Ms. Cao met Mr. Liu, who was from a neighboring village, through her family introduction in 2015. They married in Shijiazhuang on October 5, 2017. The following August, their child was born. According to Cao’s father’s recollection, starting from 2021, the man began to commit domestic violence against the woman. On August 26 of that year, the woman was slapped, causing a perforation of her left eardrum, but ultimately she chose to compromise and not report the incident to avoid affecting the child. Cao’s father also heard from his daughter’s colleagues that starting in 2023, the man repeatedly went to her workplace to “check on her” to see if she was working. According to the police’s comprehensive report, at 1:16 a.m. on May 2, 2024, the woman called the police due to family violence, but the police concluded: “Both parties had a quarrel over trivial family matters, no one was physically assaulted, and the matter was mediated and resolved.”
On the evening of May 20, 2024, the woman and her female friend Wang ate rice noodles together. During this time, the man called to ask if there was a male present; after the woman denied, she went home. Around 1 a.m. on the 21st, the man returned home drunk, forced her at knifepoint to drive to meet Wang for confrontation. Surveillance footage showed that at 2:08 a.m., the man continued to assault the woman outside the car for hours, including kicking, shoving, and threatening her with a knife. At 2:47 a.m., the man drove a Tesla with the woman to near Wang’s house; after they got out of the car, they continued arguing. During the argument, the man dragged the woman to the rear of the car, tore her underwear and clothes in public, and physically assaulted her. At 3:09 a.m., the woman entered the driver’s seat to start the car and leave; seeing the car start, the man climbed onto the hood. The woman accelerated and shook the car, throwing him onto the passenger door, but he refused to let go and continued to hold onto the vehicle as it moved. At 3:10 a.m., the car collided with a flower bed at the southeast corner of the intersection. Nearby restaurant staff heard the crash and immediately called the police. Both the woman and the man were injured in the incident; the man was taken to the hospital but died from his injuries. Forensic examination by the Shijiazhuang Public Security Bureau’s forensic institute indicated that his death was caused by multiple ruptures of the liver, kidneys, pancreas, and other organs due to significant blunt force. The woman was treated for “closed abdominal injuries, localized peritonitis, intra-abdominal bleeding, rib fractures, sacral fractures, and eardrum perforation.” Even two months later, video footage still showed her with drainage bags and multiple injuries.
The Shijiazhuang Intermediate People’s Court held that the woman, knowing that the man was hanging onto the car, still accelerated and allowed the fatal outcome to occur, constituting intentional homicide. The court rejected the defense of “self-defense,” reasoning that the man had not inflicted immediate assault at that moment, and the “illegal harm was ongoing,” thus the conditions for self-defense were not met. The court found the woman guilty of intentional homicide. However, it also acknowledged the man’s fault, including threatening with a knife and multiple assaults, and noted that the woman had confessed truthfully after being detained, showing remorse, thus sentencing her to 11 years in prison. The defense lawyer argued that the woman’s actions were an emergency self-defense, with no intent to kill, and that the man’s ongoing violence was a major factor in the incident. The lawyer also pointed out that the woman was in extreme panic at the time, and her actions, though improper, should be mitigated. Nonetheless, the court did not accept the defense’s argument and upheld the original sentence. Currently, Cao is still hospitalized, and her family and lawyer insist on appealing, claiming that the first trial did not fully consider the background of domestic violence.
The court stated that the sentence was lighter due to the man’s fault. However, according to Article 232 of the Criminal Law of China, the sentencing standards for intentional homicide are: death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than ten years; for less serious circumstances, imprisonment from three to ten years. If the case truly warrants a lighter sentence for the woman, why was she sentenced to eleven years instead of a sentence between three and ten years? Many netizens and Cao’s father expressed their dissatisfaction with this verdict. Cao’s father said, “He was abusing her at home, my daughter is the victim… my daughter did not intentionally kill him, she was trying to escape his violence. Liu Moumou repeatedly attacked my daughter with a knife; this behavior is the root cause of the tragedy,” and has filed an appeal. Many netizens, especially women who have experienced domestic violence, expressed their discontent: “Holding a knife, kicking, shoving doesn’t count as harm? Do we have to be beaten to death to count?” “When the man had the knife but didn’t stab, he said he wasn’t assaulting; when he stabbed, it was passion killing. The woman didn’t fight back, claiming she was cowardly; if she fought back, it would be considered intentional homicide.”
