Author: Chen Yadong (People's Procuratorate of Qianfeng District, Guang'an City, Sichuan Province)
When I received Procurator Liu Zhe's fourth personal book, "Judicial View", I found that the speed of my reading could not keep up with the speed of his writing.
Why is this happening? The two articles "From Gutenberg, Periodicals to Self-Media" and "How to Deal with the Crisis" give the answer. The previous one introduces Liu Zhe's experience and feelings in writing, and in my opinion, the latter one is more profound and reveals the deep reasons.
Liu Zhe regards every setback and difficulty in life as a crisis, and mainly overcomes the crisis of life through reading, books let him turn "crisis" into "opportunity", change the trajectory of life, and also catch up with his lover. This shows that when he was a child, he did not pronounce "L" sounds, only "N" sounds, so that reading his name can only be pronounced as "Niu Zhe" pronunciation barrier, once overcome, the misrepresentation became a prophecy: Liu Zhe is really "Niu".
Liu Zhe's view of justice has been shown to a certain extent in his first three works, and the book "Judicial View" is more systematic. Professor Bian Jianlin mentioned in the preface to Liu Zhe's book "Rule of Law Without Forbidden Areas" that he hoped that Liu Zhe would think more deeply about judicial laws, and "Judicial Concept" also had a certain response.
The whole book is divided into three parts: "concept", "thinking" and "realm", and discusses the concept of justice from three levels. Each section has 10-11 articles, and the individual length is not long, and it is not difficult to read, but this does not mean that it is easy to read. As a grassroots procuratorial personnel in the frontline, I was touched by many views and contents, and I also felt empathy for many of Liu Zhe's case-handling experiences, sometimes smiling in my heart, sometimes clapping the table and applauding - hating not being able to hold his hand immediately and say: Brother Zhe, speak to the heart!
I believe that many people will resonate after reading it, and I will briefly make three points:
First, every case is about life.
"What you are handling is not a case, but someone else's life", this is Liu Zhe's famous quote, which is also the title of his second monograph, and it is also an important expression of his judicial concept. In the article "The Marginal Effect of Justice", he talked about the front-line judicial personnel who "can't get their hands on some cases" out of human nature considerations, and also analyzed why they eventually "got down", so that "what you do is not the case, but someone else's life, which has become a curve" instead.
I thought of a plot in the movie "I Am Not a Medicine God": The lead investigator, Officer Cao, thinks that this case is different from the general case of selling counterfeit drugs and cannot be beaten to death; the director said, Do you see less of the law than love? Without independent will and human feelings, this case has only become a case, so it is free to arrest people. The large number of patients behind the case, desperate eyes, and dying lives can no longer be seen.
In fact, our front-line judicial personnel are not born mechanical law enforcement, on the contrary, many people have empathy, have "intolerable hearts", and have their own understanding and pursuit of judicial justice. We often say that the handling of cases must be reasonable, where is the reasonableness?
I think that when the "intolerable heart" arises, reason arises. Especially the procurators who are in the front line of handling cases, many people are in awe of punishment. My personal feeling is that the longer the case is handled, the more afraid of making mistakes. Of course, it is best not to indulge in vain, but if I grasp the improper indulgence, I can still catch and punish again; if the punishment is wrong, it will affect the life of the family, and even affect the children, then the crime will be great.
Second, everyone risks mediocrity.
The reason why people are mediocre is rooted in laziness, but it is precisely inertia that is human nature. The laziness of thought determines the vision and pattern, and the laziness of action determines the ability and circumstance. Except for a very small number of people who are born with deficiencies, the vast majority of people grow up on their own brains and hands. Liu Zhe shared his upbringing in the article "Rejection of Judicial Mediocrity", "hitting cases" (some places also called "recording evidence"), "the right to make a complaint" (also known as "opening a notice of rights and obligations"), "binding a file" (also known as "loading and filing a file"), and helping others to appear in court, doing any job, his experience is "not to pick work" and "technique (more) do not pressure". Looking back at my first years, this experience is really very similar, of course, but also to see the gap: Liu Zhe's independent thinking ability is very strong, and I was more following and imitating at first. The procuratorates at the city and county levels where I work have marked a sentence prominently in their offices: "The eternal knot in the procurator's heart is the worry of becoming mediocre." In a sense, it can be said that and "rejection of judicial mediocrity" is a echo that spans thousands of miles.
Rejecting judicial mediocrity, it is very important not to be superior, not to be popular, but only to be realistic, and to do our best.
