This is a new week. Welcome to the news 1+ 1.
The case of Zhao Zuohai has aroused great concern. The formation of unjust cases is related to the huge defects in evidence, such as how the nameless body was identified as the victim. For example, Zhao Zuohai's torture has also become important evidence. Usually, we are talking about irrefutable evidence. How to make this evidence really stand the test of time and truth like iron? Can we do that?
Comments:
Evidence is a science, but I'm afraid 80% or 90% people in our country are not familiar with it, including law undergraduates. ? A jurist said so, but it is such a technical term that looks a bit uncommon, but today it has become a hot spot pursued by the media.
May 30 news:
The Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgment of Evidence in Handling Death Penalty Cases and the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Distribution of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases to standardize the identification of evidence in death penalty cases.
Xiong Xuanguo (Vice President the Supreme People's Court):
It is to make every death penalty case stand the test of history and law with the strictest evidence standard, the most prudent attitude and work style.
Comments:
Death penalty cases are related to human life. Once a mistake is made, the consequence is not only the loss of a life, but also the dignity of the law and the public trust of the judiciary. The world-famous Zhao Zuohai case happened this month, so the key words extracted from these two laws focused on extorting confessions by torture and unjust, false and wrong cases.
In fact, the law not only expressly prohibits extorting confessions by torture, but also bears special responsibility. There are pure fairy tales in love stories during the World Cup, but it is undeniable that similar things happen from time to time and even create some unjust cases.
Fan Chongyi (Professor, China University of Political Science and Law):
Although China's laws also prohibit extorting confessions by torture and hitting people, it is also prohibited in actual work, and unjust, false and wrong cases continue to occur. This provision punishes the evidence illegally collected by you from the rules of evidence and procedure, and cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. To put it bluntly, I took it for nothing.
Comments:
Obviously, in the opinion of experts, this new regulation is not only aimed at extorting confessions by torture, but also pursues strict provisions on the authenticity of the evidence itself and emphasizes the procedural justice of obtaining evidence, which is also reflected in the exclusion of illegal evidence. The resurrection from She Xianglin to Zhao Zuohai highlights the lag of the evidence system.
There are five strict operating procedures: procedure initiation, pre-trial review, prosecution and proof-giving, cross-examination by both parties, and court handling. It is clearly stipulated that the public prosecutor should provide the court with interrogation transcripts, original audio, video or other evidence of the interrogation process, and ask the court to notify other people who are present for interrogation or other witnesses to testify in court. If the suspicion of extorting a confession by torture cannot be ruled out, the court should require the interrogators to testify in court to prove the legality of the confession.
This rule is not strict.
Long Chongzhi (Professor, Sichuan University):
First of all, I think this provision is in line with international rules, because the United Nations decision on the death penalty clearly stipulates that the death penalty can only be imposed if there is no other room for explaining the facts. In other words, the death penalty has a higher standard of evidence than other cases. Then our Fifth Hospital made higher and stricter regulations on the evidence standard of death penalty, which is consistent with the United Nations standard. People cannot be resurrected after death, and the judgment is irreversible. The highest standard of proof must be applied.
Comments:
There are 4 1 rules for handling death penalty cases, and there are one * * five steps to exclude illegal evidence, all of which are strict rules that attach importance to procedural justice, unify standards and have strong operability. The purpose is to establish the principle of evidence adjudication centered on legal evidence collection.
Moderator:
With the promulgation of these two laws and regulations, we can easily think of the newly born Zhao Zuohai case. Yan Song, is this a coincidence? Or is there really a connection between them?
Bai (commentator):
An important turning point in Zhao Zuohai's case is that the person who was originally convicted of murder returned to the village on April 30th this year, so the case was exposed by the media around May 4th. Judging from this point in time, it's not even a month now. Will the audience think that these two strict laws and regulations will change from white paper to promulgation? Obviously impossible, mill legend. It should be imported from legal experts who have been involved for at least two years. But not surprisingly, the speed of handling the Zhao Zuohai case has obviously accelerated, not even a little. I'm afraid it has been accelerated so much that these two laws and regulations appeared in front of the public earlier.
