"It's amazing that the court actually guided the trial through WeChat!" Recently, a court in Qinghai has sparked heated discussions on the Internet about its "curtain hearing" case-handling method, and some lawyers have questioned the court's illegal operation, and the two sides have fallen into a standoff. This series of events reflects the current dilemma and expectation of the construction of the rule of law, and also tests the credibility of the judicial system.
A seemingly ordinary retrial caused an uproar due to the "guiding remarks" of the court's internal WeChat group. When a lawyer in court found out about this, he immediately asked the prosecutor to intervene and argued with the court. The-for-tat quickly rippled on the Internet, and public opinion began to question the impartiality of the court.
The court where the incident occurred quickly issued a circular, saying that the lawyer had violated the rules and disrupted the order of the proceedings; The "guidance" of the higher court is normal supervision. But the thin content of the bulletin did not quell online skepticism, but instead drew more backlash.
"Is WeChat Guidance Really Compliant?" Many legal workers said that the higher courts do have the power to supervise and guide, but they cannot overstep their responsibilities. The independent powers of the lower courts should be respected in the trial of specific cases. Otherwise, it is tantamount to influencing the outcome outside the courtroom, which is contrary to fair justice.
"The lawyer's actions are not to blame." The report stated that the lawyer "crossed the railing into the trial area", but the lawyer's defense bench was already set up in the trial area. If there is no ultra vires, there is nothing improper in reporting and questioning it.
In the face of doubts, the court involved not only failed to present strong evidence, but also urgently closed the online comment area, which further aroused doubts. People have called on the court to face the problem with more sincerity and make WeChat records and on-site monitoring public, so as to give the public a fair explanation.
At present, the provincial high court has intervened in the verification, and the procuratorate is also investigating. Whatever the outcome, this incident deserves deep reflection by the judicial system.
It tests the credibility of the courts. Trial neutrality and independence are the cornerstones of the Court's survival. Any circumvention undermines the authority of the judiciary. The courts should resolutely put an end to such "deferential" behaviour and ensure that every trial stands the test of the public and history.
It tests the discipline of the judiciary. Legal workers must strictly abide by legal procedures and operational norms, and must not have any violations of rules and disciplines. Lawyers should also uphold professional ethics and not go beyond the limit when protecting the rights and interests of their clients. Only by handling cases in accordance with the law can the authority of the rule of law be maintained.
It reflects the public's awareness of the rule of law. The active discussion and supervision of this matter by netizens shows that the people's increasingly mature awareness of the rule of law is becoming more and more mature. This will also urge the courts to reflect on and improve, and promote the continuous progress of the rule of law.
Finally, it demonstrates the self-correcting capacity of the judiciary. In the face of doubts, the judicial system did not evade, but took the initiative to verify and advance simultaneously, which shows the courage and determination of China's rule of law. It is believed that after this reflection, the credibility of the judiciary will certainly reach a new level.
At present, it is a critical period to comprehensively advance the rule of law and build a rule of law in China. This incident reminds us that in the process of deepening judicial reform, it is also necessary to prevent the misalignment of power and the operation of cross-borders. Let us continue to promote the internal construction of the judicial system, uphold judicial impartiality, and move towards the future of the rule of law with firmer steps.
Warm reminder, this article is the first work of the original headlines, it is forbidden to carry it to other platforms within 72 hours, and the rights protection function of the whole network has been opened, and the plagiarism porter has complained and reported on the whole network, thank you for your understanding