In the book, Liu Zhe talks about a case of underage rape and pregnancy that he approved: when the prosecution committee discussed whether to prosecute or not, he was temporarily called to express his opinion, which was supported by the majority of the procuratorial committee, and the defendant was eventually sentenced to more than ten years.
He carefully analyzed the rape committed through "psychological coercion" as an "other means" of rape. He even became angry: "Rape cannot be fixed in this case, what can be condemned as rape?!" How to explain to the little girl?! ”
I once wrote a small article advocating that procurators should have the concept of "active prosecution", which is also based on similar case handling experience: When discussing an old murder case that lacked important evidence such as the victim's body and the tools to commit the crime, the majority of the procuratorial committee believed that the case should be "suspected and never suspected", and I, as the undertaker, reported the "doubts" one by one to get a reasonable explanation, and the defendants were punished according to law after the final prosecution. That sense of responsibility in combating crime and a sense of accomplishment in successful prosecution trumps everything.
Third, everyone can become a suspect.
In the book "The Lament of Richard Jewell is also the Lament of Each of Us", Liu Zhe reminded judicial personnel to be vigilant against the possibility that the public may be misled by media opinion or habitual ideas, thus bringing great obstruction to fair justice.
Because judicial personnel have professional protection, the probability of becoming a "criminal suspect" is low; holding the sword of punishment in hand is easy to produce a sense of superiority in morality.
But in fact, this is an illusion, and I once made a hypothesis in my communication with the judicial staff: if one person reports that 10,000 yuan has been stolen at this moment, then everyone in this venue may become a "criminal suspect". But in fact, only one person may have committed the crime, and it may even be found that the reporter's memory error was not stolen at all.
It can be seen from this that we need to trust that before the criminal suspect is convicted, they are all "innocent" people; they need rational judgment, and there is no clue to prove it, which may be a rumor; they need the guarantee of the system, and there is no substantive justice without procedural justice, and if they start to induce confessions and extort confessions by torture at this moment, there may be several "thieves".
I think of my experience in receiving visits during my work in the Municipal People's Procuratorate's Public Prosecution Office: the family of the victim of a murder case was dissatisfied with the prosecutor's failure to recommend that the court sentence the defendant to be executed immediately, and repeatedly organized a large number of relatives to the procuratorate to reflect their demands. After the female prosecutor received her many times, I felt exhausted, and I told her, "Let me come after the visit." In the course of my interviews, I discovered that the relatives of the victims had gone to Beijing colleges and universities to ask several very well-known legal experts to issue an "Expert Opinion" concluding that "the death penalty should be imposed for immediate execution in this case." The wording was fierce, the language was indignant, and there was a great style of petitioning materials, and there was no rigor in expert argumentation. At first, I suspected that the signatures of the experts were forged, but when the relevant experts received a positive reply, the disappointment and helplessness of the experts were difficult to express, and in turn, our conclusions were more questionable (although the court decisions and the quality assessment of the superior cases both recognized the allegations). The victim's family once asked me a soul torture question: "Is your level higher than that of an expert?" As long as I twist the accusation (continuous accusation), no clean-up official will not be able to sue! "I'm stunned how the masses could have such thoughts? That mood at that time was just like hearing Jewell's lament; and like a "joke" mentioned in the book that was not a joke: Where are the teeth of the prosecutor? Probably in the stomach, swallow it yourself.
There are still many resonances that are difficult to elaborate, and there are many feelings that are difficult to express. As a front-line procurator, I think it is necessary to think about how to let procurators establish their own judicial views and practice a correct judicial concept, so as to form a fundamental belief in judicial activities and a fundamental belief in the rule of law. There are many things that need to be done, and from the most basic and basic point of view, I think we need to do three things well:
First, properly implement judicial responsibility.
What most affects the enthusiasm of front-line case-handling personnel is not the amount of responsibility, but the improper pursuit of responsibility. In October this year, the Supreme People's Procuratorate issued the Regulations on the Pursuit of Judicial Responsibility of the People's Procuratorate, which focuses on the responsibility for intentional violations of laws and regulations, the responsibility for gross negligence, and the responsibility for supervision and management, which generally reflects the parallel pursuit of responsibility and protection of case-handling personnel.
