One island, one document, for the US and Western elites, is a storm; And for the melon-eating masses of the mysterious big country in the East, it is really a good show - fortunately, it allows more people to see through the hypocrisy of the American and Western elites.
According to the document, the person who has visited the island the most times is Alan Dershowitz, an honorary professor at Harvard Law School, a famous American criminal defense lawyer, and an idol repeatedly mentioned and highly admired by Mr. Luo Xiang.
Of course, Dershowitz landed on the island, not necessarily to satisfy primitive desires, but to engage in a money-pulling business - to make money, not chilling. However, when it comes to such a human purgatory, Dershowitz is facing a serious crisis of personality collapse. He himself has not yet come forward to explain, and the believer Mr. Luo Xiang is also contrary to the usual, and does not quote any scriptures or articles, so as to clear up the clouds and clarify doubts for everyone.
It can only be said that this boomerang really rushed straight to the door unexpectedly. Mr. Luo Xiang once again provided everyone with after-dinner conversations, and many comment areas were filled with a happy atmosphere. Thinking of the slightly divided netizen comments of Professor Jiang Ping and Professor Zhang Wen when they died some time ago, I have to sigh:
What happened to the reputation of the lawyer?
I would like to use my journey as a vehicle to try to answer this question.
When it comes to the reason why I chose to major in law in the first place, it is very simple, I want to uphold fairness and justice - now that I think about it, it is indeed too young, too **too **, but for eighteen-year-old students, it is inevitable to have an ideal filter.
As a foreign product, law has a strong shaping effect on students whose minds are still immature. After entering law school, I also fell into the cult of Western values for a while. On the one hand, the discipline itself, that is, the interpretation of concepts, the development of content, and the construction of systems, cannot bypass the Western discourse system. For example, when talking about the Constitution, you can't avoid the Bill of Rights; When it comes to civil law, Roman law cannot be bypassed; When we talk about criminal law, we cannot avoid the criminalization of crimes.
I am not saying that these contents are wrong, from the point of view of historical materialism, the Bill of Rights is progressive relative to the European medieval way of rule, and the criminal law is civilized relative to the legal operation of the European feudal era. However, it's like "the law is not enough on its own".How the value of the content itself is is one thing, and how that content is taught.
That's the other side of the story:Many lecturers and professors in the law major have the utmost respect for the values embodied in Western law. Many of my teachers have praised the spirit of Western law, the legal system, and the operation of law. The hype is not over, and we still have to step on one by one, sneering at our own legal construction.
The praise is not over, and what is more, our national system, political system, and political party are questioned or even denied in an all-round way. At the beginning, there was an old professor in our college who was about to retire, and if he looked at his appearance, he would make people feel "kind" and "kind", and he had a very gentle intellectual image. However, once I listened to his class, it made me think of the eight big characters of "Hao Shou Horseman, Gray Hair Old Thief".
Of course, this is an afterthought, as far as I am concerned at the time, the old professor's words are very demagogic - because of the huge gap in knowledge reserves, it is difficult for me to refute the old professor's output views. As a result, under the "edification" day after day, I do not agree with the values output of the old professor on the surface, but my heart has been unconsciously affected.
For example, I had a longing for "judicial independence" in the West. At that time, I thought to the extreme that the status of the court should be supreme, that the power of adjudication should be unimpeded, and that the court should have the power to try any organ and any bureaucracy.
For example, at that time, I longed for the "separation of powers" in the West. At that time, I stubbornly believed that the separation of powers and mutual checks and balances could restrain public power, and that our own supervision system was just a game of self-theft.
For example, at the beginning, I bowed down to the "constitutionalism" of the West. At that time, I naively believed that the Western constitution was the real constitution that guaranteed human rights, and that our constitution was just an ornament that had to be taken out of the soil.
For example, I was the ultimate admirer of the "abolition of the death penalty" in the West. At that time, I believed that the death penalty was backward and barbaric, and that the abolition of the death penalty was progressive and civilized, and that we insisted on applying the death penalty to self-isolation from the civilized world. I also believe in the belief that the death penalty should be abolished today and that it would be business as usual tomorrow.
