Their life trajectory is not bad. Once upon a time, they were also kind and law-abiding citizens. There was a beautiful yesterday, flowers and applause accompanied their growth. They become criminals because they are driven by greed and desire to pursue all kinds of wrong goals, which makes them lose their senses, ignore social norms, moral norms and national laws, and finally "pawn" their souls to money and interests, ruining their more colorful lives and harming themselves and their families.
After listening to these cases, my mood has been difficult to calm for a long time. I think everyone wants to pursue more money, status, power and wisdom, and hopes that personal ability and success will be recognized by society. These are the necessary conditions for others to respect and are beyond reproach. After satisfying the lowest desire, people always have higher desire, and it is desire that arouses the motivation of people's continuous struggle. Nevertheless, people should know how to use reason to adjust themselves, especially to restrain and restrain the surging greed in their subconscious. We should suppress and eliminate those thoughts that violate social morality and people's daily ethics from the ideological level, and we should not let greed breed and spread, and engage in illegal activities driven by greed. The satisfaction of desire must be achieved by legal means within the scope permitted by law, morality and conscience. Otherwise, even if your temporary desires are satisfied, life will make you lose more than you gain, and even make you fall into the abyss of perdition.
From this, I also think that if people want to learn to be satisfied, it is difficult to have wild thoughts, and greedy thoughts are naturally difficult to occupy your mind. If you are rich now, you should know how to be content, cherish what you have and let go of all kinds of unnecessary desires. If you are not rich and what you have is not as good as others, you still have to balance your mind and accept it frankly. You can't hate society and others because of this, and you can't take extreme measures to do things that harm others and yourself. We must understand that there will always be shortcomings in one's life, and nine times out of ten things will be unsatisfactory. Being rich is relative, not the only goal of success in life. Maybe I am not rich, but I can still live happily. Perhaps this is the real standard of success in life. The ancients said: letting wealth and fame drift by like clouds was unjust. Life is short, we should correctly grasp our precious life, take every step well, and never go astray, because we still have too many unfinished responsibilities and obligations.
-
According to the requirements of law practice of law undergraduates in RTVU, in order to study law more deeply, we conducted legal practice by means of simulated trial. Taking the medical malpractice case in Zhang Li as an example, we made a specific implementation plan for the trial, made good preparations before the trial, and made detailed division of labor and venue layout. The whole procedure of mock trial is legal and the law enforcement is strict, which is a successful legal practice. Through practice, the basic ability to analyze and solve problems by using legal theory and legal knowledge has been enhanced, and the awareness of innovation has been improved ideologically. In the trial of this case, I was the recorder of the collegial panel, and the cause of death of the victim RoyceWong was the focus of this case. In the inversion of the burden of proof in medical malpractice, Zhang Li, as the defendant, should bear the burden of proof for the scientificity, timeliness and faultlessness of his behavior. Let me talk about my experience on this issue. First, in the inversion of the burden of proof, the other party should bear the burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of a certain reason. The elements of civil liability, especially tort liability, generally include damage facts, causality and fault, and the existence of these elements also constitutes the key to determine whether the plaintiff wins the case. However, in the case of inverted burden of proof, the plaintiff does not need to bear the burden of proof for the existence of these factors, but the defendant needs to bear the burden of proof for the existence of certain facts. Inversion of burden of proof not only refers to the specific distribution of burden of proof according to the provisions of the law, but also means that the reasons for the other party's proof are strictly limited in law, that is, what the other party should disprove in the case of inversion of burden of proof must be stipulated by law. Usually, the facts proved by the defendant are not clearly defined, and the background of witnesses mainly includes two types: one is to prove that they are not at fault; The second is to prove that there is no causal relationship. In some cases, the proof of these two facts is usually combined. For example, the defendant proves that the damage was caused by a third person, which not only shows that the defendant is not at fault, but also shows that there is no causal relationship between the occurrence of the damage and the defendant's