Case summary
Mei Zi has a three-year-old daughter named Xiao Shu. When Xiao Shu was less than one year old, Mei Zi divorced her husband, and Xiao Shu lived with his father. On July 2nd, 20021year, Mei Zi took Xiao Shu to look after her rented house. At the age of three, Xiao Shu was very naughty, which often made Zi Mei angry. Mei Zi, who has been troubled by the shadow of divorce for a long time, also projected her dissatisfaction with her ex-husband to Xiao Shu. Therefore, when educating Xiao Shu, Mei Zi easily lost control and repeatedly beat Xiao Shu's legs, instep, arm, back of hand and face with a wooden ruler for more than ten minutes.
The most direct impact of such violent education on Xiao Shu is physical injury, such as skin rupture and redness in many parts of the body, bruises on hands and feet, and general weakness. On August 5th, two hours after Mei Zi beat Xiao Shu, he found Xiao Shu unconscious and incontinent. After being reminded by others, she sent Xiao Shu to a nearby clinic and was taken to the hospital for rescue. Unfortunately, 3-year-old Xiao Shu never woke up. It was identified that the cause of Xiao Shu's death was massive blood loss and hemorrhagic hypovolemic shock caused by large area skin and soft tissue contusion.
On August 6th, 20021,Mei Zi was detained on suspicion of intentional injury. He was arrested on September 6th, 20021year and detained in Chengdu Detention Center. Facing the prosecution of the procuratorate, Mei Zi's relatives found Sichuan Linyuan Law Firm. After understanding the case, Pan, the city's chief lawyer, accepted the entrustment to act as a defender.
trial site
The public prosecution agency believes that:
If the defendant, Son Mei, intentionally hurts another person's body and causes death, he shall be investigated for criminal responsibility for intentional injury. At the same time, the procuratorate adopted the defender's defense opinion, and found that the defendant, Ren Zimei, had surrendered himself, was a first-time offender, and had a good attitude of pleading guilty. It was suggested that he be sentenced to seven years in prison.
Lawyer Pan's defense opinion on:
The defender has no objection to the alleged facts and charges, and has no objection to the circumstances identified by the public prosecution agency. However, they believe that this case is a case of parents educating their children to death and should be distinguished from ordinary intentional injury cases. Such cases occur between family members, and the causes of human tragedy caused by excessive discipline are inseparable from social and cultural background. Motivation contains goodwill factors, and the criminal object is specific. The defendant is extremely remorseful and self-blaming, which is socially harmful, subjectively vicious and personally dangerous.
The court held that:
The defendant, Son Mei, intentionally hurt others and caused death. His behavior has constituted the crime of intentional injury and should be punished. The fact that the public prosecutor accused the defendant of being guilty. The defendant, Son Mei, did not flee the scene of treating the victim. When the police went to the scene to ask him, he confessed the facts of the crime, which can be considered as surrender, and the punishment can be lightened or mitigated. The defendant, the son of man, was a first-time offender and was given a lighter punishment as appropriate. The defendant, the son of man, pleaded guilty and can be dealt with lightly. The defendant, the son of Mei, and the deceased were mother and daughter, and obtained the understanding of the deceased's father. When sentencing, the whole case is balanced. Based on the overall situation of the case, it was decided to reduce the punishment for Xiaomei. The defender's defense opinion was adopted.
Case results
In view of Xue Hui's mental problems, the compulsory measures taken by the procuratorate against Xue Hui were eventually changed to residential surveillance.
Experience in handling cases
Lawyer Pan: "When we received this case, we were deeply saddened, but the tragedy was irreversible. Since the criminal suspect entrusts us to defend him, we should safeguard his legitimate rights and interests according to law, because the right to defense is a basic right of the criminal suspect and a basic constitutional right.
In this case, we have no objection to the facts, circumstances and charges accused by the public prosecution agency. This is a case of parents educating their children to death, which is different from ordinary intentional injury cases. The parties did not escape afterwards and confessed to the facts of the crime. We also got them a letter of understanding from the victim's father. In the court defense stage, we put forward the defense opinion of lightening or mitigating the punishment for the parties, which was adopted by the court.
This case is also used to warn all parents that learning to control emotions is a serious and necessary course. Even if it is necessary to educate children, we should pay attention to ways and means to avoid venting bad emotions on children and leading to tragedies. "