People think that the law is fair and just, but in fact, the law is not what people think, but it has become a tool for lawyers to use, and it is also a meal for judges. Has there ever been a time when a judge has decided a wrong case?
Of course there is, but in view of the need for publicity, it is not stated or emphatically described. In ancient times, when science and technology were not developed, county officials had the power to judge cases, and power rent-seeking often occurred when adjudicating cases. It's not that there is no law to follow, it's not that the law is not strict, but that the law is implemented too arbitrarily, allowing county officials to take advantage of loopholes. Many county officials don't like to decide cases, and they will only decide cases when they are forced to do so. As a result, many county officials will have a situation of "gourd monk judging gourd case". The county magistrate did not have professional legal training, nor did he go through a lot of training in judging cases, but he only read the books of sages, took the imperial examination, and became an official after passing the examination, but he was not a great jurist. Although they will attach importance to evidence, they also attach importance to personal judgment, especially personal logical inference, and even come up with a lot of pretending to be gods to extract confessions. Although the means are a bit inferior, they can force the truth to be asked. Of course, there are also some sayings about recognizing relatives by dripping blood, and if they are really implemented, they will cause unjust cases. In other words, the judgment of many suspicious cases in ancient times was carried out in psychological experiments, which is also a kind of sociological and social engineering inference, and is not just judged according to the law.
The unjust, false and wrongly decided cases caused by them will pass in the past, and they will not be discovered by the people, and even people will use false rumors to believe that the party to the unjust, false and wrongly decided case is a bad citizen, not a good citizen. When the county official encounters someone, he can't make his own decisions, so he has to hand it over to the state government yamen to judge together. Whether it is a county official or a state government yamen, they will engage in power rent-seeking, and they will accept bribes in the process of adjudicating cases. If there were no bribes, they would find some political brokers, and ask the political brokers to accept bribes instead of the yamen, and after accepting the bribes, they would look at the case in a different way, which is equivalent to selling the case as a commodity. If one party pays a bribe and the other does not, the other party suffers. As a result, both parties have to pay bribes, and ** is happy to receive double money, so they can be left and right when judging the case. In the end, ** will find a relatively compromise judgment to be announced, which will be acceptable to both parties, but will not be judged based on the truth, which is actually equivalent to letting the two sides make concessions to each other, and finally the negotiation will be successful. ** has become an expert negotiator, and the two parties in the lawsuit want the ultimate balance of interests, rather than making a fair and just judgment based on the facts. After all, both sides think they are in charge and think they can win the lawsuit, but they only have a one-sided understanding, or they greatly ignore the corruption and tailgating of the justice system. In the process of fighting the lawsuit, they learned to bribe, learned to act with a camera, and the ** who judged the case learned to act with a camera, and even achieved a fair and just bidding ranking, so there is no real fairness and justice at all.
Nowadays, people have a deeper understanding of the law. The law is not fair and just, it is just a law, a tool that can be operated. In the name of upholding fairness and justice, the actual operation is not so satisfactory. In some cases, there were obvious problems in the trial, but after the operation of the judges and lawyers, no one else could say anything. That is to say, no matter how the case is adjudicated, it is necessary to pay attention to evidence, to the coordination of relationships, to the influence of the power system, to public order and good customs, and to the hearts of the people of the world. In this way, the verdict is not so fair, but has a bit of ideological influence. If you have to take care of the feelings of many people, you will make a mistake, and of course, if you make a little concession on the basis of fairness, it is understandable, if you have to make concessions from the beginning and be kidnapped by morality, the judgment will lose the meaning of fairness. It is often said, "Justice may be late, but it is never absent." "So, is belated justice still justice?Of course not, times have changed, people have changed, how can it be justice?
The Simpson wife murder case in the United States is a typical mystery case, but the lack of evidence finally allowed Simpson to escape legal punishment. Although he wrote a book, the details of the murder of his wife were only written as an imagination, and people could only see it as a motive for killing, but it was not really killing his wife. There were many unjust, false and wrongful cases in the Cultural Revolution, and most of them were unresolved. Some of them can be rehabilitated after the fact, which is already good. Justice is late, and many of the rehabilitated people have already passed away, and they have lost their fundamental meaning by rehabilitating them only in name. Most of the verdicts at the time were based on mainstream ideology, not real law. When the constitution is ignored, there will be a phenomenon where power is greater than the law. Just like the violent demolition in previous years, and when the *** gang was rampant and domineering, the corrupt judge was just a peacemaker, deliberately misjudging the case, or quitting because he couldn't find evidence, this phenomenon harmed the good people and safeguarded the interests of the bad people. In a certain situation, the bad guys hit the good guys and destroy the evidence, which makes things difficult, and even the bad guys don't get punished, and the good guys suffer. In particular, some powerful people, after doing bad things, often destroy evidence, even destroy evidence under the guidance of lawyers, and hire a team of lawyers to defend themselves, of course, they can escape legal punishment.
Is it that many times, the judge will decide the wrong case?Not all cases will be wrong, but due to the limitations of the law, judges can only face reality, face the letter and logic of the law to judge. In this way, adjudication becomes a process of legal procedural justice, but it does not necessarily mean true truthfulness to the facts, nor does it necessarily represent moral justice. And every derivation of procedural justice will eventually lead to unexpected results, even disbelief.
As a result, people believe that there is a possibility that the judge has made a mistake in the case, and in fact there are judges who have made a mistake, and if they can correct it in time, it is good, if they can't, they must propose a compensation plan, and if they do not admit it, no one will appeal, even if it is in the past. Perhaps, we should re-examine the law, re-examine some questionable cases, and examine them in accordance with the principle of "no guilt in doubt." Many problems will be found, and some unjust, false and wrongly decided cases will also be found. If we keep avoiding it, as we did in ancient times, we will not be able to solve the fundamental problem after all.