behavior. But in other cases, these two problems may be separated from each other. For example, if the defendant proves that the damage is caused by force majeure, he should be able to prove that he is subjectively innocent, so he should be exempted from responsibility. Two, in the case of inverted burden of proof, the defendant shall bear the responsibility to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact. If it cannot be proved, it shall bear the consequences of losing the case. On the surface, the inversion of burden of proof is the inversion of burden of proof. In fact, it is the inversion of the responsibility to prove the existence or non-existence of a certain fact, and it is a question of how to allocate the burden of proof between the parties. However, the inversion of burden of proof is not only the distribution of burden of proof, but more importantly, this distribution of burden of proof often directly affects the outcome of litigation, that is, "where the burden of proof is distributed, the case will be won." Because once the burden of proof is reversed, the party whose burden of proof is reversed will bear a heavier burden of proof. If the legal reason cannot be proved, it is presumed that the claim of the party making the claim is established, which will affect the outcome of the lawsuit as a whole. The assumption of the consequences of losing the case shows that the inversion of the burden of proof is essentially a distribution of the burden of proof, and the burden of proof is a result responsibility, which solves the problem of bearing the risk of losing the case when the facts of the case are unknown. In substantive law, it is also quite difficult for the defendant to prove this. For example, in the case of high-risk liability, the defendant must prove that the danger was caused by the plaintiff's intention in order to be exempted from liability. If the defendant can't prove this, he may lose the case. In this way, the inversion of burden of proof is usually associated with strict liability, which further illustrates the difference between inversion of burden of proof and transformation of burden of proof. The transformation of burden of proof is not necessarily related to strict liability. In any type of case, the burden of proof in litigation may be reversed, which does not involve abstract substantive law norms, but only the interaction between the parties in the specific litigation process. Three, in the case of inverted burden of proof, the plaintiff should also bear the burden of proof for the existence of certain facts. When the burden of proof is reversed, does it mean that the plaintiff should not bear any burden of proof, but the defendant should prove everything? In my opinion, even if the inversion of burden of proof should be applied according to the provisions of substantive law, the plaintiff should bear the responsibility of proving the existence or non-existence of certain facts. In the case of strict liability, the defendant should prove fault, causality, etc. According to the law, the victim is exempted from the burden of proof of this fact, and the responsibility is transferred to the perpetrator, who will bear the risk of losing the case if the evidence is not in place. However, other necessary facts, such as the injurer and the fact of damage, should also apply the general rule of "who advocates who gives evidence" to allocate the burden of proof, and the proposer of the facts should bear the burden of proof. For example, in the responsibility of highly dangerous operations, at least the plaintiff must prove that the danger is caused by the defendant's behavior rather than a third party, otherwise even the defendant of the litigation subject can't be clear. How to sue? Who are you suing? For another example, in the inversion of the burden of proof of medical malpractice, the hospital, as the defendant, should bear the burden of proof for the scientific, timely and faultless facts of its behavior, while the patient should bear the burden of proof for the harmful facts of the defendant's behavior, and the harmful consequences should bear the burden of proof for the facts related to the defendant's behavior. When the burden of proof is reversed, the plaintiff also bears the burden of proof of some facts, because: from the perspective of substantive law, anyone who claims rights should prove the existence of their rights; From the point of view of evidence law, the party who advocates should also provide corresponding evidence. Even if the law starts from a specific purpose, in order to strengthen the protection of some specific parties who encounter obstacles in proof, the burden of proof is reversed, and only the specific matters of proof are reversed to the defendant. This does not mean that all the evidence and even explanations in the lawsuit are handed over to the defendant. In essence, the inversion of burden of proof is essentially based on legal provisions. The plaintiff proves the existence of fact A, but the defendant should bear the proof of the existence or non-existence of fact B. If the defendant can't prove it, the plaintiff's factual claim is presumed to be established. Through practice, I have a better understanding of the law.