The first-instance verdict of the Tianshen urban management personnel beating-to-death case was announced, and four defendants were sentenced to six to three years in prison respectively. The judgment book of Qianjiang court clearly stated that all four defendants had their punishment mitigated. When the news came out, public opinions were greatly shocked, because such a verdict was absolutely not convincing. Multiple urban management personnel violently attacked passers-by during working hours, which resulted in death. In terms of consequences or social impact, it was extremely serious. This verdict must be questioned.
Qianjiang court cited Article 234 of the Criminal Law for sentencing, and sentenced them for intentional injury. The article stipulates: those who intentionally injure others' bodies shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of less than three years, criminal detention, or surveillance. Those who commit the crime mentioned in the preceding paragraph and cause serious injuries to others shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of three to ten years; those who cause death or seriously disable others with particularly cruel means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than ten years, life imprisonment, or death penalty.
If the court sentences for intentional injury, then the sentence should be determined according to the severity of the circumstances. The starting point for intentional injury leading to death is ten years, so sentencing from six to three years is absolutely lenient. The court's reason for leniency is that defendant Sun Daibang turned himself in, defendant Hu Luohong is an accomplice, and has self-surrendered and made meritorious contributions. The judgment did not mention whether the other two defendants have self-surrendered and made meritorious contributions, but they were recognized as accomplices.
In accordance with Articles 67 and 68 of the Criminal Law, the court's recognition of the defendants' self-surrender and meritorious behavior does not hold water. Article 67 states that after committing a crime, if one voluntarily surrenders and truthfully confesses his crimes, it is considered self-surrender. However, we see that during the trial on August 22, the four defendants retracted their confessions in court, denying directly beating victim Wei Wenhua. On September 17, during the second trial, the four defendants still claimed that they did not directly beat the victim.
During the two trials, these four defendants denied beating the victim, citing police torture, intimidation, and诱导for confession. It wasn't until the police presented the investigation video that they confessed. Clearly, the four defendants did not "truthfully confess their crimes" during the two trials. The claim of self-surrender by the defendants probably even the defendants themselves do not believe.
Article 68 of the Criminal Law states that if a criminal exposes others' criminal acts and it is verified to be true, or provides important clues, thereby enabling the resolution of other cases, etc., he may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment. Defendant Hu Luohong was recognized for having made meritorious contributions, but from the judgment, Hu neither exposed others' criminal acts nor provided important clues. How can it be determined that he made meritorious contributions?
The court believed that "this case happened suddenly during the execution of official duties, involving more than twenty staff members of the Tiansheng Urban Management Bureau participating in chasing and beating the victim Wei Wenhua, making it difficult to distinguish responsibility, and the evidence presented by the prosecution cannot determine that Xiong Wei, Yan Zhiming, and Hu Luohong's actions against Wei Wenhua were the most severe."
This makes people very confused. The court is supposed to clarify responsibilities and uphold justice. No matter how complex the case, responsibilities must be clarified. There can be no ambiguity. For judges, this is just a common criminal case. But their cognition and judgment are related to the fairness of ordinary people. The court now claims that it is difficult to distinguish responsibility. Is this the working attitude of Qianjiang court?
Also, "the evidence presented by the prosecution cannot determine that Xiong Wei, Yan Zhiming, and Hu Luohong's actions against Wei Wenhua were the most severe." Then, among these more than twenty people, who's actions against Wei Wenhua were the most severe? This needs to be clearly determined by the prosecution. To put it bluntly, if Mr. Wei Wenhua knew this in the afterlife, he would probably die with his eyes open! Because with the combined efforts of the police and the prosecution, they didn't find out who actually killed him!
"Hu Luohong, who made meritorious contributions," did not provide any clues. If the prosecution doesn't investigate thoroughly before filing charges, it's too sloppy. Article 15 of the Organization Law of the People's Courts stipulates that when the People's Court believes that the main facts of the case prosecuted by the People's Procuratorate are unclear or the evidence insufficient, or there are illegal situations, it may return the case to the People's Procuratorate for supplementary investigation, or notify the People's Procuratorate to correct it. It can be said that there are too many illegal and non-compliant situations in the three processes of public security investigation, prosecution, and court acceptance.
Speaking of autopsy. The court believed that "the victim Wei Wenhua had special physical conditions, and the defendants' harmful acts were only the inducement of his death." Translated into normal oral language, it means that Wei Wenhua would die sooner or later anyway, and the defendants just happened to make this event happen earlier. This statement is too irresponsible. Qianjiang court failed to clarify the defendants' responsibilities and forgot its own responsibilities.
Yes, Simone de Beauvoir once said that everyone will die. This is a truth, birth, aging, sickness, and death are inevitable for all humans. But the logic of Qianjiang court is that Wei Wenhua had coronary heart disease, his death was inevitable, and being beaten just induced the occurrence of death. If this is the case, can I say according to this logic that the judges of Qianjiang court will also die? Even if Mr. Wei Wenhua really had coronary heart disease, why didn't it occur before? Moreover, the deceased's family repeatedly stated that Wei Wenhua had no history of coronary heart disease and had objections to the death determination. Why did the judge ignore these voices?
I can understand the actions of Qianjiang judges. If urban management personnel were sentenced to ten years in prison for intentional injury according to the Criminal Law, probably all the urban management personnel in Tiansheng would go home to sell rice wine from Xiaogan. Give the administrative department a face, otherwise, how could the urban management enforce the law (urban management itself is not legal)? The painstaking efforts of the judge deeply impressed us. Article 4 of the Organization Law of the People's Courts stipulates that the People's Courts exercise judicial power independently in accordance with the provisions of the law, free from interference by administrative organs, social organizations, and individuals. This kind of "independent adjudication", Qianjiang is truly at the forefront nationwide.
In short, under the broad daylight, Tiansheng urban management personnel, dressed in uniforms and wearing large-brimmed hats, beat to death a passerby who had nothing to do with the official duties they were performing. They hit the person because he was filming them. This is too much like a Hong Kong movie plot where triads kill to cover up. This case has caused extremely serious social impact. The defendants did not truthfully prosecute, and the lenient sentence has no legal basis, is unreasonable, and is far from a harmonious society and scientific development concept.
This article is reprinted from Wu Ye Ke - WykSlina(Www.Ai.Net.Ru) Original address: http://blog.wyk.net.ru/WuYeKe-guanyuhubeitianmenchengdasirendepinglun-weiwenhuazhenyuan.html