Moderator:
The news released by these two regulations is not FMCG news. If you want to care about it, you must read it carefully and watch it calmly, but it attracts a lot of attention. Many people are watching this news. What do you think this high degree of attention means?
White:
I don't think it can be ruled out that the Zhao Zuohai case has just happened, and it has formed an impression in people's minds, including evidence, extorting a confession by torture and many other factors, which made everyone think a lot.
On the other hand, I noticed that when these two regulations were introduced, many people were the first to question them intuitively. Why? Because your law clearly stipulated in the past that it was forbidden to extort confessions by torture, not for a day or two. Why should such laws and regulations be promulgated on the premise of prohibiting extorting confessions by torture? Everyone pays close attention to them. Didn't we all say that my last sentence was true? Just like on a civil aviation plane, there may be many things about civil aviation, but on the plane, as we all know, as soon as the doors are closed, they will be notified on the radio. Please turn off your cell phone and fasten your seat belt. However, it was later found that many people continued to use their mobile phones even during the taxiing process. Even more exasperating, you will find that most flight attendants are watching people talking on their mobile phones, so that other passengers in the cabin will take the initiative to stop them and then get hit black and blue, and he doesn't care. Why do you care?
Such things appear in our lives in various ways, and you have to wonder, do you have to turn off your cell phone when you close the hatch? After a long time, I believe it is really getting less and less. Anyway, everyone is playing, and the stewardess doesn't care. Slowly, everyone is playing. It seems that I gave another example, but back to the law, will it be like this?
How many things in black and white are there in our judiciary? I am afraid that two years later, new judicial interpretations or regulations will be introduced. Of course, this is questioned by ordinary non-legal workers.
Moderator:
Are these two provisions just a repetition and emphasis on the existing laws?
White:
That's not. First of all, we should respect the questions raised by ordinary people, and whether there are such problems in other legal fields. In the future, you have to issue such explanations and regulations, tell everyone that they are true and strictly implement them, but I don't think everyone is a jurist, so make sure what they say is reasonable.
But on the other hand, I think we should go back to the scope of the law. We have noticed that many legal workers highly appreciate the promulgation of these two laws and regulations. Because he believes that in the past laws, although it was explicitly forbidden to extort confessions by torture, there was no explicit provision on whether to use torture to extort confessions. Therefore, the old law did not fall. This time, with these two regulations, it really fell to the ground and was more operable. Of course, legal experts immediately saw the truth inside. Of course, we still hope that many of our laws, including those to be read in the future, are true and can be understood by ordinary people.
Moderator:
The public has its own interpretation, so how do the legal profession view these two laws and regulations? We are now connected with Professor Fan Chongyi, Honorary Dean of the Institute of Litigation Law of China University of Political Science and Law.
Hello, Professor Fan.
Fan Chongyi:
Hello.
Moderator:
The public is very concerned about the relevant provisions of these two articles on extorting confessions by torture. From a professional's point of view, do you think this is also the most important?
Fan Chongyi:
That's right. These two provisions are very important.
Moderator:
Do you focus on extorting confessions by torture? Do you think there are other points?
Fan Chongyi:
The point is that there are two rules. One rule is the exclusion of illegal evidence, mainly to solve the problem of extorting confessions by torture. The evidence rules of death penalty cases are mainly to solve the quality problems of death penalty cases, with high standards and strict requirements, so that this case can stand the test of history and law.
Moderator:
I asked Yan Song about this question before, and I also want to hear your opinions. Are these two laws and regulations an interpretation and emphasis on the existing laws? Is there a other meaning?
Fan Chongyi:
It is not only the interpretation of existing laws and regulations, but also the prohibition of extorting confessions by torture in the past. From the Yan 'an rectification movement to the historical movement after liberation, we are all opposed to extorting confessions by torture, and there are also documents and laws prohibiting extorting confessions by torture. After the law of extorting confessions by torture came into being, when we revised it in 1996, some explanations of the implementation of the law of extorting confessions by torture were also clearly stipulated by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Procuratorate. For example, Article 6 1 of the Supreme Court's interpretation prohibits extorting confessions by torture. Although it is stipulated, as Comrade Yan Song said just now, it will not be implemented. Why not implement it? It's really torture. What would you do? In the words of China's procedural law, it is the lack of a system and a procedural sanction. If you extort a confession by torture again this time, your confession and evidence can't be used as the rules for finalizing the case, and he has no hope. Execute it immediately. This time, I think these two provisions are major innovations and breakthroughs in the original law.
