Entertainment places are the easiest places to hide evil and shelter evil, and they are high-risk areas for all kinds of public security and criminal cases. Therefore, how to manage entertainment service places has become the focus of social attention. Public security organs are the main departments in charge of entertainment service places. It is an effective measure to promote the construction of clean government and anti-corruption work of public security organs, an important aspect for public security organs to strengthen the construction of the party's ruling ability, and a kind of "formal justice" that law enforcers should pursue. Faced with all kinds of interests and temptations, if the police want to adhere to principles and avoid problems, necessary moral education is essential, but the perfection of rules and regulations is the most fundamental guarantee. This kind of "formal justice" can make the police avoid the suspicion of "Gua Tian Li Xia". China's Judges Law, Procurator Law and other relevant laws stipulate the withdrawal system of employees, which shows that "formal justice" is also a kind of justice. Even if the final result is fair in nature, it is hard for others to believe the final result because of the lack of "formal justice". Therefore, our law enforcement process should pursue both substantive justice and formal justice to be convincing. Li Jianmin/Shandong Weifang Public Security Bureau
Only when the procedure is open can the result be fair.
□ Xiao Wen It is reported that Jiangsu Province recently made the whole process of medical malpractice appraisal public for the first time. Both doctors and patients participated in the expert's discussion on medical malpractice identification. The organizer said that the future evaluation process will be more "transparent". However, some people in the medical field believe that exposing the identity of experts directly to both doctors and patients may lead to excessive behavior and pose a threat to the safety of experts once both sides are dissatisfied with the appraisal results.
Medical appraisal has always been criticized, because its operation is in a semi-hidden state, the parties apply for medical appraisal, and the medical association randomly selects experts for appraisal. In the end, the appraisal results obtained by the applicant are often just unreasonable conclusions, and the process of how to appraise is unknown to the parties. It is this opaque procedure that lays the groundwork for the black-box operation and rent-seeking in the assessment process, which implies social injustice. The unfairness and opacity of the procedure is the biggest drawback of the current medical appraisal system. To solve this dilemma, we must start with the system itself.
The author believes that experts are threatened personally because of medical appraisal, which is debatable in itself; Moreover, this can be completely solved through technical operation, and procedural justice should not be put in limbo on the grounds that "experts are threatened".
Medical experts, like judges and lawyers, all analyze according to evidence materials, and the judgment they get is bound to be beneficial to one party and blame the other, but this clear-cut judgment is a move to safeguard social justice. Why do we think that judges and lawyers are safe, but the only medical expert can't protect them?
From a technical point of view, medical expertise involving a wide range and great influence can be conducted by anonymous experts, court debates and collegiate panels, or even written defense, which means that the process should be recorded. The truth is getting clearer and clearer. Moreover, medical appraisal is ultimately scientific. After listening to the expert's testimony, there is no reason to retaliate afterwards.
At present, the medical appraisal system is still a combination of "referees and athletes", and the involvement of administrative subordination and interest relations has led to a series of procedural problems. The ultimate direction of reform is to put medical authentication institutions in an independent third party. Until this goal is achieved, only the openness of the procedures can guarantee the fairness of the results. This is the significance of Jiangsu's move.