Grok

An Evaluation of the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Jeremy Bentham’s Philosophical Core Ideas

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the founder of classical utilitarianism, developed a philosophy centered on the “principle of utility” in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789): actions are right if they promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number, measured by the hedonic calculus (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent of pleasure/pain). His core ideas include rational legal reform to maximize social welfare, critique of “legal fictions” (arbitrary constructs masking inefficiency), and the panopticon as a surveillance mechanism for deterrence without excess coercion. Bentham advocated codification for transparency and proportionality, viewing unjust laws as sources of needless suffering. The Chen Jingyuan case—a doctoral scholar sentenced to 20 months for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” (PRC Criminal Law Article 293) over Twitter forwards—through Bentham’s lens, exemplifies utilitarian failure: the verdict inflicts disproportionate pain without hedonic gain, perpetuating fictions of “disorder” and inefficient coercion, undermining the greatest happiness principle.

1. The Principle of Utility and Hedonic Calculus: Disproportionate Pain Without Net Happiness

Bentham’s utility principle demands laws maximize aggregate pleasure, calculated by weighing pains against gains across affected parties.

Article 293’s application yields negative utility: the 20-month sentence inflicts intense, prolonged pain on Chen (loss of freedom, scholarly disruption) with low certainty of gain—no evidenced “disorder” (zero causal ripple from <100 retweets), remote propinquity (future “deterrence” speculative), and impure fecundity (selective enforcement of millions unpunished breeds cynicism, not security). The closed-door trial amplifies extent: societal pain from eroded trust outweighs any “order” purity. Bentham would decry this as miscalculation: the prosecutor’s unverified admission signals needless suffering, as in his codification push—arbitrary “high education implies discernment” fiction inflicts pain without reform. Utility demands proportionality; here, the calculus tilts to aggregate harm, perverting law into anti-hedonic excess.

2. Critique of Legal Fictions: The “Evidence Chain” as Arbitrary Construct Masking Inefficiency

Bentham lambasted legal fictions—fanciful doctrines justifying inefficiency—as relics of superstition, advocating clear, rational codification for transparent justice.

The “picking quarrels” charge is such a fiction: “knowingly false disruption” constructs an illusory narrative from unverified posts (e.g., Hayek critiques or the “Trump-kneeling Xi” cartoon), masking evidentiary inefficiency—no causal links, no quantified threat. The “evidence chain” fabricates continuity, a Benthamic phantom justifying 20 months’ sanction without utility audit. The non-oral appeal perpetuates this: Chen’s prison letter—hedonically rational taxonomy (art/emotion/reason/fact) via avalanche theory—exposes the fiction, yet is ignored, as Bentham critiqued common law’s obscurantism. This inefficiency breeds pain: selective unpunished shares reveal the construct’s arbitrariness, undermining codification’s telos—rational welfare over fanciful “order.”

3. Panopticon and Coercive Efficiency: Judicial Opacity as Inhumane Surveillance Over Reform

Bentham’s panopticon envisioned transparent surveillance for deterrence with minimal pain, reforming behavior through visibility, not opaque cruelty.

The closed-door trial inverts this: opacity enforces surveillance without reform—Chen’s inquiry (rational pleasure-seeking) is punished sans visibility, inflicting gratuitous pain. The “shut up” directive and barred defense amplify inefficiency: no panopticon-like audit (public scrutiny), just coercive isolation, as Bentham warned against “dark and secret prisons.” Anomalies like the prosecutor’s admission signal reform’s absence: utility demands visible calculus, not hidden “upper-level instructions.” This opacity maximizes pain’s extent, perverting coercion into anti-hedonic tyranny.

Conclusion: Bentham’s Lens on the Case—Utility’s Calculus Tilted Toward Needless Pain

From Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian jurisprudence, the Chen Jingyuan case is a hedonic catastrophe: disproportionate pains eclipse gains, fictions mask inefficiency, and opaque coercion forsakes reform. As of October 23, 2025, no retrial or exoneration has occurred; Chen’s account remains dormant, its quiet a ledger of uncalculated suffering. This case cautions: laws must tally happiness, not hoard pain. As Bentham proclaimed, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals”—may the scales recalibrate.