Abstract:A man who has no knowledge about other countries has no knowledge about his own. This is also the case in the field of law. It becomes evident that comparing other countries' laws with Chinese law helps us to understand ourselves better. As Zweigert and Kotz put it: "Only when a lawyer knows about other country's legal knowledge can he understand his home country's laws correctly." This is one of the values of comparative law research. However, there are also risks in comparing laws between countries. This is because different legal systems use different terms to describe the same things. For example, in many Western countries, the search of a person is called a "search" while in China the search of a person is sometimes called "examination of the person." Although called differently, they function in the same manner. In addition, Chinese law requires the investigative organ to produce and show a paper (sic) when conducting an inquest of the crime scene. The paper is not called a "warrant" although it functions as the warrants used in Western countries. There are many other examples. When making a comparison between two legal systems, we must first make sure that we are comparing the same things. At the same time, when we cannot find the same thing based on its name, we should try to find it by examining its function. I call this methodology a comparison based on function. We shall make comparisons among things that function in the same way, notwithstanding what they are called. For things that have the same name but function differently, we must be careful to not to treat them the same. For things that have different names but function the same way, we shall compare them as the same kind of things without hesitation. This essay uses such a methodology to explore China's criminal detention in the global context in comparison to other jurisdictions. Part I shows the nature of China's criminal detention in a historical and comparative context. Part II discusses the issue of probable cause and targets for criminal detentions. Part III discusses the issue of warrant requirements. Part IV introduces time periods for China's criminal detentions, and argues that time periods for criminal detentions function in the same way as the requirement of "bringing the detainee to a judge without unnecessary delay". Part V discusses other procedural safeguards for criminal detentions. Part VI discusses exclusionary rules which function as a remedy for violations of procedural safeguards concerning criminal detentions.

The Restatement of Investigative Interrogation in Our Country under the Background of the New Criminal Procedure Law

Public Cases, Authentication Opinions, and Amendments to Law of Criminal Procedure

Unveiling Human Rights Protection in China from the Perspective of Criminal Procedure Law

Research on the Online Live Broadcasts of Criminal Trial: An Empirical Analysis Based on Questionnaire Survey

On Legislative Reform and Perfection of Police Interrogation

Reconstruct of the System of Multi -Restraint of Investigative Power in China

Legal Restraints on Compulsory Investigative Measures and Judicial Review

An Empirical Study on Operation of Chinese Criminal Procedure Law

Regulating the Power of Chinese Police Through the Exclusionary Rule – an Empirical Study

Reforms to China's Pretrial Detention System: the Role of the Procuratorate

To Question the Operability of Exclusionary Rule in China

On relationship between Prosecutors and Police: How to Improve the Monitoring and Controling System on China′s Indictment-investigation

Chinese Mode of Examination System of Arrest and Its Reform

The Improvement of China's Legislation of Secretly Investigating

The Reconsideration of Investigation and Interrogation Coalition

Truth and procedural fairness in Chinese criminal procedure law

The Gap Between Law And Practice: An Empirical Study On China'S High Pretrial Detention Rate

A Mode Study on"Investigation to Public Prosecution"

On the Preliminary Investigation Before Filing the Criminal Case

China'S Criminal Detention As A Compulsory Measure under Exigencies: A Comparative Analysis

Legal Values of the Rule of Voluntary Confession