Moderator:
In terms of its value as a regulation, you also talked about innovation and breakthrough. Where is its progress?
Fan Chongyi:
One of its progressiveness is that in our procedural law, as a result, it gave him a sanction and made our law more complete. More importantly, the emergence of the rules of these two laws and regulations truly embodies the principle of judicial justice, which has realized the fairness and justice of our society. It uses legal measures to ensure such fairness and justice while respecting human rights.
Moderator:
Ok, thank you for your comments. Thank you.
The promulgation of the two laws and regulations has made us have a lot of expectations for the future, but whether it can take root depends on whether the conditions such as soil, water, air and sunshine are mature. Let's take the Zhao Zuohai case as an example to see which links went wrong in the whole process.
Comments:
One is the stipulation of evidence in handling death penalty cases, and the other is the exclusion of illegal evidence. In fact, the latest provisions of the two laws were investigated and consulted as early as two years ago. However, as soon as these two new regulations were announced yesterday, many media still linked them with the Zhao Zuohai case. Today, Zhao Zuohai has been out of prison for 22 days. According to his brother-in-law Yu, he has built a new house and is busy buying furniture to start his new life. At the same time, the working group of Henan Provincial Procuratorate has been officially stationed in Shangqiu City to investigate the responsibility of Zhao Zuohai's misjudged case.
After 1 1 years in prison, Zhao Zuohai made nine guilty confessions, which were proved to be false.
Zhao Zuohai:
It was shot in this place.
Reporter:
Gun butt?
Zhao Zuohai:
It's not the butt, it's the head.
Reporter:
How many people hit you?
Zhao Zuohai:
There are about four or five.
Reporter:
Remember their names?
Zhao Zuohai:
I don't remember.
Reporter:
Where is it?
Zhao Zuohai:
I was knocked on the head with a small stick for two days at the police station, and then I was let in. I drank something in that place and passed out. Shoot me in the head when you pass out.
Comments:
1997 Zhao Zuohai was detained as a major suspect for 20 days, but was released due to insufficient evidence. More than a year later, when digging a well, Zhaolou Village found a highly decomposed headless body and was tortured to extract a confession. Zhao Zuohai was arrested by the police as a major suspect. However, the source of the headless body has not been determined. Based on the fact that Zhao Zuohai retracted his confession and the source of the body could not be confirmed, Shangqiu City Procuratorate repeatedly returned the case for supplementary investigation, and finally refused to accept it. However, three years later, a key meeting finally led to the occurrence of unjust cases.
Song Guoqiang (Director of Public Prosecution Department of Shangqiu Procuratorate):
The procuratorial organ did not accept the case for two years, but in August and September 2000, the public security organ submitted the case to the Political and Legal Committee of Shangqiu Municipal Committee for study in the middle of the special inspection activities to clean up the extended detention. The Political and Legal Committee of Shangqiu Municipal Committee organized a special research meeting, at which the case was reported. After collective research, the reporting procedure believes that this case has the conditions for prosecution.
Comments:
After this meeting, the case developed rapidly and the attitude was firm. Judging from the trial link, from the public prosecution of11in 2002 to the judgment of 65438+5 in February of that year, the court trial only lasted for more than 20 days. During the trial, Zhao Zuohai and his defense lawyers denied the murder, but the court held that Zhao Zuohai had recorded nine murders in public security, so. At the time of the court's decision, the hospital also stressed that Zhao Zuohai was given a lighter death sentence because of doubts about the case. At this point, Zhao Zuohai lost his last chance to correct his mistakes.
Zhao Zuohai:
The (provincial senior) people's court and the (provincial senior) people's procuratorate praised me. They are all big officials, provincial officials.
