Two weeks ago I commented on a China court ruling that lightened the sentence of two police officers who had molested a drunk college girl, from ‘rape’ to ‘temporary rape’.  A more recent analysis of the case from the Epoch Times can be found here.

A subsequent LinkedIn discussion has shined some light on other interpretations of this definition:

“The translation of “临时性强奸 to ”temporary” rape is inadequate. Although in many contexts “临”时” accurately translates to “temporary,” here the term carries more a connotation of an opportunistic act committed without forethought or preparation. If so, there appears to be an analogy to the lower intent requirements of involuntary and “second degree” “heat of passion” offenses in Western jurisprudence.” – J. Petersen

“J., your interpretation is right. As far as I know, “临时性强奸“ is not the exact wording used by the court. In Chinese law there is a term “临时起意犯罪” which refers to a crime committed without forethought or preparation. The court’s wording means the three guys committed the crime without forethought or premeditation and so gave them a rather slight penalty considered by most people. So the wording was changed to “临时性强奸” and the judgment was widely criticized on the internet.” – W. Chai

“Thank you Mr. Petersen and Mr. Chai for your help with the translation. Nevertheless, it still seems like an unjust lightening of the sentences. Is this a relatively common application of law in Chinese courts?” – D. Denoble

“I cannot comment as to the justice of the sentence. You may well be correct. Mr. Chai may be able to address the treatment generally of crimes committed without forethought or preparation (“临时起意犯罪).”

For me the interesting aspect of the matter is the incendiary public reaction to the sentence and the apparent response of the judiciary. I assume that the court was within its authority and discretion to determine that the crime was “临时起意犯罪” (committed without forethought or preparation) and to apply that fact in mitigation of the sentence. Then it was perhaps a misprint or poor diction which allowed editorialists to fan the flames of the human search engine by rallying the people against “temporary rape” (“临时性强奸.“), to which the judiciary has now apparently responded. However it transpired, the case provides a sobering example of the power of public outrage. Notably, it appears that the tide of outrage may have been fanned to extremes by editorial coverage based upon a relatively pedestrian, and perhaps erroneous, analysis of the sentence. i.e., without thorough investigation and research.

Once again, I would be interested in comments from Chinese attorneys who can shed light on this.” – J. Petersen

So…can any Chinese attorneys shed some light on this?