The article is from the WeChat public account: memory bearer. Welcome to read the full article.
The prototype of "Dear" directed by Chen Kexin, Sun Haiyang, just like the prototype in Andy Lau's "Lost Orphans", Guo Gangtang, has found his lost child.
Is this something to be congratulated on?
Yes, but this joy is mixed with helplessness.
When Guo Gangtang lost his child, the child was 2 years old, and from then on, the child's life and death were uncertain, and he embarked on a long road to find his son.
When Sun Haiyang lost his child, the child was 4 years old, and from then on, the child's life and death were uncertain, and he embarked on a long road to find his son.
However, when they find their children more than a decade later, can they really find anything back?
No, what they find is clues, what they can't find is emotion.
Whether it is Guo Gangtang's children or Sun Haiyang's children, when they are found by their biological parents, they all choose to continue to live with their adoptive parents.
The reason is simple, lost prematurely, they have no memory of their biological parents.
In other words, whether it is for Guo Gangtang or for Sun Haiyang, at the moment when the child is lost, it is already doomed to be lost.
Time can't be found.
When I evaluate this news, I am not sorry for Sun Haiyang, because a few months ago, he experienced all this, Guo Gangtang experienced.
I will not condemn two children, one of them lost at the age of 2, one lost at the age of 4, ten years later, twenty years later, you put a pair of strangers in front of him and let him understand that this is the parents, sorry, they really can't do it, because there is no memory.
So what am I going to say?
Cliché, expected management.
I would like to discuss the question of what role do buyers play in the trafficking of children?
Let's take a look at two cases.
In the past, the buyer who bought Guo Gangtang's 2-year-old son was not childless, there were, and there were two, two girls. What he wants is not a child, but a son, the so-called local succession.
In other words, he wants to buy a boy, which is his purpose, which is also the market environment in which Guo Gangtang's 2-year-old son is sold.
Are you saying he abused the child after he bought it? Not really. He raised the child for him to go to college, and even deprived his two daughters of the opportunity to study, and also for the boy he bought to go to college.
His own biological daughter, who cut pig grass and saved for this younger brother, saved for tuition.
We stand in the unknowing point of view, Guo Gangtang's lost child, of course, has feelings for his adoptive parents, and I believe that he has feelings for his sisters.
People don't treat him thinly.
Sun Haiyang's son suffered the same fate, being sold to a family that so-called could not give birth to a son, and was raised.
Let's think about whether this matter is excusable.
For example, if Zhang San paid for it, let people kidnap the old king next door, for example, tied up for ten years, more than twenty years, until the police found out, the old king was rescued.
What crime do you think Zhang San is guilty of?
For at least 10 years, or indefinitely, the property will be confiscated and fined, and so on.
Then we think again, if Zhang San paid for it, hired someone to kidnap Lao Wang, arranged to enter his own pyramid scheme group, brainwashed every day, and let Lao Wang think that Zhang San was his own father, then what crime do you think?
Heavier than the above, several crimes are punished together.
So now we come back to see if there is a substantive difference between these two pairs of so-called "adoptive parents" and Zhang San, who hired a murderer and kidnapped him?
The answer is yes and no.
The so-called existence is reflected in zhang san's clear goal, and the person he hired to kidnap is Lao Wang, and this old king is designated.
The so-called no, embodied in these two so-called "adoptive parents", they did not specify that it must be Sun Haiyang, or Guo Gangtang's son, but said that anyone with a child can do it.
If you think about it, isn't a crime committed without specifying the perpetrator a crime?
It is a great sin for you to deliberately kill Lao Wang, is it not a great sin for you to pick a random perpetrator on the street?
What constitutes human life? Isn't that what time makes?
You deprive Lao Wang of more than ten, twenty years of time, sentence you to life is light, you deprive this child and even the family behind him a dozen, twenty years of time, why not sentence you?
You set up a pyramid scheme group, you are guilty of brainwashing employees, you fool a person who has nothing to do with you call you Daddy, why is it not a crime?
I am very frank to say that the buyer of children, from the point of view of constituting harm, is no different from buying a murderer and buying a murderer and kidnapping, and if everyone is reasonable, it should be executed and sentenced to death.
Why not? Why are things that are clearly reasonable not enforced, and why are so many buyers evading legal sanctions? I think it is relevant to the situation of children and the protection of children.
If the number of losers is numerous, you will be punished deeply, and it is inevitable that buyers, including traffickers, will kill the child and even sell organs.
The dog jumped the wall in a hurry, not to mention the people.
This is the natural restriction of not being able to punish the buyer in the past, the severe punishment of the trafficker, just like we all see a rat, we all have the heart to kill it, but it stays next to the vase, and we can't do it for a long time.
But the turning point of all this is quietly coming.
With the dense webcam in the city, with the rollout of a series of means of population registration, census, the Internet, and positioning. Today, if you want to lose people again, the difficulty coefficient is much more difficult than in the 80s, 90s, including the beginning of the 00s.
What does this mean? It means that there are fewer and fewer traffickers, or chips in the hands of buyers, hostages.
The day is constantly tilted, and I think it is necessary to introduce severe punishments and change the strategy of expected management in a timely manner.
For the sake of propriety, it can be phased.
For example, vigorously promoting that the purchase of children constitutes a serious criminal offense, the death penalty, or indefinite.
However, those who take the initiative to be honest within three years are exempt from responsibility, and those who take the initiative to be frank within five years are reduced by half. Those who have not repented for more than five years shall be dealt with severely and severely once discovered.
How to go, let you pick your own!
Give you the opportunity to give you historical solutions for historical reasons. But if you don't change it repeatedly, then don't say it is unpredictable.
Counting down from the issuance of the ultimatum, the punishment of child traffickers, including buyers, has been continuously increased, and the siege and suppression have been continuously intensified.
It's to destroy your expectations, it's to make you despair.
At the end of the day, the essence of the law is anticipatory management. And with the rapid development of technology, as the children in the hands of buyers grow larger and larger, the babies are less and less, their chips are getting smaller and smaller, and the time for us to severely punish is getting closer and closer.
Some people say that if the adoptive parents are severely punished, whether it is a second harm to the child, after all, he thinks it is the parents.
I believe that managing expectations is more important than managing the present.
The so-called cure for the disease, not the cure for the disease. If you always accommodate the hostage in the hands of this buyer, even when the hostage is rescued, and you still accommodate the hostage's mental state, then all of us have been kidnapped by criminals.
They are not adoptive parents, they are never recognized by law, they are robbers, and the children they buy are hostages.
Sooner or later, the robbers will be killed, and we have not killed them for the time being, but only out of consideration for the safety of the hostages, and this consideration is time-limited.
We can consider that the hostages are taken physically, and we cannot accommodate the hostages being taken mentally.
If we are always so hesitant, we will only condone more robbers, because we give the robbers a weak and deceitful expectation.
This is a must not.
So I strongly appeal that the time has come to severely punish the buyer, for no other reason, and the technical means have made the buyer's hands less and less children, and the hostages are fewer and fewer. If you don't do it at this time, when will you stay?
Out of the mix, sooner or later to pay back!
After all, there is no market without buyers, and there is no harm without buying and selling.