The cautious attitude of the law enforcement personnel of the judicial organs is that he may or may not be wronged, so he should fully argue the evidence, and cannot take people's lives, let alone extort confessions by torture.
Recently, we have looked at the major unjust cases exposed in recent years, such as the She Xianglin, Zhao Zuohai, Hu Ge, Nie Shubin, Du Peiwu cases, etc., compared with the Simpson case of the century in the United States. Fully reflecting the huge difference in criminal philosophy between China and the United States, if the Simpson case is in China, even if only one-third or less of the evidence of the case is enough to sentence him to death, but in the United States, he can be acquitted for an insignificant procedural flaw, and it has not been fully understood in the Simpson case, thinking that it was only because of some procedural problems that do not affect the overall situation that it was finally acquitted, which is really surprising. If on the surface it seems that there are only minor procedural flaws, and then it is found to be innocent, I personally think that this is also injustice, not to mention how great procedural justice is. But after inquiring about the relevant information, after carefully reading the original commission of the relevant Simpson case, from the evidence of the case, this flaw is not negligible, after carefully reading the entire case report, the Xin case did appear a lot of illegal evidence collection by the police, contradictory and unreasonable blood samples sent to the scene of the crime, of course, people doubt whether it was a stolen frame, at that time there was DNA technology that was just starting out, or even if it was very sound, but the test sent for the test was also problematic, then the identification of the back was meaningless. One of the most important pieces of evidence, the bloody glove, simpson himself could not be worn on the spot in court, was obviously small, and it could not be determined that Simpson committed the crime.
Justice is the last justice, because it is the source of water, or to quote Bacon, because he said it too well, that an unjust trial of sin is worse than ten crimes, because although the crime ignores the law, it is like polluting the water, but the wrong judgment pollutes the water source.
Where is the bottom line of the judiciary, if it is said that the real criminals are brought to justice, killing criminals is judicial justice, then it is possible to wrongfully accuse a good person, and may indulge a criminal, compared with the two evils, choose which is lighter, it is estimated that most people will choose to indulge a criminal, that is to say, no matter how to not let an ordinary person be wronged is the bottom line of the judiciary, if this bottom line has formed a consensus, there will be no various kinds of torture to extract confessions in the public prosecutor's law, not to mention those who knowingly commit unjust cases, then it is actually a crime.