Reporter:
What were you thinking?
Zhao Zuohai:
I have never seen such a big official in my life. They are all big officials. I was scared to death the day I was asked to look at this and that. They are all senior officials.
Comments:
Death penalty cases are irreversible, and the facts must be clear and the evidence is indeed sufficient. How to do this, we also briefly quote the provisions in the new regulations here. First, the facts of conviction and sentencing are proved by evidence; Second, the evidence of each conviction has been verified through legal procedures; Third, there are contradictions or contradictions between the evidence and the case quality inspection department, which can be reasonably excluded.
There are dozens of provisions in the two new regulations to ensure the sources and procedures of evidence, and the new regulations will be implemented on June 65438+ 10/day next year. What impact will it have on the thousands of cases being tried by the court?
Moderator:
The promulgation of the two new regulations, as legal experts said just now, is a better defense of justice and human rights, but in real life, if it can be strictly enforced, where do you think the challenge is, Yan Song?
White:
We certainly hope it is good, but as media people, it would be better if we first put forward possible hidden dangers. What do I think is good about it It's like taking a drastic measure to get rid of the result of extorting a confession by torture, which is useless. The result of extorting a confession by torture is useless, and its motivation has naturally weakened a lot, but it does not mean that all motives have been eliminated. For example, let me give you a point first. When we still have a fate to break, we must have a detection rate, political pressure is also great, and other external forces are exerted on the judiciary. Which is lighter and which is heavier, and which task will be worse if it is not completed? Will he take risks at this time?
In addition, among many judicial workers, the presumption of guilt is still deeply rooted and has not turned into ideological doubt. This will also appear from time to time, and extorting confessions by torture will also appear again.
So this factor must be mentioned first.
Moderator:
Then some people will say, with such regulations, will the detection rate drop?
White:
I think so. From the experience of foreign countries, the detection rate will have some room for decline, but I think it is divided into two ends. On the one hand, we cannot stop extorting confessions by torture. In fact, we didn't stop extorting confessions by torture in the past, and now we don't allow extorting confessions by torture. If we can't extort confessions by torture, the detection rate will drop. It is wrong to implement this regulation. You should keep pace with the times. If you can't do this, you should emphasize your investigation ability, your ability to collect evidence, and even more, you should make practical moves to turn this simple process into a more difficult and challenging technical process.
I think the time spent extorting confessions by torture is more spent on obtaining real evidence. I think this is a positive aspect, and I think it should help to improve the level of our relevant judicial personnel.
On the other hand, even if the detection rate drops, it is a price we must bear. Is it just a bad price? Not necessarily, it may be good. Why do you say that? Today, I read a passage in an article by a judicial expert, and I was very emotional. He said that for thousands of years, there have been very hard cases in the history of China, which are excellent and impeccable. However, people remember Yang He's unjust case. The existence of this kind of unjust case makes you even doubt the court and doubt that era. This is that an unfair judgment will hurt people's confidence in justice more than thousands of judgments, so we have to understand which is more important. This is not a simple problem of a decline in the detection rate.
Moderator:
As far as I know, these two new regulations are actually in a judicial procedure, and one link has made more serious requirements and regulations. But if everyone's awareness of the legal system and respect for people are not implemented throughout the judicial process, including handling cases, can this link still be useful?
White:
This is very important, because you are looking at the link where confessions are extracted by torture, not the court. You may be in the public security before obtaining evidence, but will you appear everywhere with officials from the public security, procuratorate and court? Do you think the police, prosecutors and judges will protect each other, not officials, and there will be human feelings? When you have a problem there, I am embarrassed to solve it for you. The case of Zhao Zuohai revealed this point. After the promulgation of these two regulations, can it really lead to the judgment of our court and lead to a deadpan? When dealing with public security, our procuratorate will also exercise such duties as supervision and even restraint, instead of protecting officials, rather than looking up and not looking down. I think this test is probably bigger than many laws and regulations written in black and white. Because we are a personal society, sometimes because of embarrassment, we know that you have a problem, but we are embarrassed to bring it up, and unjust cases arise. This problem is actually not small.