gun and accidentally shoots and kills another classmate of his. The question becomes whether this seven year old, who just made the statutory cut-off for the MACR in New York at the time (which is 12 except in homicide cases now), can be held criminally responsible for this reckless killing. We included the courtroom scene from this episode in our presentation where the psychologist discusses that while Elias, the seven year old shooter, may understand right from wrong, he has absolutely no concept of the magnitude or true consequences of his actions.
After discussing the standards in the international world and China, we took a short break before opening the floor for questions. I felt a bit like a fraud going into the presentation, however, as people asked questions about the topic individually, I felt surer of the amount of knowledge I possessed on the subject. As the audience was mostly students, they had questions about the general legal concept. One student asked in our conversation how I thought the differing ages of criminal responsibility would impact the idea of a child’s sense of justice. Another asked what would happen if a child crossed state lines in order to commit a crime simply because they knew they wouldn’t be held criminally responsible in their home state. These were questions I hadn’t previously considered going into this forum but curiosity is contagious, and I found myself reasoning their questions out with them.
This past Saturday, Kevin competed in the Beijing English Final Competition, and we saw A Quiet Place: Day One. Prior to the movie, Lily and I decided to try a famous Thai restaurant, and it was honestly the best meal I’ve had in China so far. Upon the first bite of the spring rolls, Lily and I looked at each other in disbelief before scarfing down the rest of them, eagerly awaiting the rest of our meal. My favorite part of the meal, however, was the bathtub of fruit-flavored gelatin balls and coconut milk with an iced cranberry bear. I normally abhor scary movies, but the A Quiet Place movies have a special place in my heart, especially seeing them with friends. Lily and I grip each other in silence as the creatures are summoned on screen by the slightest noise, laughing quietly to ourselves after the scene passes.
Friday night, I have dinner with Razy, a girl I met at the musical theater night. She’s also a bit of a foodie, so she showed me the best Italian restaurant in Beijing. I could’ve cried on the first bite of my meal, a creamy jalapeno seafood risotto. We also indulged in some of the best tiramisu in the city as we discussed our backgrounds and what led to our particular paths. Many Chinese friends I meet end up having questions
about something specific in America, whether that’s our governance, our elections, our food culture, or our shopping culture; but Razy was most interested in our tax system, specifically 401ks and Roth plans. I explained as best I could over bruschetta and tuna tartare.
This weekend promises new adventures as Lily and I have booked our tickets to go to the Great Wall!