The core of Mr. Long's philosophy, or the essence of Mr. Long's thought, is his "relative rationalism". He has been jokingly calling himself a man who jumps back and forth between practice and theory for many years. On some issues of current judicial reform, I think relative rationalism is still worthy of recognition. The so-called relative rationalism, that is, conditional rationalism, in which the condition refers to the public rational rules and universality that need to conform to some kind of knowledge, while the rationality is relative to the local suitability. The "relative" of "relative rationalism" is "conditional rationalism". Because, "after all, history only issues passes to those vehicles that can run". Compared with "fetishism" and "local resources theory", this theory is mild, even compromised in some places, so it has been criticized, but this is the reality. You can't blame a theory for expressing a law and causing a kind of helplessness. "A kind of helplessness".
Judging from many examples listed in the book, there are still great defects in the litigation trial system in China. For example, regarding the famous "Miranda rule", that is, the right of criminal silence, in China, no policeman will say when arresting a criminal: "You have the right to remain silent and ask for a defense lawyer now. Nor will any arrested criminal simply say, "Bring me a defense lawyer". There is also the issue of judicial independence. During the "Otsu Incident" in Meiji period, judicial officials defended judicial independence under the pressure of the Cabinet. But we don't have to sell ourselves short. After all, China is a latecomer to the rule of law. Besides, advanced doesn't mean perfect. In recent years, western countries with legal systems in Europe and America have paid a price for their "right to silence" and started to restrict this right in various ways. At present, China's trial system is gradually changing from judge's authority to litigant's principle, however, this change still has a long way to go.
To achieve a fair trial, there are many relationships and problems that need to be solved. From a macro perspective, a country's judicial system and the whole litigation culture have an important impact on the fairness of the trial; From the microscopic point of view, the relationship between each individual involved in the lawsuit: the police, the prosecutor and the director, the independence of the prosecutor, the personal accomplishment of the judge, the rights and obligations of the parties, and the status of the lawyer are all issues that need to be considered. In recent years, the rise of emerging media such as the Internet has made litigation trial in a dilemma between "sunshine justice" and "violence by public opinion" and "judicial independence". To achieve a fair trial, it is not only the justice of the result, but also the justice of the trial process, and the justice of the procedure is the most difficult to achieve.
If there is no fair trial, even Jesus will be crucified. John Adam once said: No one in the world is isolated on his own island, and everyone is a part of the land continent. If the sea washes away a stone, Europa will lose a corner, just like losing a rock armor, as well as losing his own or a friend's home. Every lost life is an injury to myself, because I am a part of what I am connected with. Therefore, ask not for whom the bell tolls, but for you. A fair trial requires the efforts of every citizen.