Originally posted by @no1marauder
I believe all people, both Chinese and US citizens, should not be subject to the harsh sentences and violations of due process that the Chinese system routinely allows.
Here's a brief book review highlighting some of said violations and deficiencies: http://www.cefc.com.hk/article/he-jiahong-back-from-the-dead-wrongful-convictions-and-criminal-justice-in-china/
Even China's government has begun to acknowledge that its justice system has serious failures.
"'My son is innocent': Chinese man exonerated 21 years after execution."
"More than two decades after her son was executed for rape and murder, Zhang Huanzhi
has finally proven his innocence. China's top court overturned Nie Shubin's conviction
Friday, in a landmark case that exposed deep flaws in China's criminal justice system."
"Another man, Wang Shujin, confessed to the crime that Nie was executed for in 2005 --
10 years after Nie was executed."
"Following his execution his father Nie Xuesheng tried to commit suicide, but survived."
"The court said that Nie's family could ask for compensation from the government."
"For years, it seemed no one would listen, but Zhang later found an unlikely ally in the
People's Daily -- the official newspaper of the ruling Communist Party."
Let's accept the premise that China's justice system has many miscarriages of justice.
The American lawyer No1Marauder has *not* cited any evidence, let alone proven, that
there has been a miscarriage of justice IN THIS CASE. (Reportedly, there's video evidence
of the Americans stealing.) But No1Marauder apparently wants to argue the existence of
injustice in OTHER CASES means that the Americans should be given a free pass in THIS CASE,
which would mean, in effect, a license to steal in China.
I would have no objection if these Americans received exactly the same punishment that
they would have received under California law (they attend UCLA) for the same crimes.
"[California] Penal Code 459.5 PC reads : “(a) . . [S]hoplifting is defined as entering a
commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open
during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to
be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950). Any other entry into a
commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny is burglary"
"In other words, shoplifting is entering an open business intending to commit the crime of petty theft."
Under California law, if the value of the stolen goods is no more than $950, then the accused
should be tried for shoplifting. If it's worth more than that, then they should be tried for burglary.
If these American college athletes had committed the same crimes in the USA, then I doubt
that they would been let off with no time in jail, no community service, no fines, and not
even an obligation to make a pro forma apology (which their lawyer could write for them).