Abstract
Punishment lies at the core of the state-imposed restrictions on 'trust-breaking' persons within the Social Credit System (SCS), named as chengjie. Through the lens of punishment theories, this paper examines the normative assumptions underlying untrustworthinessbased chengjie that are tantamount to punishments. It finds that a substantial part of untrustworthiness-based punishments deviates from the liberal principles of punishment which mandate punishment be based on the blameworthiness of the actor and be proportionate to retributive and deterrent aims. These principles, essential for preserving individual autonomy, have generally guided China's post-1980 law reforms concerning punitive powers. Despite the adjustment of SCS policies in 2020, the SCS continues to suffer from major flaws of disregarding blameworthiness and overemphasising the deterrent aim of punishment without reliable predictions of wrongdoings. The System has been influenced by two illiberal tendencies: the attempt to employ harsh punishments for social control, and the reliance on data-driven evaluations of the worth or risks of individuals that equate statistical correlation with normative relevancy and ignore human agency. The SCS's erosion of individual autonomy cannot be rectified by law-making that formally endorses untrustworthiness-based chengjie. It shall be addressed by discarding the de-contextualised concept of 'trustworthiness' and valuing everyone's volitional and cognitive capacities.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 139-177 |
| Number of pages | 38 |
| Journal | China Review |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Publication status | Published - Aug 2024 |