In a simpler way, making a complete and legitimate judgment has three procedures in China. Firstly, Public Security Organs apply the approval from Procuratorate to arrest suspects after they gather evidence. Second, Procuratorate would review the evidence. If they don’t think have enough evidence by the law to arrest criminal suspects, Procuratorate will disapprove the arrest. If they consider the evidence as enough, they will approve Public Security Organs to arrest the suspects. Then, Procuratorate transfers these cases to the court for prosecution. However, if Procuratorate consider that case should not prosecutable, then it drops the charges. Finally, the court makes a judicial decision and result after receiving cases from Procuratorate. Procuratorate can apply counter appeal if they don’t think the court’s judicial decision is fair and correct. The case then gets a retrial or transfer to the higher court to review. The Supreme Peoples Court is the highest judicial organ. After it makes judicial decisions, people cannot apply counter appeal.
Disapproval Arrest rate, Disapproval Prosecution Rate, and the quantity of Counter-appeal earlier mentioned as the three representative and important data at the beginning, are all respectively produced from the above three judgment procedures. If the value of the data is large, that means the level of judiciary independence is high. If they are small, that means the level of judiciary independence is low. I will compare the three data sets from different periods and areas to draw a conclusion on whether the Chinese judiciary has had any change and improvement in the past two decades.
Disapproval Arrest Rate is only produced after the Public Security Organs apply the approval to arrest suspects, but the Procuratorate fails to approve it. It is the proportion of the disapproval arrest quantity divided by the whole quantity of the application to arrest.
In terms of time, the average of