Sha Zhu Pan (杀猪盘), or Pig-Butchering scam, is a new online romance scam that mainly targets Chinese-speaking individuals to gain emotional trust and persuade victims to invest in a fictitious website controlled by the scammer group. The substantial economic loss forced the Chinese government to launch a series of judicial campaigns against this crime. Regardless, Sha Zhu Pan has not been significantly curbed but intensified and spread from mainland China to Southeast Asia, North America, and other regions. When procuring answers to this conundrum, no empirical studies have attempted to explore judicial aspects among Sha Zhu Pan cases in China. The purpose of this paper is to utilize focal concern theory, a conceptual framework generally applies to explain sentencing disparity, to explore whether the sentencing of Sha Zhu Pan offenders is guided by legal factors outlined in Chinese sentencing guidelines. To answer this question, this study quantitatively analyzes 172 legal cases collected from China Judgments Online. Although few inconsistent findings exist, the empirical evidence reveals that the judgments in Sha Zhu Pan cases are primarily driven by the three legal elements of the focal concern theory. The outcomes expand the focal concern theory to cybercrime sentencing in a cross-cultural context while offering insights to guide future research.
AlbonettiC. A. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processings. Criminology, 24(4), 623–644.
2.
AlbonettiC. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 247–266.
3.
AlbonettiC. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991–1992. Law and Society Review, 789–822.
4.
AnL.MingH.Li-pingP. (2011). An empirical research on Chinese sentence decision-making. Criminal Justice Studies, 24(3), 307–318.
5.
BrittC. L. (2000). Social context and racial disparities in punishment decisions. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 707–732.
6.
BuglarS. (2016). The ‘focal concerns’ of parole board decision-making: A thematic analysis. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 27(3), 285–302.
7.
BurrowJ. (2008). Reverse waiver and the effects of legal, statutory, and secondary legal factors on sentencing outcomes for juvenile offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 34–64.
8.
BushwayS. D.PiehlA. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35, 733–764.
CrowM. S.BalesW. (2006). Sentencing guidelines and focal concerns: The effect of sentencing policy as a practical constraint on sentencing decisions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 285–304.
13.
DemuthS. (2003). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and White felony arrestees. Criminology, 41(3), 873–908.
14.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among white, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 994–1011.
15.
DilksL. M.McGrimmonT. S.ThyeS. R. (2015). Status, emotional displays, and the relationally-based evaluation of criminals and their behavior. Social Science Research, 50, 246–263.
16.
DixonJ. (1995). The organizational context of criminal sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5), 1157–1198.
17.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age on sentencing outcomes in US federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27(1), 1–27.
18.
DoernerJ. K.DemuthS. (2014). Gender and sentencing in the federal courts: Are women treated more leniently?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 242–269.
19.
DouradoL. M. B.FischerB. (2021). Drug sentencing in Brazil: Factors influencing sentencing outcomes in the criminal courts of Recife/PE. Journal of Criminological Research Policy and Practice, 7, 335–344.
20.
EberhardtJ. L.DaviesP. G.Purdie-VaughnsV. J.JohnsonS. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 383–386.
21.
EngenR. L.GaineyR. R. (2000). Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: The rules have changed. Criminology, 38(4), 1207–1230.
22.
FarrellR. A.HolmesM. D. (1991). The social and cognitive structure of legal decision-making. Sociological Quarterly, 32(4), 529–542.
23.
FeldmeyerB.UlmerJ. T. (2011). Racial/ethnic threat and federal sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 238–270.
24.
Fernando RodriguezS.CurryT. R.LeeG. (2006). Gender differences in criminal sentencing: Do effects vary across violent, property, and drug offenses?Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 318–339.
25.
FuX. R. (2013). The legal analysis of the influence of criminal compensation for damage on measurement of penalty. Jinan Journal (Philosophy and Social Science), 35(10), 64–71.
26.
GalvinM. A.UlmerJ. T. (2022). Expanding our understanding of focal concerns: Alternative sentences, race, and “salvageability”. Justice Quarterly, 39, 1332–1353.
27.
GreenbergD. F.KesslerR. C.ColinL. (1983). The effect of police employment on crime. Criminology, 21(3), 375–394.
28.
GroggerJ. T.CarsonR. T. (1991). Models for truncated counts. Journal of Applied Economics, 6(3), 225–238.
29.
GurmuS. (1991). Tests for detecting overdispersion in the positive Poisson regression model. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 9(2), 215–222.
30.
HartleyR. D. (2014). Focal concerns theory. In MillerJ (Ed.), The encyclopedia of theoretical criminology (pp.1–5). Wiley-Blackwell.
31.
HartleyR. D.KwakD. H.ParkM.LeeM. S. (2011). Exploring sex disparity in sentencing outcomes: A focus on narcotics offenders in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 268–286.
32.
