Teaching Someone to Die Through a Screen: Why Online “Assisted Suicide” Is Prosecuted as Intentional Homicide in China

If you are struggling right now: in mainland China you can call the national mental-health support hotline 12356 (free and anonymous), or tell someone you trust. Outside China, contact your local emergency number or crisis line.

The short answer

• Chinese criminal law has no separate offences of “abetting suicide” or “assisting suicide”, but knowingly teaching methods, providing tools or strengthening someone’s resolve to die, resulting in death, is treated in practice as intentional homicide under Article 232 of the Criminal Law.
• That the victim acted personally, or even consented, does not prevent conviction. The right to life cannot be waived by consent; consent can at most bring the sentence into the “relatively minor” band (three to ten years).
• It counts online too. Several judgments make clear that where the method is effective, the guidance specific and the inducement repeated, “remote assistance” is substantively no different from helping in person.
• Courts look at four things: whether the person knew the other had suicidal tendencies; whether their words or acts provoked or strengthened the resolve to die; whether they gave substantive help; and whether they left the person without help after the death occurred.
• Platforms and group owners have separate duties. The law prohibits setting up or spreading communication groups used to teach criminal methods, and publishing or spreading online information that induces suicide; platforms must deal with it immediately and report it.

1. No “abetting suicide” offence — so why intentional homicide?

Because China’s homicide provision covers not only killing with your own hands, but also making someone else die — and actually pushing them over the edge.

Article 232 of the Criminal Law: “Whoever intentionally kills another shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or ten years or more of imprisonment; where the circumstances are relatively minor, to three to ten years.”

Article 29(1): “Whoever instigates another to commit a crime shall be punished according to the role they play in the joint crime.”

To be clear: the Criminal Law itself does not create separate offences of “abetting suicide” or “assisting suicide”. Treating such conduct as intentional homicide is the prevailing approach in Chinese criminal law theory and judicial practice — my summary, not statutory text. The logic is that the person who takes their own life is not criminally assessed, but a third party’s abetting or assisting infringes another’s right to life and is causally linked to the death, so liability attaches separately.

Another common misunderstanding is “they agreed”. In civil law, Article 1002 of the Civil Code provides: “Natural persons enjoy the right to life. Their life safety and dignity are protected by law. No organisation or individual may infringe another’s right to life.” The right to life cannot be freely disposed of like property, so the victim’s consent is no defence.

2. Two traceable cases

Case 1 (People’s Court Case Database reference case No. 2023-06-1-177-001, Liu, intentional homicide). Liu’s husband was seriously ill and bedridden for years, cared for by her. Early one morning in November 2010, annoyed at his cries of pain, she argued with him, then poured the household pesticide dichlorvos into a cup and handed it to her husband, who already had thoughts of suicide; he drank it and died, and she did not actively take him to hospital. The court convicted her of intentional homicide and sentenced her to seven years.

The case’s key holding: “Where a person knows another has suicidal tendencies, objectively provokes or strengthens the other’s resolve to commit suicide by words or deeds, provides the means, and takes no rescue measures after the other attempts suicide, a criminal-law causal relationship between the conduct and the death should be found, and the person prosecuted for intentional homicide.” (quoted from the holding)

Case 2 (a publicly reported case in Jinan, Shandong). From November to December 2021, the defendant Feng sought out users with depression or suicidal tendencies on online platforms, taught one remotely a suicide method using a certain gas, provided sources for buying equipment, and invented his own past “success” in guiding others to strengthen the person’s intention; the user then died in a hotel room. After the death he repeatedly sent messages and made video calls to confirm the person was dead, and continued promoting the case to others as a “success story”. The Licheng District People’s Court in Jinan convicted him of intentional homicide and sentenced him to five years; the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court dismissed his appeal.

Both sentences fall in the “three to ten years” band — intentional homicide with “relatively minor circumstances”. This is information disclosed by the media and case database; the full evidence is not public, and findings are subject to the effective judgments.

3. What exactly do courts look at?

• Knowledge: knowing the other person is depressed, desperate or suicidal. Chats such as “when are you going?” or “together?” are common evidence of knowledge.
• Strengthening: not just listening, but provoking, urging or amplifying the wish to die, or using invented “success stories” to make the person decide.
• Substantive help: lethal, specific methods, purchase sources or suggested settings. The more specific and actionable, the closer it is to “assistance” rather than “chatting”.
• Failing to help afterwards: knowing the person is attempting or has attempted suicide and being able to call the police, an ambulance or the family, but doing nothing — or instead checking whether they have died.

The four are assessed together and need not all be present; but the weaker the proof of knowledge, the harder it is to convict.

4. Can merely listening or offering a few words create liability?

Simply listening, comforting and urging someone to see a doctor is generally not a crime. The line is whether your words push the person forward.

Teaching methods, urging or providing tool sources under the banner of “empathy” or “healing” is not comfort but substantive help. One often-overlooked situation: a friend says clearly they don’t want to live, you know it, and you neither dissuade them nor tell their family nor call the police — afterwards it is hard to say you were “just a bystander”.

“Suicide pacts” are more complex: where both act and one dies while the other survives, the survivor is usually prosecuted in practice too. Characterisation of such cases is still debated academically and depends on the division of roles and causal contribution; I won’t draw a conclusion here.

5. What are the responsibilities of platforms and group owners?

Article 48(1) of the Cybersecurity Law: “All individuals and organisations shall be responsible for their use of networks and shall not set up websites or communication groups for fraud, teaching criminal methods, producing or selling prohibited or controlled items or other illegal or criminal activities…” (excerpt)

Article 49: “Network operators shall strengthen management of information published by users; on discovering information whose publication or transmission is prohibited by laws or administrative regulations, they shall immediately stop its transmission, take measures such as deletion to prevent its spread, keep relevant records and report to the competent authorities.”

Article 50 of the Law on the Protection of Minors expressly prohibits producing, copying, publishing or spreading online information containing content such as “inducing suicide” that harms minors’ physical and mental health (excerpt). In other words, faced with “suicide pact groups”, group owners and platforms are not “unable to act” but “obliged to act”.

6. What you can do

• If you are struggling right now: in mainland China, call the national mental-health support hotline 12356 (available nationwide since 1 May 2025, anonymous and free), or tell someone you trust and see a psychological or psychiatric clinic nearby. Asking for help is not weakness.
• If you are a relative or friend: if you find coded language or invitations to “go together” in chats, screenshot and save the account, group name, time and exact words; report it to the platform and ask for action; in an emergency, call 110.
• If you are accused: preserve your phone and chat records; don’t delete anything or explain or “align stories” with others; instruct a lawyer early. The disputes usually centre on “knowledge” and “how great the causal contribution was”, not on whether harsh words were said.
• If you are a platform: on discovering such groups, stop transmission immediately, delete the information, keep records and report to the authorities — don’t wait for complaints.

7. Notes and limitations

The statutory texts quoted can be checked in the National Database of Laws and Regulations; the holding in Case 1 is quoted from the People’s Court Case Database, and the facts of Case 2 come from court publications and media reports, subject to the effective judgments. Treating abetting or assisting suicide as intentional homicide is the prevailing approach in theory and practice; the Criminal Law itself creates no separate offence — this is my summary, not statutory text.

Suicide-related cases often involve criminal liability, civil liability and psychological intervention at the same time, and handling differs greatly; for specific facts, seek individual advice. If you or your family face a similar situation, contact Wang Xin: phone +86 186-0113-9509, WeChat wang223040.

This is an English edition of Wang Xin’s original Chinese article, 隔着屏幕教人自杀，为什么按故意杀人罪判？. 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.