Before reading this article, please click "Follow" to facilitate your discussion and sharing. This article is only published in today's headlines, and it is not allowed to be carried on any platform, and the handling must be investigated
Text: A circle of anecdotes
Edited |
Preamble:
"Help the old man fall down, and he will be accused in court?"
Does such a thing sound ridiculous?
However, such a small incident that happened in Beijing has aroused widespread attention and heated discussions across the country.
Justice and harmony should go hand in hand.
But when the two come into conflict, how do we decide?
When innocent good faith is misinterpreted as malice, how will the law decide?
Let's walk into the "Peng Yu case" that caused social shock, and explore the reasons and ways to resolve the conflict.
The origin of the strife
The story begins on an ordinary morning in 2006.
Peng Yu, an unknown ordinary citizen, was riding a bus when he witnessed an elderly woman, Xu Shoulan, falling.
Seeing that the old man suddenly lost his balance and fell down the crowded aisle, Peng Yu got up from his seat almost instinctively and walked quickly to the old man's side to lend a hand.
He gently and considerately helped the old man up, asked her if she was injured, and understood the crowding of the surrounding environment, and took the initiative to give up space to create a comfortable space for the old man.
For a young man, this kind of righteous and courageous behavior is very natural, but no one expected that this simple act would become a turning point in the trajectory of Peng Yu's life.
The initial confusion and pain made Xu Shoulan mistakenly interpret Peng Yu's helping behavior as pushing, and she believed that Peng Yu's behavior caused her fall and injury.
This seemingly unintentional momentary misunderstanding, like a prairie fire, soon spread in the small bus flame retardant and spread to the outside world.
The hospital examination showed that Xu Shoulan did suffer minor trauma due to the fall, and there were abrasions and some bruises on her body.
Under the influence and instigation of her family, Xu Shoulan began to harbor malice towards Peng Yu and insisted on filing legal proceedings against him, demanding huge compensation to compensate for medical expenses and mental damages.
As a result, a small episode that could have been quickly resolved was fueled by many parties, and finally evolved into a serious legal dispute case.
Arguments in court
In 2007, the two parties finally went to court, and the case was officially tried in a court in Beijing.
The two sides of the lawyer are fighting in court, and you come and go, and there is a fierce confrontation.
Mrs. Xu's lawyer was unashamed, pointing out that according to the available evidence and reports, it was sufficient to prove that Peng Yu's actions had indeed caused Mrs. Xu's physical and mental losses, and that compensation should be made.
On the contrary, Peng Yu's defense lawyers fought back categorically, insisting that Peng Yu sincerely helped the elderly man who had fallen, had no other intentions, and did not push or hurt him, and they also questioned the authenticity and credibility of witness testimony and surveillance video and other evidence in court.
After collecting and cross-checking the testimonies of the parties and reviewing the vehicle records provided by the bus company, the atmosphere in the courtroom became more solemn and solemn.
Everyone's eyes are focused on this seemingly unremarkable but complicated case, hoping for a fair and just outcome.
As the presiding judge, Wang Hao did not dare to be negligent and carefully questioned every eyewitness present at the time, but what was frustrating was that due to the crowding of people in the bus, the eyewitnesses' statements were very different, and there was a lack of consistent and credible testimony.
In this complicated situation, Judge Wang Hao suddenly raised such a question: "You didn't hit it, why do you want to help?"
As soon as this sentence came out, it immediately triggered a strong reaction inside and outside the court, as if a bomb suddenly exploded on the calm water, stirring up a monstrous stormy wave.
The reporters at the scene rushed to report this thought-provoking sentence, and public opinion was in an uproar, and the issue was widely interpreted as a negation and satire of Peng Yu's righteous and courageous behavior, and a blasphemy and contempt for the moral spirit of citizens.
Public opinion was in an uproar
Many enthusiastic members of the public and legal commentators were furious after hearing this, and they severely criticized this method of asking questions as simply hindering and stifling the virtues of promoting a sense of justice and helping others, trampling on and spitting on the moral spirit, and arousing the public's doubts about the judges' adjudication standards and the quality of law enforcement.
