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.

Legal Restraints on Compulsory Investigative Measures and Judicial Review

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

Public Opinions on Criminal Trials in China: A Comparative Study of Chinese College Students in the PRC and Hong Kong

Assessment of the Rule of Law and Its Application in China

Transforming the Evaluation of the Rule of Law in China

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

Study on Judicial Review of Investigative Power

Review and Reflection on the Research of Criminal Procedure

An Empirical Study on Operation of Chinese Criminal Procedure Law

Legal Control on Administrative Investigation

Establishing Judicial Review in China

The Essential Constituents of a Lawful Administrative Action

Restrictions and Separation of Power: Police Power in Criminal Justice

On the Criminal Compulsory Appraisal in China and Its Improvement

How Do Chinese Judges Invoke the Constitution? Analysis Based on 1907 Decisions

Exclusionary Rules in China

Study On the Localization of The Constitutional Review in China—With Reference to The United States

On the Principle of Objective and Considerate Obligation

Several Issues on the Reform of Criminal Procedure

The Improvement of China's Legislation of Secretly Investigating

Anti-Corruption in a Party-State: Constitutional Implications of China's Supervisory Reform