"Don't forget, there will be repercussions." After the Shenzhen parrot case, the judicial circles initiated a discussion on whether domestic and wild parrots should be treated differently. Some scholars and lawyers point their finger at the existing judicial interpretation of precious and endangered wildlife, hoping to promote judicial "patching" through this case. The Supreme Law clearly stipulates that "artificial breeding of animals involved is lenient", which is undoubtedly a positive response.
The judicial interpretation of "change when you smell it" accords with the expectation of good law. As far as the Shenzhen parrot case is concerned, Wang Peng, a man, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment at first instance for selling rare species of parrots. The problem is that the parrots sold are autotrophic.
Generally speaking, there is a significant difference in the protection value between domesticated animals and real wild animals. Many people feel aggrieved for Wang Peng, because he sold two protected parrots that he domesticated, which did little harm to the society, and it was not the same as selling wild and endangered golden sun parrots.
From the judicial point of view, the crime of illegally purchasing, transporting and selling precious and endangered wild animals involved in Article 34 1 of the Criminal Law is only aimed at wild animals. The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Destruction of Wild Animal Resources equates key protected or endangered wild animals with "domesticated and bred above-mentioned species", which is an expanded interpretation of the principle of a legally prescribed punishment for a crime.
It is also because it is unreasonable for the local judicial department to sentence Wang Peng to five years' imprisonment in the first instance when the number of parrots involved has constituted a "serious case" and should be sentenced to five to 10 years' imprisonment. At the second trial, in a voice of doubt, the sentence was reduced to two years.
For example, sentencing in the second instance of this case is a breakthrough, which also suggests the necessity of insisting on problem-oriented improvement in judicial decisions. "The law must be believed, otherwise it will be useless", and the letter should be fair. If the legal provisions, judicial interpretations and other judgments are unfair, it is difficult for the judicial organs to make a reasonable enough judgment result under the existing judicial framework.
For this reason, in view of some unreasonable judgments, different from the previous way of asking the court to amend the judgment through a joint letter, in recent years, many people have turned their attention to the lag of the judgment basis and promoted legal progress by submitting it to the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) for deliberation.
For example, when lawyer Miao Yongjun represented the case earlier, he found that the "conditional arrest" system issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate in April 2065438+2003 was in conflict with the law, and submitted the Proposal for Application for Review to the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), which caused the Supreme People's Procuratorate to issue a notice to stop executing the document; Some parties to divorce cases and deputies to the National People's Congress think that Article 24 of the judicial interpretation of the Marriage Law is a "first-class legal error", and finally it has been revised through continuous efforts.