They believe that the judge's anomie behavior of ignoring public order and good customs and disregarding social morality is tantamount to sending a psychological hint to those indifferent people who will not be saved in the face of death, encouraging and conniving at this vice of selfishness and indifference to others, and bringing about an extremely bad exemplary impact on society.
Soon, Judge Wang Hao's words became the focus of heated discussions across the country, and major media wrote special books to exaggerate and report them, and there was an uproar on social platforms, with insults, criticisms, and doubts one after another.
People wonder why judges are so lacking in empathy and have such a superficial understanding and awareness of the behavior of their parties when dealing with such cases, and from this there are serious doubts about the impartiality of the court and the professional ethics of the judges.
Family life is affected
Under such a huge, violent and nowhere to vent the pressure of public opinion, Wang Hao, who originally simply wanted to show his skills in the workplace, innocently suffered a devastating blow, and his already rising career also fell into a precarious predicament.
As a young junior judge, he certainly does not have the ability to deal with such complex public opinion, and he lacks sufficient experience to calm the anger of all parties.
This mistake not only caused him to endure a storm of criticism and questioning within the judicial system, but also caused a huge impact on his otherwise peaceful family life.
His wife and children, who were once proud of him, are now in the predicament of being ridiculed, and the family atmosphere has become depressed and dull, and a shadow is everywhere.
For a judge, a major setback in his professional reputation is tantamount to the complete end of his career, and even saving his job becomes precarious.
Within the judicial system as a whole, once a judge has been demoted or reassigned, it becomes even more elusive and difficult to obtain a repatriation and re-emerge.
This is not only because there are very few vacancies at the top of the list, but also because once the professional judgment and integrity are so questioned, it can be said that it is a very difficult re-certification and baptism to rebuild the reputation and win the trust of the superior in a short period of time.
This sudden change hit Wang Hao too hard.
He should have completed his career ideals step by step and step by step, who would have thought that he would encounter such a Waterloo in life before he became famous.
All these extreme changes he experienced affected not only his personal future and life, but also his family, friends and entire social circle.
Under the dual pressure and changing status, how to maintain the enthusiasm and firm belief in the legal profession is indeed a big challenge for a young person.
Discussion and reflection
The extensive discussion of Peng Yu's case and the eventual reconciliation that ended with the dissolution did not completely calm the unease in everyone's hearts.
This small case illustrates a broader and deeper societal puzzle: how should we act when we see others in distress and need help, especially when they may incur legal disputes or joint liability?
Does doing good do comes with taking the risk of being falsely accused?
In this environment, individual decision-making has become particularly complex and challenging, and the tension between public morality and personal interests has led to unprecedented hesitation and cringe.
Is it to immediately reach out to help the fallen old man?
Or do you choose to ignore it for fear of being blamed afterwards?
Faced with such a dilemma, even the most upright and kind people will inevitably stop hesitating.
For ordinary people, Peng Yu's case is undoubtedly a huge obstacle to righteous and courageous behavior, triggering a re-examination and rethinking of this moral fashion.
In the past, most people would not hesitate to help in such situations, but now there are faint doubts about whether they should continue to do so.
For enthusiastic people who have always been enthusiastic about helping others, this kind of worry and sincere fear is undoubtedly a huge mental pressure and potential hindrance.
For the legal profession and the judicial system as a whole, the Peng Yu case is a lesson from the past, warning the industry about how to better handle complex social situations and better balance legal and ethical adjudication standards.
Training judges to examine the facts of a case with a higher degree of empathy, and to take into account social factors more thoroughly in judging cases, are undoubtedly areas that need to be improved.
Overall, Peng Yu's case re-examines the degree of respect for the spirit of righteousness and courage in contemporary society, and provokes reflection on the boundaries between legal and moral judgments.
Epilogue:
The Peng Yu case makes us reflect on the importance of moral judgment in legal practice.
As a legal practitioner, in addition to professional knowledge, you should also have empathy and a sense of justice.
In their daily lives, ordinary people should also have the courage to lend a helping hand to help others and reflect the warm side of human nature.
Only when law and morality can be integrated can our society become more civilized and orderly.