First of all, the acquittal of Nie Shubin case was realized under the background of comprehensively administering the country according to law. The case appeared in Wang Shujin in 2005. Nie Shubin's mother, Zhang Huanzhi, kept complaining and went to the Supreme People's Court to designate a different place for review, trial, retrial and final judgment. Despite all the difficulties, it always goes in the right direction. Wrongful and false cases seriously infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, seriously damage judicial justice and seriously affect legal dignity. On July 20 13, the Central Political and Legal Committee issued the Guiding Opinions on Effectively Preventing Unjust, False and Misjudged Cases. 20 14, 10 The Central Committee issued the "Decision of the Central Committee on Comprehensively Promoting the Rule of Law", emphasizing "improving the mechanism for effectively preventing and promptly correcting unjust, false and misjudged cases", and demanding that the retrial system be improved to solve the problems such as the difficulty in starting retrial and changing judgment. Without these important spirits and the continuous improvement of the criminal procedure system, the revision of Nie Shubin's case is impossible. This case is a representative case of the criminal justice system moving towards civilization in the process of governing the country according to law in an all-round way.
Secondly, Nie Shubin's acquittal in retrial shows the firm determination of the highest judicial organ in China to rebuild judicial credibility, correct unjust, false and misjudged cases and dare to face up to misjudged cases. The Supreme People's Court and the Shandong Higher People's Court, the case undertaker in charge of review, have repeatedly stated that the review and retrial of Nie Shubin's case should stand the test of facts and history. Justice may be late, but it will never be absent. The revision of the sentence reflects the prudent judicial concept. Although Nie Shubin can't be resurrected, today's commutation is a consolation to his family's unremitting efforts for many years.
Thirdly, the Nie Shubin case once again gave a strong endorsement to the criminal procedure principle of "never suspecting a crime". According to statistics, since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, nearly 30 major unjust, false and misjudged cases have been corrected, and many cases have been changed according to the principle of "no doubt". "Never suspecting a crime" is an inherent requirement of the concept of human rights protection, an important embodiment of the principle of procedural rule of law, an inevitable requirement of following judicial laws, and the only choice to prevent unjust, false and wrong cases. Nie Shubin's case took a long time and lost a lot of evidence, so it was extremely difficult to find out the facts and evidence. There are many different opinions and viewpoints in the process of case review. Judging from the published available evidence, it can neither prove that Wang Shujin is the real murderer, nor deny the evidence that Nie Shubin is suspected by the public security organs. The Supreme People's Court insisted on "no doubt" and changed his sentence to innocence, which provided a guide and benchmark for future judicial activities.
Fourthly, Nie Shubin's review and revision of sentence reflects the Supreme People's Court's firm stance of neutral trial and independent exercise of judicial power. The modern criminal justice system centers on trial, and the people's courts adhere to judicial neutrality and establish judicial authority. Nie Shubin case has long been concerned by the society, media and legal circles, and the public opinion is complex and changeable. Regardless of public opinion, the core of trial activities is always evidence and facts. The Supreme People's Court is rigorous and prudent in the process of reexamination and retrial in designated different places, insisting on evidence judgment, maintaining a detached and objective attitude towards the case, insisting on taking facts as the basis, taking the law as the criterion, and judging fairly, fairly and centrally.
Second, the exploration of various systems aimed at ensuring procedural justice in the process of revising the judgment of Nie Shubin case has provided beneficial experience for fair justice.
First of all, the direct trial in the Supreme People's Court is an important procedural driving force to make the case fair and just. As a way of trial supervision by people's courts, arraignment is clearly stipulated by law. However, in practice, only a few criminal cases have been tried by the Supreme People's Court in the second instance, which shows that he is cautious about remanding cases. The Supreme People's Court's direct arraignment of this case is a major procedural advancement towards fairness and justice, and it is also an effective response to public opinion and social concerns.
Secondly, the Supreme People's Court designated a different place to review the case, effectively avoiding self-correction and protracted indecision. Because Nie Shubin's case was tried in the first instance and the second instance in Hebei Province, the defendant's family complained fruitlessly for many years. The Supreme People's Court appointed Shandong Higher People's Court for reexamination, which is very rare in the history of criminal proceedings in China. The Nie Shubin case was re-examined in different places, which ensured the fairness and credibility of the re-examination to the greatest extent. The Nie Shubin case initiated the retrial of suspicious cases in different places, and pointed out the demonstration path to correct unjust, false and wrong cases.
Thirdly, the review and retrial link fully guarantees the parties' right to participate, the right to read papers and the public's right to know, and holds hearings and other beneficial forms, which provides a good reference for dealing with major cases with wide social influence. In the process of case review, the Shandong Higher People's Court fully guaranteed the attorney's right to read papers, and ensured that he could completely copy and photograph the Nie Shubin case and the closely related Wang Shujin case file. Holding a hearing on Nie Shubin's review is also a beneficial institutional innovation. Experts and scholars, NPC deputies, CPPCC members, supervisors of people's courts, women representatives and grassroots representatives were invited to attend the hearing. The supervision of the procuratorate, the live broadcast of the court's official Weibo pictures and texts, and the anonymous opinion form filled by the hearing personnel all reflect the thinking and spirit of the rule of law in handling major and complicated cases. To achieve fairness and justice in a way that the people can see, "let the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case."
