Just because a capable strong woman was killed by her husband
Xu Jianping was sentenced to death at first instance for killing his wife and dismembering her body. However, nearly 200 people came to the court to plead for him, most of whom were intellectuals, on the grounds that he had made outstanding contributions to the textile industry in China.
Wang Yinsheng, a postdoctoral fellow of Chinese Academy of Sciences, said in an appeal to Zhejiang Provincial High Court: Saving Xu Jianping's life is the best choice for families, enterprises, local economy, textile technology and national textile industry after long-term consideration. This case is confined to the family, which is different from other criminal cases that endanger the social scope. Judging from Xu Jianping's contribution to society, he is hard to compare with ordinary entrepreneurs. If he is not executed, he may continue this contribution that ordinary people can hardly make.
According to the law, criminals who have made significant contributions can be given a lighter punishment. Defence lawyer Deng Jixiang believes that criminals who have made significant contributions to society should also enjoy the same "treatment". At present, Xu Jianping has appealed to a higher court.
Comment link:
Yangcheng Evening News: Can "Great Contribution" atone for sin? (Gao Zhiguo)
The demands of these 200 people are worrying: their reasons for writing books are obviously insufficient based on the rule of law. There is no internal relationship between the remarkable achievements in the professional field and the sentencing degree of homicide. He was sentenced for murder, which is a matter of judicial trial. The so-called "take a long-term view", according to Wang Yinsheng's point of view, keeping him alive is the best choice not only for families, enterprises, local economy, textile technology and national textile industry. The narrowness of their thoughts is obvious.
What is exposed by the so-called "making meritorious deeds by wearing a sin" is the collective disregard of the intellectual class for the law. Wang said that "this situation is limited to the internal scope of the family" and took pains to list the benefits brought by economy and science to all aspects. Do they see the equality of the law? Any citizen's illegal and criminal acts should not be investigated and punished differently because of his educational level and social status. No matter how great the contribution is, it can't wash away the seriousness of malicious homicide cases. This is a homicide case, and only relevant criminal responsibility will be investigated. Everything should be considered according to the murder case. There is no need for Xu to undertake the murder case, but also to undertake the development of local, industrial economy and science and technology that has nothing to do with killing his wife and dismembering her body. Is it too irrelevant to connect them to write a book? !
The author has no intention to "defend" Xu's death sentence, mainly to demonstrate whether "significant contribution" is more important than "legal equality" and what punishment Xu will eventually be sentenced to. The author has no intention to speculate and infer, which is ultimately a matter for the judicial organs. Even if the sentence is changed, the author does not want to wipe the oil of criminal law because of his "great contribution", but a new thinking and viewpoint based on the legal text.
Southern Metropolis Daily: Don't let the "interest theory" affect judicial justice (Chu Yang)
I don't agree with this postdoctoral fellow. Of course, cases that occur within the family will be different from other types of criminal cases that occur in other places, and the law will distinguish them. However, is it because the case happened in the family that the degree of violation of the law is relatively light? Obviously not. For the consideration of enterprises, local economy, textile technology and national textile industry, it is obvious that Xu Jianping's judicial decisions are more based on local or industry interests than legal facts. In addition, is the judicial decision based on this "interest theory" "take a long-term view"?
We don't deny that if Xu Jianping is alive, "he may continue to make contributions that ordinary people can't make", thus creating greater benefits for the industry and local economy, but have we ever thought about another benefit, that is, judicial justice? If criminals are treated leniently out of industry and local interests, it will undoubtedly undermine the rule of law order and directly lead to judicial injustice.
On the other hand, it is not hard to imagine that if we open our mouths to Xu Jianping, will there be more Xu Jianping, so that they will no longer be in awe of the law? And will anyone else doubt the fairness of the law? So at this time, where do we talk about the prestige of the judiciary and the credibility of the law?
Justice should not be affected by any factors other than legal facts. Compared with the social interests of judicial justice, the interests based on industry and place are really small. For a country ruled by law, it is self-evident that people who safeguard judicial justice and industrial and local economic interests should have a long-term vision and need a long-term perspective.
Southern Metropolis Daily: On the Harmfulness of "Defending in Court" (Han Xiao)
In fact, the collective action of more than 200 people is not isolated. This argument of "atonement for merit" has a deep traditional and folk foundation.
Even now, when we look at many problems, we still have not escaped the imprisonment of this traditional thought. Many times we are used to looking at problems dialectically and analyzing their priorities, which is undoubtedly very rational. However, due to the inertia of thinking, such thinking is often used to draw conclusions about a person's quality and behavior. Many people think that to look at a person comprehensively, we should not only see his shortcomings, but also see his contributions. Then came the idea that a person will always make some mistakes in his life, and he should not be denied his life because of individual mistakes. It depends on this person's achievements and contributions in other major aspects. If his merits are greater than his faults, he should be given a positive characterization. This statement sounds reasonable, but what if "individual mistakes" are very bad or unforgivable?
In our traditional culture, there is a so-called "good man and bad man view". We often mistakenly think that "bad guys" are those who do evil. In fact, "bad guys" are not doing bad things all their lives. Some people just do a bad thing all their lives. If this bad thing is done badly enough, they can't escape the notoriety of "bad guys" We must never write off a person's evil deeds just because he has done a lot of so-called "good things". The scientist who killed his wife may have made great achievements in science. Judging from the theory of atonement, his contribution to society is far greater than the crime of killing his wife. If we really deal with this way of thinking, there will inevitably be a result, that is, the murderer will not get the punishment he deserves and the justice of the law will be violated.
It is understandable that people sometimes make mistakes. However, if this "mistake" has gone beyond a certain limit and become an unforgivable crime in social ethics and national law, then such a "mistake" is fatal to a person's life. At this time, no matter how much he has contributed to the country, no matter how much wealth he has created for the society, no matter what great achievements he has made, these can not be used to offset his sins. We should see that sin is not terrible, but it is terrible not to treat it as sin. The so-called "atonement theory" is a disguised encouragement to evil, a subversion of ethics and law, and runs counter to the goal of building a country ruled by law. We should resolutely remove this kind of thinking from our minds and throw it into the garbage dump of history.