If it goes to a Chinese criminal court

Annette 2022-03-24 09:02:56

After reading the US version, my interest skyrocketed to see if a person with national information in our country told a third party (let's reasonably assume it was a journalist). So does this third party have the legal responsibility to expose the person who disclosed the information, if not, does he need to go to jail for this?
The first thing that comes to my mind is that the act of concealing the crime of concealment
knowing that the crime happened or the circumstances of the perpetrator, but not actively reporting it to the judicial authority, is a kind of "knowing but not reporting". Although refusing to report information is objectively beneficial to criminals' escape, the perpetrators only passively provide information about criminal facts and criminals, rather than actively harboring and shielding criminals, so they are simply omissions. Since there is no mandatory provision in my country's criminal law that people who know the general facts of a crime or the circumstances of the offender must report it, the behavior of refusing to report knowledge cannot be regarded as a crime. Similarly, when public security and judicial organs investigate and collect evidence, simply not providing testimony, although it violates the provisions of Article 48 of the Criminal Procedure Law that "everyone who knows the circumstances of the case has the obligation to testify", but because the Criminal Law does not Special general provisions are made for this, so no crime is established. Obviously, the crime of harboring and covering up only applies to general crimes, and this reporter does not apply to this crime.
Secondly, the crime of refusing to provide evidence of espionage crimes
refers to the serious behavior of refusing to provide espionage evidence when the state security agency investigates the situation and collects relevant evidence, knowing that others have committed espionage crimes. This involves another concept of espionage crime, which refers to participating in espionage organizations, accepting tasks from espionage organizations and their agents, or instructing the enemy to bombard targets. Acts that endanger national security. Of course, neither the politician who broke his promise after drinking nor the child was involved in the hostile country, so the crime was not established.
crime of illegally obtaining state secrets
It refers to the illegal acquisition of state secrets by means of stealing, spying, and buying. The object of this crime is the state's secrecy system. The so-called state secrets refer to matters related to national security and interests, determined in accordance with legal procedures, and known only to a certain range of persons within a certain period of time. my country's state secrets are divided into three levels: top secret, secret and secret (the college entrance examination is a state secret). No matter what level of state secrets the perpetrator illegally obtained, it is sufficient to constitute this crime. Among the stealing, spying, and buying, what is more in line with this case is spying. Spying is the act of obtaining state secrets through inquiries, field inspections and other methods. The identities of the intelligence officers are clearly among the state secrets. Those who commit this crime shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights; if the circumstances are serious, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years.
Obviously, this reporter also constituted the crime of intentionally leaking state secrets. The crime
of intentionally leaking state secrets means that state functionaries or non-state personnel violated the Law on Guarding State Secrets, intentionally making state secrets known to those who should not know, or deliberately leaking state secrets. Acts that make state secrets go beyond the limited contact range and have serious circumstances.
According to the judicial interpretation, if a staff member of a state organ is suspected of intentionally leaking state secrets and falls under any of the following circumstances, a case shall be filed:
1. Leaking top-secret or secret-level state secrets;
2. Leaking three or more secret-level state secrets
3. Disseminating or disseminating state secrets to the public; 4.
Divulging state secrets and causing serious harm;
5. Using power to instigate or coerce others to leak state secrets in violation of the provisions of the State Secrets Protection Law;
6. For personal gain The purpose is to disclose state secrets;
7. Other serious circumstances.
The standards for filing a case for a criminal act suspected of intentionally leaking state secrets by a non-state organ staff member shall be implemented with reference to the above-mentioned standards.
The sentence refers to the crime of illegally obtaining state secrets.

postscript:
This is the first time I write something like this. Obviously, for the confidentiality of journalists, journalists will inevitably violate the law, whether it is the United States or China, and they will endure jail time.

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews

Extended Reading

Nothing But the Truth quotes

  • Ray Armstrong: [staring at his wife's new story] You made the top page!

  • Alan Burnside: [In front of the Supreme Court] In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the Government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision, close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government; she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality; she could've simply gone home to her family. But to do so, would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again. And then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a President has covered up crimes or if an army officer has condoned torture? We as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries; that's for countries who fear their citizens - not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.