Third, summarize the heavy lessons of Nie Shubin's innocence case and improve the system of prevention and correction of criminal unjust, false and wrong cases.
The consequences of criminal misjudgment and misjudgment are extremely serious, which will not only cause serious harm to the wrongdoer and his family, but also cause serious harm to the judicial credibility and even the national image. Especially in the case of right and wrong killing, the price is irreparable. Nie Shubin's innocence case once again warns of the importance of strictly regulating the administration of justice.
First of all, we must adhere to the implementation of the criminal procedure system from the judicial law and eliminate the soil where unjust, false and wrong cases occur.
The emergence of Nie Shubin case is due to the lack of scientific and technological strength, limited level and inadequate standardization of law enforcement in the 1990s. However, any misjudged case in any period is also a tragedy. Improper and wrong law enforcement ideas and methods in the process of investigating and handling cases are worth rethinking again. For example, Nie Shubin's conviction in the original judgment was mainly based on Nie Shubin's own confession, which highlighted the confession-centered handling method and the "record-centered" evidence review mode. Marked by the revision of China's criminal procedure law in 20 12 and the promulgation of "two rules of evidence", China's criminal procedure system has established principles and systems such as safeguarding human rights, never suspecting a crime, judging by evidence, and strictly mastering the standard of evidence in death penalty cases. However, in the current judicial practice, there are still improper concepts and behaviors such as paying too much attention to confession, presumption of guilt, and even extorting a confession by torture or extorting a confession by torture in disguise. We should further strengthen the system construction, and no longer formulate unreasonable assessment indicators that may lead to judicial injustice and violate judicial laws, so as to prevent unjust, false and wrong cases caused by quick success in handling cases.
Secondly, taking the rehabilitation of Nie Shubin case as an opportunity, we should improve the error correction mechanism of criminal cases, the trial supervision procedure and the standard system of proof.
Although the Nie Shubin case was rehabilitated, it should be noted that the reason for this case was accidental. It was not until the "real murderer" or "real murderer suspect" Wang Shujin was arrested and brought to justice and entered the field of public opinion that it became a case of great concern. Whether this case "the real murderer was arrested" or other cases "the resurrection of the dead", it is a small probability event. However, the correction of criminal misjudged cases cannot rely on "accident". It is necessary to clearly overturn the evidence standard of effective guilty verdict. From "correcting mistakes" to "dispelling doubts". "Only correcting errors" is the basic viewpoint in the retrial procedure in China at present, which has extremely high requirements for the starting conditions of retrial. However, the requirement of "no doubt" on the starting conditions of retrial is obviously reduced. The Nie Shubin case has been a mystery for many years. The main difference between the prosecution and the defense in the review and trial stage is the standard of proof of evidence. It should be clear to what extent the "doubt" of "no doubt" needs to be proved before it can be regarded as innocence. In order to ensure that mistakes must be corrected, the litigation rights of defendants and their defenders should be fully guaranteed. Access to the complete file of Nie Shubin case has always been the biggest problem for lawyers in this case. Procedural rights such as the right to read papers enjoyed by the parties and defenders according to law should be fully guaranteed. For major and socially influential cases, the hearing procedure should be further standardized and normalized to protect the public's right to know.
Thirdly, we should face up to and correctly understand the existence of unjust, false and misjudged cases, especially those that are not suspected of committing crimes. It is necessary to "unify powers and responsibilities", clarify the responsibility for misjudged cases, and improve the judicial responsibility system.
The highest state of criminal justice is that there is no injustice. But no matter in the past or now, it is almost impossible to completely avoid unjust cases. For example, in the United States, according to the statistics of the University of Michigan Law School, between 1989 and 20 188, at least 1 188 people who have been convicted are acquitted because of new evidence, and about 60-80 prisoners are acquitted every year, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. For China and the United States, which retain the death penalty, there is the possibility of manslaughter. Specific crimes such as murder and rape account for a considerable proportion in unjust cases. For unjust, false and misjudged cases, the accountability procedure is the institutional guarantee to supervise and prevent unjust, false and misjudged cases. At the same time, "the unity of power and responsibility" is an important symbol of modern rule of law. Its basic requirements are that the right must be responsible, the right to use it must be supervised, the dereliction of duty must be held accountable, and those who violate the law must be prosecuted. The accountability of unjust, false and misjudged cases should be open and transparent, and actively respond to social concerns. The accountability of unjust, false and misjudged cases should also be based on facts and the law as the criterion, and the responsibility should be clarified.