Before Qu Yuan threw himself into the river, he did something that had little to do with writing poetry: he drafted the laws for the State of Chu.
The Records of the Grand Historian (Shiji) records it plainly: "King Huai charged Qu Yuan to draw up the statutes; Qu Ping's draft was not yet settled." King Huai of Chu had him formulate the state's laws; before the draft had even taken shape, trouble arrived first. Shangguan, a court official of the same court, tried to take the draft from him; Qu Yuan would not yield it. "He saw it and sought to seize it; Qu Ping did not give it" — and that single exchange earned him a storm of slander. Shangguan turned around and told King Huai that every ordinance Qu Yuan drafted was flaunted as his own feat, the insinuation being "none but I could have done it." To King Huai it rang plausible enough; he "grew angry and distanced Qu Ping."
A man drafting the laws of a state was first undone by a single sentence — one that admitted no confrontation and went straight for his motives.
What is worth pausing on is how he was brought down. Shangguan's talk was that Qu Yuan boasted to everyone of his own merit, as though nothing could be done without him; whether any of it was true, no one bothered to verify. A man charged with drafting the laws of a state was first toppled by a sentence that allowed no confrontation and aimed straight at his intentions. Later he was drawn into the politics of allying with Qi against Qin, exiled again and again, until he drowned himself in the Miluo River. Looking back, the first crack had opened right at that draft, that slander.
Whom the Dragon Boat Festival honours actually differs from place to place. Around Suzhou and Jiaxing, the day is dedicated to someone else: Wu Zixu. What befell him resembles, more than Qu Yuan's, an old criminal case.
Wu Zixu's father, Wu She, served as tutor to the Crown Prince of Chu. The treacherous official Fei Wuji slandered the Prince with a false accusation of rebellion, and Wu She was implicated and imprisoned. Fearing future trouble, King Ping of Chu plotted to do away with both of Wu She's sons as well, and lured them back under the pretext of a pardon. The elder brother, Wu Shang, knew it meant death and returned regardless, to be killed alongside his father; Wu Zixu did not return, and fled to the State of Wu. He later led Wu's armies back into Chu, exhumed King Ping's tomb, and whipped the corpse three hundred times. That vengeance is judged to this day, half praise and half blame — set aside here; we take only the starting point of his house destroyed by slander.
What makes the end poignant is that Wu Zixu, having rendered great service to Wu, was undone in old age by the very same thing: King Fuchai of Wu listened to another slanderer, Bo Pi, and bestowed upon him a sword, ordering him to take his own life. After death, his body was stuffed into a leather bag and thrown into the river. One account holds that the Dragon Boat races in the Jiangzhe region are held in his memory. "One account holds" — because dragon-boat racing began as an older water-rite of the ancient Yue people, predating both men; who it commemorates was added later, and differently in different places.
Neither lost his life because any crime had been established; both died because someone spoke into a ruler's ear — and the ruler believed.
The two men differ in merits and faults, yet share one thing: neither lost his life because any crime had been verified; both died because someone spoke into a ruler's ear — and that ruler believed.
The distance between "sounds like" and "evidence shows"
In all my years of criminal practice, what I most often explain to clients and their families is the distance between "sounds like" and "evidence shows." Whether a person had a motive, whether they seem the sort who would offend — none of this can convict them; only evidence can. To separate another's imaginings about motive, and one-sided testimony, from facts that withstand examination — this is what a defence lawyer does, every day.
In the age of Qu Yuan and Wu Zixu, this checkpoint did not exist. There was no shortage of law — Qu Yuan himself was drafting it — yet above the law sat the sovereign's favour and displeasure, and a single slander needed no confrontation to decide life and death. Today we have the checkpoint of adjudication by evidence; we speak of the presumption of innocence where doubt remains, and we recognise the right of the accused to have a lawyer speak for them. After more than two thousand years, what was won is, in the end, one plain sentence: to convict a person requires evidence — not someone's mouth.
Beyond zongzi and mugwort, on this day of the Dragon Boat Festival, these two are worth remembering too.
Their stories are heavy; yet the days must go on. To you and your family — a peaceful and healthy Dragon Boat Festival.
Appendix · Legal-principle card
- Principle of adjudication by evidence: the facts of a case must be established on the basis of evidence; no criminal fact may be found without evidence (Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law: "In all cases, emphasis shall be placed on evidence, investigation and study, and credence shall not be readily given to oral testimony")
- In dubio pro reo (the presumption of innocence where doubt remains): where evidence is insufficient to establish the defendant's guilt, a verdict of not guilty shall be entered on the ground that the evidence is insufficient and the charged offence cannot be established
- No conviction on confession alone: where there is only the defendant's confession and no other evidence, the defendant may not be found guilty and sentenced
This essay reflects on the Dragon Boat Festival through history and addresses the legal proposition of "conviction by speech" versus "adjudication by evidence" as a matter of general discussion, based on public historical sources and public laws and regulations. The characterisation, admission of evidence and procedural posture of any specific case depend on its own facts; this is not legal advice on any specific matter and promises no outcome.
Author & Team
Li RuiPartner, DeHeng Shenzhen · DeHeng Shenzhen Hengxin Legal Team (author)Criminal defence; examination of evidence and adjudication by evidence; in dubio pro reo; economic-crime defence; online gambling and opening-a-casino defence. Also investment and financing disputes, cross-border enforcement.
Xiao HuangheGlobal Partner, DeHengPRC–Hong Kong cross-jurisdiction transactions, cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement, investment and VAM disputes, outbound data compliance
Lin BoPartner, DeHeng ShenzhenOver a decade of criminal practice; commercial transaction structuring and corporate disputes
Su YingtongPractising Lawyer, DeHeng ShenzhenCriminal defence, investment and financing disputes
FAQ
- Q: What is the connection between the deaths of Qu Yuan and Wu Zixu and modern criminal justice?
- Li Rui: Both died because a ruler believed slander and ordered their fate without any confrontation — pointing, in essence, to "conviction by speech": a life decided by a single sentence, a one-sided word. Modern criminal justice, centred on adjudication by evidence, emphasises the presumption of innocence where doubt remains and the requirement that conviction rest on evidence that withstands scrutiny — a checkpoint set up precisely to prevent such wrongful convictions.
- Q: What is "conviction by speech"? How does it differ from legitimate witness testimony?
- Li Rui: "Conviction by speech" means finding guilt on the basis of rumour, accusation or one-sided words alone, without requiring the evidence to meet the statutory standard of proof. Lawful witness testimony must withstand cross-examination and be corroborated by other evidence; an isolated statement cannot ground a conviction. The difference lies in whether the words have been tested by the rules of evidence.
- Q: In a criminal case, what is the gap between "sounds guilty" and "guilty on the evidence"?
- Li Rui: The former is impression and conjecture about motive, character or hearsay, and cannot serve as a basis for conviction; the latter requires that the evidence be reliable and sufficient, forming a complete chain that excludes reasonable doubt. A significant part of criminal defence is precisely to separate these two — to separate one-sided words from facts that can withstand examination.
Knowledge anchors
- Conviction by speech
- Adjudication by evidence
- In dubio pro reo
- Qu Yuan · Wu Zixu
- No conviction on testimony alone