HartleyR. D.MillerJ. M. (2010). Crack-ing the media myth: Reconsidering sentencing severity for cocaine offenders by drug type. Criminal Justice Review, 35(1), 67–89.
33.
HartleyR. D.MaddanS.SpohnC. C. (2007). Concerning conceptualization and operationalization: Sentencing data and the focal concerns perspective–A research note. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 4(1), 58–78.
34.
HauerE. (2001). Overdispersion in modelling accidents on road sections and in empirical Bayes estimation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33(6), 799–808.
HeX. J. (2015). An empirical study on the influence of repentant attitudes on sentencing outcomes- a case study on City A and City B. Politics and Law, 12, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.15984/j.cnki.1005-9512.2015.12.002
37.
HolmesB.FeldmeyerB.KuligT. C. (2020). Sentencing departures and focal concerns: The joint effect of race and gender on departures in United States district courts, 2014 – 2016. Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(5), 598–622.
38.
HoltfreterK. (2013). Gender and “other people's money”: An analysis of white-collar offender sentencing. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(4), 326–344.
39.
HuangY. B. (2016). The influence of compensation on sentencing, conviction and execution. Journal of Central South University (Social Science), 22(1), 73–82.
40.
HuC. M. (2018). The impact of criminals’ social status in receiving penalties: An empirical study of 1060 criminal case judgments. Tsinghua University Law Journal, 12(4), 91–110.
41.
HuebnerB. M.BynumT. S. (2006). An analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44(4), 961–991.
42.
HuQ. T. (2015). Corruption and criminal sentencing dispositions in China [Master Thesis, University of Nevada-Las Vegas]. Sociology Commons.
43.
IlesG.BumphusV. W.ZehelL. (2011). Assessing the relevance of legal and extralegal factors in felony drug sentencing: The case of Michigan. Criminal Justice Studies, 24(3), 291–306.
44.
JeffriesS.BondC. (2009). Does indigeneity matter? Sentencing Indigenous offenders in South Australia's higher courts. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 47–71.
45.
JohnsonB. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 449–490.
46.
JohnsonB. D.UlmerJ. T.KramerJ. H. (2008). The social context of guidelines circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737–783.
47.
JordanK. L.FreiburgerT. L. (2010). Examining the impact of race and ethnicity on the sentencing of juveniles in the adult court. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(2), 185–201.
48.
KauttP. (2009). Heuristic influences over offense seriousness calculations: A multilevel investigation of racial disparity under sentencing guidelines. Punishment & Society, 11(2), 191–218.
49.
KimY. A.HippJ. R.KubrinC. E. (2022). Immigrant Organizations and Neighborhood Crime. Crime and Delinquency, 68, 1948–1976.
50.
Koons-WittB. A. (2002). The effect of gender on the decision to incarcerate before and after the introduction of sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(2), 297–328.
51.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania's sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(4), 897–932.
52.
KramerJ. H.UlmerJ. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
53.
LeeM.UlmerJ. T.ParkM. (2011). Drug sentencing in South Korea: The influence of case-processing and social status factors in an ethnically homogeneous context. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(3), 378–397.
54.
LiangB.LuH.TaylorM. (2009). Female drug abusers, narcotics offenders, and legal punishment in China. Criminal Justice Journal, 37(2), 133–141.
55.
LiJ.MaK.LuoD. H. (2015). Case-unrelated emotion and case-related emotion influence penalty measurement decision making: An experimental research. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(1), 196–202.
56.
LiR. (2012). On the factors affecting entity justice of sentencing. Hebei Law Science, 30(5), 47–52.
57.
LitwackT. R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 7(2), 409–443.
LiuJ.ZhouD.LiskaA. E.MessnerS. F.KrohnM. D.ZhangL.LuZ. (1998). Status, power, and sentencing in China. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 289–300.
60.
LordD.WashingtonS. P.IvanJ. N. (2005). Poisson, Poisson-gamma and zero-inflated regression models of motor vehicle crashes: balancing statistical fit and theory. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(1), 35–46.
61.
LuH.LiY.LiangB. (2018). Restorative justice and probation decisions – An analysis of intentional assault cases in China. Psychology Crime and Law, 24(6), 573–588.
62.
LuH.LiangB.LiuS. (2013). Serious violent offenses and sentencing decisions in China—Are there any gender disparities?. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8, 159–177.
63.
LuH.MietheT. D. (2002). Legal representation and criminal processing in China. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 267–280.
64.
MaddanS.HartleyR. D.WalkerJ. T.MillerJ. M. (2012). Sympathy for the devil: An exploration of federal judicial discretion in the processing of white-collar offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 4–18.
65.
MaguireN. (2010). Consistency in sentencing. Judicial Studies Institute Journal, 2, 14-54.
66.
MaoJ. D. (2020). A research on detection and defense countermeasures on “Sha Zhu Pan” alike telecommunication network fraud. Journal of Hubei Vocational College of Public Security Police, 20(3), 24–27.
