A case that people found hard to understand

On 9 June 2024, in a residential compound in Pidu District, Chengdu, 35-year-old Liang carried a knife and knocked on neighbours’ doors without reason. She had schizophrenia and had often quarrelled with her family, smashed things and harassed residents by knocking on their doors; residents had argued with her and called the police, and officers had asked her family to supervise her closely.

At noon that day she knocked on the door of 27-year-old Wang. Seeing through the peephole that Liang was spitting at the door, Wang asked her mother to call security. When the guard arrived to persuade Liang to leave, Wang opened the door to confront her, and the two argued and grappled. In the doorway, Liang pulled out the knife she was carrying and stabbed and slashed Wang ten times in the left chest, head and face. Wang struck back a few times with an ornament from the shoe cabinet but died from a ruptured left lung and acute blood loss despite treatment.

On 20 December 2025, the Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court sentenced Liang at first instance for intentional homicide to death with a two-year reprieve and deprivation of political rights for life. The court found that her conduct was not self-defense; but forensic assessment showed she had schizophrenia and had “limited criminal responsibility” at the time, so she received a lighter punishment according to law.

Many people couldn’t understand it: someone who came to the door with a knife and stabbed a person to death ten times escapes immediate execution just because “she has a mental illness”? Is “death with reprieve” the same as “escaping death”? Let’s explain the legal logic.

Can “mental illness” excuse killing? The three layers of Article 18

Many people’s first reaction is “mentally ill people aren’t responsible for killing”. That’s a misunderstanding. Article 18 of the Criminal Law divides crimes by people with mental disorders into three completely different situations:

  • Complete loss of the ability to recognise or control conduct: a mentally ill person who causes harm while unable to recognise or control their conduct, confirmed by statutory forensic assessment, bears no criminal responsibility. But they are not simply “sent home”: their family or guardian is ordered to supervise and treat them strictly, and where necessary the government orders compulsory treatment.
  • Intermittent mental illness: a person who commits a crime while mentally normal bears criminal responsibility, with no room for reduction.
  • Ability not completely lost (commonly “limited” or “partial” criminal responsibility): the person bears criminal responsibility but “may” be given a lighter or mitigated punishment.

Liang falls into the third category. The assessment concluded “schizophrenia; partial criminal responsibility for the unlawful act” — meaning she had not completely lost the ability to recognise and control her conduct, so she must bear criminal responsibility. The court said so clearly: her conduct “constitutes intentional homicide and shall be severely punished according to law”.

The key word is “may”. The provision says punishment “may be lighter or mitigated”, not “shall”. In other words, the law gives judges discretion; it doesn’t hand every person with a mental disorder a “get out of death free” card. Judges decide how much lighter, and to what extent, based on the means, consequences and circumstances of the crime.

Is death with reprieve “a death sentence” or “escaping death”? Articles 48 and 50

The second misunderstanding is that “death with reprieve = not dying”. In fact its full name is “death sentence with two-year reprieve”; it is a way of carrying out the death penalty, not a separate punishment.

Article 48 provides that the death penalty applies only to criminals who commit extremely serious crimes; for a criminal who should be sentenced to death but need not be executed immediately, a death sentence may be imposed with a two-year reprieve. So those given a reprieve are, by definition, people who “should be sentenced to death”.

What happens during the two years? Article 50 is clear:

  • if no intentional crime is committed during the two years, the sentence is commuted to life imprisonment when they end;
  • if there is genuine major meritorious service, it is commuted to 25 years’ imprisonment when they end;
  • if an intentional crime with egregious circumstances is committed, the death sentence is executed upon approval of the Supreme People’s Court.

In addition, for death-with-reprieve sentences for violent crimes such as intentional homicide, the court may also restrict later sentence reductions. So “death with reprieve” is by no means “out after a few years”: even commuted to life imprisonment, the time actually served by someone sentenced for intentional homicide is far longer than most people imagine; and an intentional crime with egregious circumstances during the reprieve can still lead to execution.

The defendant claimed “self-defense” in court — why did the court reject it?

Liang argued in court that the other woman struck first and she was defending herself. The court didn’t accept it.

Article 20 of the Criminal Law defines self-defense as action taken “to stop an ongoing unlawful infringement in order to protect the state, public interest, or one’s own or another’s person, property or other rights”. Whether someone acted in self-defense depends on who was infringing, whether the infringement was ongoing, whether the defense was directed at the infringer, and whether it obviously exceeded what was necessary.

The facts here ran the other way: Liang came to the door with a knife and harassed first; she was the one stabbing the victim, and only then did the victim pick up an ornament to fight back. For someone who brought a weapon to the door and stabbed ten times to claim “self-defense” meets neither the cause nor the intent and limit requirements. The court’s finding that “her conduct did not constitute self-defense” followed naturally.

Three common misconceptions

  • Myth 1: “Mentally ill people are never responsible for killing.” Wrong. Only those who completely lost the ability to recognise or control their conduct, confirmed by statutory assessment, bear no criminal responsibility; those with limited responsibility are still liable.
  • Myth 2: “Mental illness is a get-out-of-death card, so any light sentence is fine.” Wrong. “May” be lighter or mitigated is discretionary, not mandatory; whether and how much depends on the circumstances and social harm.
  • Myth 3: “Death with reprieve is probation — out in two years.” Wrong. It is a way of executing the death penalty; an egregious intentional crime within two years can still lead to execution, and even if commuted to life, a long prison term follows.

What can the victim’s family do?

After the first-instance judgment, Wang’s family said in court that they disagreed and asked the procuratorate to protest. Procedurally, the victim’s side can:

  • appeal the incidental civil part within the statutory period, or ask the procuratorate to protest the criminal part;
  • apply for a new or supplementary forensic assessment if they dispute the psychiatric opinion;
  • after the judgment takes effect, use petition (trial supervision) procedures.

Note that whether the procuratorate protests and whether a higher court changes the judgment depends on the whole body of evidence and the application of law. The case has entered second instance, and the outcome awaits further judicial proceedings.

Final thoughts

Behind this case is a young life lost and a shattered family. The law’s “leniency” towards people with mental disorders is not indulgence but rests on the old principle that punishment should match responsibility — a person’s ability to recognise and control their conduct determines how far they must answer for it.

But the extent and limits of “leniency” must also be decided within the legal framework. If your family is involved in a similar case — whether as victims seeking redress or as defendants needing a proper defense — secure evidence early and seek professional advice.

For related legal questions, contact Wang Xin: phone +86 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

Quick answers

Are mentally ill offenders exempt from criminal responsibility in China?
Only if they completely lacked the ability to recognise or control their conduct, confirmed by statutory forensic assessment. Intermittently ill people who offend while lucid are fully responsible; those with partially impaired ability are responsible but “may” receive lighter or mitigated punishment (Criminal Law Art. 18).
Does a death sentence with reprieve mean the offender escapes death?
No. It is a way of executing the death penalty. Without an intentional crime in two years it becomes life imprisonment; with major meritorious service, 25 years; an intentional crime with egregious circumstances leads to execution (Art. 50). Courts can also restrict later commutation.
What can victims’ families do after a first-instance sentence?
Appeal the incidental civil part or ask the procuratorate to protest within the time limit, apply for a new or supplementary forensic assessment if they dispute it, and use petition procedures after the judgment takes effect.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 精神病人持刀杀人，为何只判「死缓」？从成都27岁女子遇害案讲清《刑法》第18条. It explains the law of the People’s Republic of China in general terms and is not legal advice for any particular case; outcomes depend on the specific facts and on how local authorities apply the rules.