After many twists and turns, the second trial of Lao Rongzhi's case finally opened. The second-instance case is still under trial, and we still don’t know whether her last ditch effort will succeed. But how should we view this case that has attracted huge attention and controvers

After many twists and turns, the second instance of Lao Rongzhi case finally opened in court. To the surprise and indignation of many people, Law overturned the conclusion of the first trial in the second trial, portraying himself as a fool who had been coerced, and tried his best to clear himself of his guilt in order to escape the death penalty. The second-instance case of

is still under trial, and we still don’t know whether her last ditch effort will succeed. But how should we view this case that has caused great concern and controversy, and what can we learn? Let's try to discuss one or two.

1, Can Lao Rongzhi defend himself in this way

In the simple principles of the Chinese people, confession will be lenient, resistance will be stern, and those who make mistakes and dare to quibble will have their crimes increased. This was also the main reason why I felt indignant when I saw Lao vigorously defending himself during the second trial.

However, if you observe carefully, you may find that the official has not mentioned the phrase "lenity for confession and severity for resistance" in a formal occasion for a long time. Although there are still some lenient legal provisions in the law such as "surrender" and "leading the explanation of illegal facts that are not yet known to the prosecutor", but refusal to explain can no longer be punished more severely.

Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law revised in 2012 stipulates: "...extorting confessions by torture and collecting evidence by threats, inducements, deceptions and other illegal methods are strictly prohibited, and no one may be forced to prove his or her guilt." You see, the idea that many people imagine that Lao Rongzhi would voluntarily plead guilty or else he would be "cut into pieces" is illegal and wrong. Lao has the right to defend himself in accordance with the law, and the right in accordance with the law not to plead guilty.

The Privilege Against Self-incrimination (ThePrivilegeAgainstSelf-incrimination), also known as "the privilege of refusing self-incrimination" or the privilege of refusing to incriminate oneself. The rule of not being forced to incriminate yourself rule originated in the United Kingdom and is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Every person... shall have the right not to be compelled to incriminate himself." It has now gained widespread consensus around the world. .

Not being forced to incriminate himself can protect the defendant's basic humane treatment in litigation, protect his personal dignity and autonomy from damage, protect the defendant's litigation rights, and ensure that the principle of presumption of innocence is effectively implemented.

We know from common sense in life that if a confession can lead to a conviction, then powerful agencies have countless ways to get the confession they want, regardless of whether the defendant is really guilty or wrongly accused. If you are interested, you can learn about the infamous Pavlov "classical conditioning experiment", which can make anyone honestly admit any false guilt in court as long as they are willing.

2, legal facts and objective facts

In recent years, many unjust cases including the " Hugjil Tu" have been vindicated, and history has finally cleared them. But the man has passed away, and time cannot be turned back. No matter how gorgeous the delayed justice is, it cannot cover up the shame of justice.

In almost all unjust cases, the judgments of those years will definitely contain the seemingly righteous words "the facts are clear and the evidence is conclusive". Looking back now, it is so ironic and sad.

Quite a lot of unjust cases are not really caused by law enforcement officers taking bribes and bending the law. History is often not like acting, where everyone wears facial makeup with the words "good guy" or "bad guy" clearly written on it. We dare not say that Lao Rongzhi must be an innocent fool in this case. Maybe in real circumstances she is really a devil who wants money and kills. But everything in this needs to be confirmed by evidence before it can be turned into a valid one. The "legal facts" of a conviction, if not, are only a possibility.

The so-called legal facts are "phenomena stipulated by law that can cause the creation, change and elimination of legal relations."The corresponding objective facts refer to "the affairs, phenomena and processes that exist in time and space. It does not matter whether it is right or wrong, is not subject to human will, and is unique and unchangeable."

in judicial decisions One of the important principles is to “take facts as the basis and law as the criterion.” The facts here refer to legal facts, and It is not the objective fact that we think of daily. The reason is that although objective facts occur objectively, they can only be known to humans through subjective perception, and subjectivity is unreliable, so it cannot be used as the basis for legal judgments.

is even more extreme. One thing, there are never any objective facts in the world, but only what we subjectively perceive Some information may or may not be correct. Think about why we are so angry about Lao Rongzhi. Has anyone witnessed his evil deeds with his own eyes? Most people have accepted it from the media. Processed information.

We have all played the teleportation game. A sentence will become unrecognizable after being passed on by several people. No, not to mention the fact that there is no need to be responsible for authenticity. One can imagine how the media will process it for the purpose of attracting attention.

Therefore, legal judgments must not be interfered with and affected by public opinion, but should be demonstrated through a strict chain of evidence. deduction to achieve true “clear facts” in the legal sense , the evidence is conclusive." Only in this way can we avoid the recurrence of unjust cases.

3. "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "high probability"

If you have paid attention to the Simpson murder case of his wife, the "trial of the century" in the United States, you will know a very strange phenomenon. , That is, the criminal court and the civil court gave two completely different verdicts. In the criminal verdict, due to the unprofessional and illegal operations of the police department, considerable evidence was invalidly excluded, and a police officer who was a witness for the prosecution was also involved. Lost his job and ruined his reputation, Simpson was eventually acquitted

.

In the civil judgment, Simpson was eventually found guilty and ordered to compensate the plaintiff nearly 50 million US dollars. He was eventually sentenced to 33 years in prison for bankruptcy and armed robbery. He is expected to be released after serving his sentence in September this year. Therefore, criminal judgments are completely different from civil judgments. The biggest reason is that criminal judgments are completely different from civil judgments. There is a big difference between the principles followed in criminal judgments and civil judgments.

The principle of criminal judgment is called "beyond reasonable doubt". All criminal convictions must prove that there is no other possibility in the chain of evidence. If reasonable doubt cannot be eliminated, just rely on common sense. , reasoning to a conclusion that is very likely, cannot convict a person.

The principles of civil judgment are different. You only need to follow the principle of "high probability". To put it bluntly, whichever party the evidence supports more will be judged to win, even if it is only more likely, for example 51: With a probability of 50, a valid judgment can also be made.

The reason why there is such a big difference is that criminal trials punish and reform people. There are only defendants but no plaintiffs. Compared with letting the bad people go, unjustly accusing good people is more harmful to society. Civil cases are different. The object is often property rights. Any indulgence of one party is an infringement of the other party. Therefore, a more objective and accurate judgment must be made. A high degree of probability is obviously more reasonable than the elimination of reasonable doubt.

It is precisely because of this difference that criminal cases require that self-incrimination cannot be forced, while civil cases require "whoever makes the claim shall provide evidence." This is only possible under special circumstances where the claimant does not naturally have the conditions to provide evidence. It will lead to the burden of proof of "whoever denies it shall provide proof".

To sum up: before the judgment officially takes effect, even those who seem to have committed the most heinous crimes still have the right to vigorously defend themselves without being severely punished; all judgments should be based on a chain of evidence that has been fully cross-examined. Legal facts, rather than relying on public opinion, emotion and so-called objective facts; criminal cases must be beyond reasonable doubt, and civil judgments can be made based on "probability".