Chinese Judge Grants Death Sentence With Two‑Year Reprieve to Husband Who Brutally Murdered Wife After She Sought Divorce, Sparking Nationwide Outrage

The victim, Chen Mou‑mou, was a 26‑year‑old administrative employee. She had endured what friends and family described as her husband’s “extreme controlling behaviour” and “volatile temper” ever since they married in May 2021. By early March 2024 Chen had decided she could no longer tolerate the abuse and formally requested a divorce, moving out of the marital home in an effort to protect herself.

According to court‑file documents and the police investigation, Yang Mou‑dong, a sales professional, reacted with fury. On March 8, 2024, he intercepted Chen outside her workplace in Foshan, forced her into his vehicle and drove her to Dongguan. While the two argued inside the car, Yang allegedly struck her with a brick. Chen managed to escape the vehicle and sought assistance from passersby, but Yang pursued her, deliberately running his car over her three times. He then seized a knife, stabbing her repeatedly in the neck, chest, abdomen and limbs. The autopsy confirmed a multitude of stab wounds, and investigators uncovered evidence that Yang had searched the internet for methods of killing and had purchased the knives in the weeks preceding the attack.

The prosecution charged him with intentional homicide and the court found him guilty on all counts. The judges noted the “extreme brutality” of the act, the “serious danger he posed to society” and the fact that the murder was clearly pre‑meditated. Under normal circumstances, the judges wrote, “the crime would merit the death penalty.” Yet the final sentence fell short of immediate execution: Yang received a death sentence with a two‑year reprieve, which under Chinese law typically converts to life imprisonment if the prisoner shows good behaviour during the suspension period.

The reprieve was justified by three mitigating factors that have become the focal point of public outrage. First, the court treated the “marital and family dispute” that precipitated the killing as a circumstance that lessened Yang’s culpability. Second, a psychiatric appraisal concluded that Yang was experiencing a depressive episode at the time of the crime, classifying him as a “person with limited criminal responsibility due to mental illness.” Third, the judges cited his “good attitude in admitting guilt” as a further reason to temper the punishment.

Online reactions have been swift and vehement. On Weibo and other platforms, users have questioned how a spate of domestic violence, a calculated murder plan and a blatant attempt to silence a woman’s wish for divorce could possibly mitigate a death sentence. Comments such as “How does a marital dispute become a reason for reduced punishment?” and “When did he suddenly develop a mental illness—at the moment his wife asked for divorce?” echo a broader suspicion that psychiatric diagnoses are being weaponised to soften penalties for violent men. Many have also expressed disbelief that a sincere confession can outweigh the sheer cruelty of the crime, arguing that it is a tactical ploy to avoid execution.

The victim’s family has publicly demanded the full death penalty, insisting that the sentence should reflect the “universal revulsion” engendered by the brutality of the act. Advocacy groups for women’s rights have seized on the case to call for stronger protective measures for women seeking divorce, warning that the verdict could set a dangerous precedent that de‑values the lives of women who try to escape abusive marriages.

Legal scholars point out that the case highlights a tension within China’s criminal justice system: while the death penalty remains on the books for the most serious crimes, judges retain significant discretion to factor in “mitigating circumstances,” a practice that can produce wide variation in sentencing. The reliance on a psychiatric assessment in a case marked by clear pre‑meditation—evidence of internet searches for murder methods and the procurement of weapons—has sparked debate about the standards for “limited criminal responsibility” and whether the bar is being set too low in domestic‑violence contexts.

Beyond the courtroom, the episode underscores persistent gaps in the enforcement of China’s Anti‑Domestic Violence Law. Although the legislation, enacted in 2015, mandates protective orders and police intervention for victims, critics argue that the mechanisms for safeguarding women who initiate divorce remain weak. In Chen’s case, there is no indication she had obtained a restraining order or police protection prior to the fatal confrontation, raising questions about how effectively the law can intervene once a relationship dissolves into violence.

The Dongguan judgment arrives against a backdrop of several similar cases across the country over the past few years, where men have killed spouses or family members during contentious divorces and received death sentences with reprieves or life imprisonment. While each case is fact‑specific, the pattern has amplified calls for uniform sentencing guidelines that treat domestic‑violence‑related homicide as an aggravating factor, not a mitigating one.

As the legal process moves forward, Yang’s reprieve will be reviewed periodically, and his conduct during the suspension period will determine whether the sentence is ultimately commuted to life imprisonment. For Chen’s family and the millions of Chinese women watching the saga unfold, the verdict is a stark reminder that the law’s balance between punishment and mitigation can have life‑and‑death consequences. The outcry signals that many will not be satisfied until the judiciary delivers a punishment that reflects the gravity of the crime and sends a clear, deterrent message that lethal retaliation for a divorce request will not be tolerated.