In particular, the provision that "although there are wrong consequences, but the necessary duty of care has been fulfilled, there is no intentional or gross negligence" and not pursued responsibility, as well as the division of responsibility for the fault of the chief procurator (deputy chief procurator), procurator, and procuratorial auxiliary personnel, is conducive to "loosening" the shackles for front-line case-handling personnel.
On the one hand, it is urged that case-handling personnel should be conscientious and conscientious, and should not cause errors due to intentional or gross negligence. On the other hand, I am most looking forward to encouraging case-handling personnel to think independently and put forward opinions, "who makes decisions, who is responsible"; "who changes, who is responsible" when leading the decision of procurators.
It is believed that with scientific accountability, judicial responsibility can be implemented. Prosecutors can fully put forward their own opinions and gradually cultivate and display their own views of justice; leaders must have sufficient reasons to change, because they must be tested by accountability. Judging from years of experience in handling cases, many times, the opinions of leaders after the change may be more correct, in fact, they can also help procurators improve their judicial views.
Second, improve the target assessment mechanism.
I have communicated with many front-line procurators and grass-roots procurators, and when I mention "target assessment", I generally feel that my head is big. The status of the "baton" is very prominent, but the role needs to be improved. How to set the assessment indicators is often the embodiment of the judicial direction and judicial concept of the higher level.
Some assessment items are too many, decomposed into more than a hundred details at the grass-roots level, and the energy is not considered. Some disregard the reality of the grass-roots level, the internal departments of the higher level in accordance with the business line of the indicators, a department at the grass-roots level must deal with multiple lines at the higher level, the most annoying thing is that there is no corresponding case at all year round and "no rice under the pot". Some assessment indicators are self-tying, so that many supervision work has become communication and coordination work, so that some legal differences are finally concluded by the prosecution compromise. Some assessment indicators are not scientific enough, and the deduction points such as not suing after arrest and taking the initiative to withdraw the lawsuit (withdrawing resistance) are heavier, and the cost of self-correction is too high.
I have worked in the city and county courts, and I have a deep feeling: target assessment is not the best management method, but it is the most effective. At the same time, I also understand a truth: there are policies at the top, and there must be countermeasures below ("countermeasures" may be active implementation, or it may be a variation); the master is in the private sector, there is nothing that cannot be done, only the unthinkable. Under the pressure of assessment, we cannot hope that the grass-roots level does not want to take countermeasures, but should consider how to improve and perfect the assessment mechanism.
After the "above" department designs the target evaluation, the overall department should simulate the test to avoid the duplication or conflict of the assessment indicators; it is best to listen to the different opinions of the "below", not only focus on how to "feasible", but also set up the "non-feasibility demonstration" link. In the end, we hope that the assessment indicators will achieve such an effect: grasp the key, concise and concise, and the indicators are scientific and correctly guided.
Human justice is encouraged, good faith justice is advocated, active error correction is affirmed, extra points are awarded for outstanding effects, mediocre machinery is denied, and points are deducted for dereliction of duty and responsibility. If Liu Zhe is interested in doing some research on the target evaluation and proposing suggestions for improvement, it is very worth looking forward to.
Third, reward advanced and set an example.
This move echoes the above-mentioned target assessment, and the two can complement each other. Can't be "old cannon" and "greasy" without distinction, good and bad. It is necessary to pay attention to praising "people who work hard, such as those who work hard, handle cases with a large volume, and have a high rate of case closure; we must also pay attention to praising "people who have bothered", such as those who have successfully accused difficult cases with dedication and responsibility, and who have worked hard to solve various difficulties inside and outside the case and achieved good results.
The significance of praise lies in both rewarding diligence and punishing laziness, and also in leading the demonstration. In particular, the concept of being a person, the concept of handling cases, and the professional spirit disseminated by some advanced figures can play a very good leading role, and everyone will do the right thing. Just as a typical case is better than a dozen documents, and an advanced model is better than a dozen speeches and preaches, the reason is the same.
In short, the concept of justice is a big issue, and it cannot be explained in three words. The judicial concept is also concrete, rooted in the hearts of every judicial person and embodied in every judicial case. Liu Zhe's book put forward that "punishment is not a tool of intimidation" is a judicial view, we hold the "knife handle" of punishment, each person faces a small number of criminal suspects every year, more than hundreds, and every "knife" is related to life.
Punishment is a very angry thing, and it must not be used to intimidate others, just like adults cannot use "cry again, the police will arrest you" to intimidate crying children. We must use justice and conscience to control the punishment, so that we can know when the knife will fall and when the knife will be left behind.
Click Share