Online, there are voices supporting women’s liberation as well as those supporting patriarchal society. Some say: “She only went home at 1 a.m. after eating rice noodles, if I were her, I’d suspect too.” First, it is necessary to point out the factual error in this statement: it was not the woman who returned home at 1 a.m. after eating rice noodles, but the man who returned home at that time, then argued and committed domestic violence. Second, does suspicion of infidelity justify domestic violence? If such reasoning were valid, using suspicion as a reason for violence or even murder would make killing anyone justified. Fundamentally, this kind of rhetoric reflects a patriarchal, patriarchal head-of-household stance, viewing the woman as a tool for sex and a family slave, not as an equal and independent person. If the man suspects his wife’s infidelity, he becomes furious and cannot accept that his “tool” might be unfaithful, justifying domestic violence like a master punishing a runaway slave. However, if women suspect men’s infidelity, they often cannot even divorce.
At this point, looking at other cases of self-defense in the Chinese legal system, we see in the “Kunshan BMW car self-defense case,” Liu and Yu argued and Liu was stabbed. Yu then seized the knife and stabbed Liu five times within seven seconds. Liu, injured, ran back into the BMW, and Yu continued to pursue and missed two more stabs, even striking the car with a knife. Liu later died from his injuries, and Yu was ultimately judged to have acted in self-defense, with the court stating that “Yu’s personal safety was continuously threatened by Liu’s violence,” and his actions were “a continuous act.” But in this case, wasn’t the woman’s safety also under constant threat? Compared to Liu, who was injured inside the BMW and was threatening violence, or the man who assaulted her with a knife, tore her clothes, and tried to enter her car—who posed a greater threat? The answer is obvious. Why are the vast majority of domestic violence victims women (92.41%)? Why does domestic violence remain unaddressed, and why do abusers go unpunished? Why do men enjoy advantages in all aspects? Why are women oppressed in society? To answer these questions, we must look at the society itself, applying class analysis from the social foundation.
“In a class society, everyone lives within a certain class position, and all ideas bear the mark of class.” The law and sentencing are not beyond class; they belong to the superstructure, controlled by the ruling class. Due to private ownership, gender oppression has emerged, and the material basis of Chinese society supports male dominance and patriarchy over women. The sinister intent of Chinese society is extremely dangerous. It makes men, as beneficiaries, even if they are exploited and oppressed by society, feel proud when they have a wife they can beat and scold at home, pornographic videos they can indulge in, and prostitutes they can buy on the street—enjoying the pleasure of being masters in a capitalist society, maintaining their ruling position, and suppressing women’s liberation struggles. Meanwhile, the law is also determined by the economic base, continuing to uphold men’s interests in sentencing. In this case, even if the woman’s actions are justified as self-defense, she was sentenced to 11 years; in contrast, a man who long-term abused Dong Shanshan to death was only sentenced for 6 years for abuse. These cases vividly illustrate the gender bias in sentencing rooted in the Chinese society. The system uses lighter punishments for male oppressors to support their dominance, fostering domestic violence, while heavier punishments are used to suppress women’s resistance. Just as in slave-owning societies, the punishment for slaves was much harsher than for slave owners. In capitalist society, the sentencing for women and children is more severe than for men and parents, aiming to suppress the resistance of the exploited. Unless we completely overthrow the patriarchal society of Chinese capitalism, eliminate exploitation and oppression, and establish an equal socialist society, women will never attain equal status.