Title: Debunking the Hypocrisy of the "Idol of the Rule of Law": When Power Games Obscure the Light of Justice
Introduction: In this era of information explosion, we often hear some so-called "experts" or "scholars" make seemingly unfathomable statements, they often regard themselves as guardians of the rule of law and morality, but they do not know how absurd and selfish their beautiful coat hides. Today, let's dissect the true face of these self-proclaimed idols of the rule of law, and see how they build a bridge between power and the rule of law that leads to self-interest.
Text: Recently, an influential law professor publicly proclaimed his support for certain judicial policies, and his rhetoric was undoubtedly impressive. But what is the truth behind the rhetoric? Should we blindly follow this seemingly reasonable but flawed claim?
First, the teacher trumpeted the abolition of the death penalty and the re-education through labor system. At first glance, these views seem to stand on the moral high ground – after all, "life first" and "human rights first" are not the concepts we have always advocated? But the problem is that things are not so simple. When we look at the chapters of history on the role of sanctions and deterrence, we will find an indisputable fact: the proportionate and fair use of punishment is indispensable for maintaining social order.
Looking back at the English Magna Carta of 1215 – the first document in human history to limit the power of the crown and emphasize equality before the law – it is clear that even in those days, legal sanctions were seen as an important tool for protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens. Today's so-called "progressive" views ignore this balancing mechanism.
Let's compare the crime rates in countries with strict penalties and those with excessively lax punishments? The data show that serious crime rates are generally lower in countries with strong deterrents, such as the death penalty or RTL. This is not a disregard for the value of life and human rights, but a responsibility for the overall safety and well-being of its members.
The teacher and his followers I want to criticize completely ignore the complex and intricate interests of the real society. They try to steer public opinion by prioritizing individual rights over collective security and packaging them as the "spirit of the rule of law in the new era", but they fail to take into account the consequences that policy changes may bring about increased social risks and the victimization of innocent people.
Moreover, in some cases, the "anti-death penalty movement" may not be motivated by a genuine concern for human rights or the goal of promoting social progress. Rather, it may simply be a tactical ploy used by certain political groups to consolidate their influence and expand their support base – in other words, "anti-death" is just a springboard for them to achieve other political goals.
Summary: It is undeniable that the necessary caution and compassion should be exercised in the discussion of any issue involving life and dignity. But at the same time, we cannot tolerate those who idealize themselves in the name of the rule of law, simplify complex social issues, and even mislead the public's feelings and cognitive direction. A truly mature, stable, people-oriented, and realistic concept of the rule of law should not only emphasize the protection of individual rights, but also emphasize collective security and long-term development.
As a critic, it is not that I lack the will and expectation for reform and progress; Therefore, in the pursuit of an idealized "perfect" state of the rule of law, we must be wary of those who pay lip service to the slogan of "reform" but are in fact selfish, such as the aforementioned teacher and his followers, who fail to provide a well-functioning system that is acceptable to all, but are merely engaged in an empty and hypocritical show.