February 13, 2023 | Total Issue 3146
Source: Phoenix.com
Author: Chenhan
Core Tips:
1, "Crazy" Zhong Ah Si played by the former singer smiled, and was dug up in a drug-related case in 2009. Apologizing with a smile, the film side decisively said that it would delete its clips.
2. Judging from the smiled apology letter, he has been repentant for ten years and should look at his changes more rationally.
3. From a legal point of view, "Zhong Ah Si" can regain his job, but from the perspective of public opinion governance, there is basically no hope that bad artists will return to the front of the stage.
4. The social punishment mechanism is actually a supplement to legal punishment, but this supplement should not be greater or higher than the law.
5. In addition to stability, social order should also be full of vitality, giving all people the right to a normal life and a sense of hope. Depriving a person of a sense of hope is not the intention of social punishment mechanisms.
On the evening of February 11, some media reported that the actor who played "Zhong Ah Si" in "Crazy" was a former singer Han Xiao (now named Han Pujun). That night, the crew of "Crazy" issued a statement, saying that the relevant clips involving laughter would be modified and deleted. In the early morning of February 12, Hanxiao issued a statement apologizing to the crew, saying that "I have been saying that I have been spending more than ten years every day carefully in regret."
The reaction of the "Crazy" crew to this matter was "resolute", and the attitude and practice were impeccable; The laughing apology is also true and sincere, and not a word defends itself. However, the revision and deletion of relevant plots and scenes in "Crazy", as well as the real problem that laughter will lose employment opportunities, can not help but make people ponder and regret.
There are two regrets: First, "Crazy" is unanimously sought after by the audience, and an excellent and complete artistic image has been formed in the minds of the audience, modification and deletion, will inevitably destroy the whole drama, even if it is deleted at the technical level, the audience's impression of the characters and actors will remain in the mind for a long time.
According to the current Phoenix poll data, 54% of people believe that the measure of directly removing film and television works from the shelves is too simple and rude, which is overkill.
Second, it is also regrettable to smile. He has paid for his mistakes, accepted punishment, undergone rehabilitation, and his remorse can be seen in his apology letter. If a person spends more than ten years washing the stain, then netizens should not only pay attention to seeing the stain, but also see his changes, and weigh comprehensively and give a rational evaluation.
At present, online public opinion has many views on whether Hanxiao can have the opportunity to work again, some emotional, some rational, and some hesitant. But overall, it is still more emotional. From a legal point of view, Hanxiao can have a job again, and the law does not prohibit him from working. At the institutional level, there has always been a saying of "punishing before and after, treating the disease and saving people". It can be said that the job opportunity obtained by Hanxiao should be within the scope of legal permission.
In recent years, some documents have regulations and requirements for the comeback of tainted artists, and public opinion has also participated, but many opinions have not formed clear principles and standards, but have made the comeback of tainted artists enter the valley. Therefore, all tainted artists are not allowed to come back, they have "legitimacy", and the treatment of this problem has become the governance of public opinion, not the rule of law. In fact, the relevant regulations and requirements are in conflict with existing domestic laws and cannot be paralleled within the same framework. In the aftermath of the laughter incident, it is necessary to discuss this issue in more serious and in-depth terms.
There is nothing wrong with the use of laughter by the crew of "Crazy", the crew is not a national enterprise and institution, and hiring an actor who made a mistake more than ten years ago and has long been rehabilitated should not be blamed. Before "Crazy", Hanxiao also starred in many film and television dramas, and has formed a de facto reemployment. If the popularity of the work becomes a "one-size-fits-all" standard, this is not valid.
The punishment mechanism of the law is perfect, and even if there are imperfections, it will improve with the times. The social punishment mechanism is essentially a supplement to legal punishment, but this supplement should not be greater or higher than the law. Social punishment mechanisms should have flexible modalities and standards over time. In addition to stability, social order should also be full of vitality, giving all people the right and hope to live a normal life. Depriving a person of a sense of hope is not the intention of social punishment mechanisms.
According to the current Phoenix poll data, 45% of the people are still relatively tolerant of those who have completed the implementation and returned to society, and believe that they should be given a chance to rehabilitate.
The singer laughed because of this incident, he may be banned again, not because he can't work, but because no crew will dare to provide him with a job. This situation is worth pondering: any legal punishment has a time limit, and the punishment of wrongful artists should also have a time limit. Indefinite punishment is essentially a tragedy.
(This article is a special original manuscript of the Phoenix Network Review Department and only represents the author's position.) ）