Second, there is something wrong with the setting of the case. There is no problem for the public prosecutor to appear in court for public prosecution, but the obligation to protest is lacking. China implements the system of second instance and final adjudication. The criminal Zhou Bingkun does not appeal, but the procuratorate will protest if the sentence is too heavy, otherwise there will be problems in fulfilling his responsibilities. After the misjudged case is cast, there should be a plot of "correcting mistakes". If it is not reflected in the development of the plot, it is a bigger problem.
The third is the judgment of the Beijing court. The trial of the case was held in Beijing, and making such a judgment may make people doubt the quality and level of local judges at that time.
The fourth is the issue of lawyers in Beijing. You know, in the early 1980 s, the judicial administrative organs across the country began to restore and rebuild. By 1993, the national lawyer qualification examination system has been improved. This lawyer Lin from Beijing is a college classmate of Cai, and he should have been a lawyer for at least ten years. In the case of 1993, the lawyer system in China has not changed. Lawyers are still public servants, public welfare, and legal workers who are paid by the state. Don't you know the provisions of the criminal law? As attorneys, the legal assistance provided to Zheng Juan and Zhou Bingkun is very limited, and there is no excuse in court. There is no trace of "taking facts as the basis and taking the law as the criterion".
Some people may say that the judgment was wrong. Didn't the lawyer suggest Zhou Bingkun to appeal when he pronounced the sentence and strive for a fair judgment in the second instance? In fact, Zhou Bingkun is right not to appeal. Otherwise, it will be considered as a bad attitude to plead guilty, and the second trial has the basis for aggravating the judgment. 1997 after the revision of the criminal law, the principle of "no additional punishment on appeal" was determined, and the criminal procedure law was revised accordingly.
In addition, this is not a necessary link to gain the understanding of the victims or their families. This is the thing of this century. Under the criminal policy of combining leniency with severity, criminal reconciliation, as a way to reduce social confrontation, will be even more inexplicable if it goes to the last century.