67.
MarcumC. D.HigginsG. E.TewksburyR. (2011). Doing Time for Cybercrime: An examination of the correlates of sentence length in the United States. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(2), 824–835.
68.
MarcumC. D.HigginsG. E.TewksburyR. (2012). Incarceration or community placement: Examining the sentences of cybercriminals. Criminal Justice Studies, 25(1), 33–40.
69.
McCullaghP. (1989). Models for discrete multivariate responses. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 53, 407–418.
70.
McDonaldD.CarlsonK. E. (1993). Sentencing in the federal courts: Does Race Matter?: The Transition to Sentencing Guidelines, 1986-90. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
71.
MeyerJ. F. (2001). Strange Science: Subjective Criteria in Parole Decisions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 24, 43–70.
72.
MorganK.SmithB. L. (2005). Victims, punishment, and parole: The effect of victim participation on parole hearings. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 333–360.
73.
MyersM.TalaricoS. (1987). The social context of criminal sentencing. SpringerVerlag.
74.
OsgoodD. W. (2000). ‘Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates’. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(1), 21–43.
75.
PaskoL. (2002). Villain or victim: Regional variation and ethnic disparity in federal drug offense sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(4), 307–328.
76.
RobertsJ. V. (2012). Structuring Sentencing in Canada, England and Wales: A tale of two jurisdictions. Criminal Law Forum, 23(4), 319–345.
77.
SchlesingerT. (2008). The cumulative effects of racial disparities in criminal processing. The Advocate, 13(3), 22–34.
SpohnC.BeichnerD. (2000). Is preferential treatment of female offenders a thing of the past? A multisite study of gender, race, and imprisonment. Criminal justice policy review, 11(2), 149–184.
80.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38(1), 281–306.
81.
SpohnC.BrennanP. K. (2011). The joint effects of offender race/ethnicity and gender on substantial assistance departures in federal courts. Race and Justice, 1(1), 49–78.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.StreifelC. (1993). Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology, 31(3), 411–446.
84.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in US federal courts: Who is punished more harshly?American Sociological Review, 65, 705–729.
85.
SteffensmeierD.DemuthS. (2006). Does gender modify the effects of race–ethnicity on criminal sanctioning? Sentences for male and female white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(3), 241–261.
86.
SteffensmeierD.HebertC. (1999). Women and men policymakers: Does the judge's gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants?Social Forces, 77(3), 1163–1196.
87.
SteffensmeierD.KramerJ.UlmerJ. (1995). Age differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 12(3), 583–602.
88.
SteffensmeierD.UlmerJ.KramerJ. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798.
89.
StolzenbergL.D'AlessioS. J. (1994). Sentencing and unwarranted disparity: An empirical assessment of the long-term impact of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota. Criminology, 32(2), 301–310.
90.
TillyerM. S.WilcoxP.WalterR. J. (2021). Crime generators in context: Examining ‘place in neighborhood ‘propositions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(2), 517–546.
91.
TongM. (2017). Analysis of substantial law about the impact of victim understanding on conviction and punishment. Hebei Law Science, 35(7), 71–82.
92.
TonryM. (2019). Predictions of dangerousness in sentencing: Déjà vu all over again. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 439–482.
93.
TurackD. C. (1999). The new Chinese criminal justice system. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 7, 49.
94.
UlmerJ. T. (1997). Social worlds of sentencing: Court communities under sentencing guidelines. SUNY Press.
95.
UlmerJ. T.LightM. T.KramerJ. H. (2011). Racial disparity in the wake of the Booker/Fanfan decision: An alternative analysis to the USSC's 2010 report. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 1077–1118.
96.
WadsworthT. (2006). The meaning of work: Conceptualizing the deterrent effect of employment on crime among young adults. Sociological Perspectives, 49(3), 343–368.
97.
WangF. (2020). Compensation’s effects on punishments and the reasonable control in criminal lawsuits. Legal Forum, 35(3), 95–103.
98.
WangF.ZhouX. (2022). Persuasive schemes for financial exploitation in online romance scam: An Anatomy on Sha Zhu pan (杀猪盘) in China. Victims & Offenders, 1–28.
99.
WangG. Z. (2019). Online fraud on trading plate: An empirical study of sentencing mechanism. Criminal Science, 2(1), 29–51.
100.
WeinrathM. (2007). Sentencing disparity: Aboriginal Canadians, drunk driving and age. Western Criminology Review, 8, 16.
101.
WongR. W. Y. (2017). The role of reputation in the illegal purchase of protected wildlife in China. Deviant Behavior, 38(11), 1290–1302.
102.
XinY.CaiT. (2022). Cooperative guardian offenders and sentencing outcomes: Evidence from criminal sentencing documents of child trafficking crime in China. Child Abuse & Neglect, 124, 105449.