For example, at the beginning, I was infinitely obsessed with "freedom", "democracy", "equality" and "rights" in the West. The phrase "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence made my blood boil, but I did not care about our own traditional legal culture and the construction of democracy and the rule of law.
Looking back now, I'm ashamed and embarrassed - what was I thinking?! too young！Too **too **Now that I think about it, the reason why I didn't slide further into the abyss of hating the country is all because of a simple patriotic feeling hanging on it.
I am not the same person I used to be. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is reborn - it is the womb that yearns for the Western spirit, and it is the bone that worships Western values.
In fact, the shift in values is a long-term, step-by-step process. But there's always an opportunity for change
It was the day before the winter break of my senior year, and I went to the library to borrow books, and after finding a few books, I went to the front desk to go through the borrowing procedures. But I thought that I had just finished graduate school and had nothing to do during the holidays, so I would just grab another copy. Next to the service desk is the bookshelf of party and government reading materials. I glanced at it, and there was a row of "** Anthology". Forget it, don't pick it, take a Mao Xuan.
The gears of fate began to turn.
Yes, the opportunity for my values to change was Mao Xuan. The first sentence of the first article of the first volume of Mao Xuan:"Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This question is the first question of the revolution". At that time, I had the feeling of "listening to the thunder in a silent place": the first problem for such a big event as the revolution is to find friends? I read them one by one, and I finished the first volume in my senior year, and I finished the last four volumes in my first and second years.
The seven years of legal education have taught me a lot of professional knowledge, but the shaping of my values, the formation of my way of thinking, and the establishment of my views and positions all come from Mao Xuan, not the legal education I received.
There is no love without a reason, and there is no hate without a reason.
Think about the entries that frequently appeared in hot searches last year: "Should the restrictions on the children of criminals take public examinations be removed", "Should the restrictions on the children of criminals be abolished", "It is recommended to eliminate the restrictions on the children of criminals taking public examinations", ......Endless. Political review is not one-size-fits-all, but they want to abolish it altogether. Of course, on such an interesting topic, Mr. Luo Xiang naturally wants to say a few words, and it is still clichés such as fairness, the spirit of the rule of law, and the rights of criminals.
Nowadays, "protecting the rights of offenders" is indeed a tendency. Dershowitz has not said that one of the touchstones of a country's true freedom is its attitude towards those who defend the guilty and the shameless of the world. A few days ago, I went to watch "The Three Teams", and after Cheng Bing sent Wang Eryong back to prison, my first thought turned out to be "what about Wang Eryong's current wife and children".
The reason for this thinking is what my legal education has taught me: as social relations are repaired, the need to initiate criminal law is also decreasing. But soon, the sentence "Good people may not be able to have good rewards" in the ending song "The Way of the World" woke me up. Yes, the heavens are clear, the retribution is unpleasant, why can it be written off after a long time?
We are always thinking about how to protect the rights of the offender, but what about the victim? We always follow the same path as the West, but is this theory really correct? Even if we take a step back, it's right, but is it in line with our reality? For fat people, ** is a good thing, but not necessarily for thin people. The thin man blindly follows the fat man**, and in the end it is only himself who suffers.
Many of our lawyers, especially jurists, are, to some extent, the translators and mouthpieces of the West. Perhaps in the early days of reform and opening up, we really needed to introduce a large number of Western theories to enliven our academic circles. But nowadays, it is still difficult for us to establish our own disciplinary discourse systemIs this appropriate？It is enough to play the role of a translator and a microphone, and there are also a considerable number of legal people who are willing to play the role of followers: those who are not good for China will be lectured every day, every month, and in a big way; If it is not good for the West, I don't know, I haven't heard of it, and don't spread rumors.
Is Mr. Luo Xiang such a follower? I'm not sure. But I really didn't understand why the socialist New China, which takes Marxism as the fundamental guiding ideology for building the party and the country, needs to devote itself to the cause pioneered by Western prophets in order to build a country ruled by law.
Quoted from Luo Xiang. Article 306 of the Criminal Law is corrected [J].Political **Tan,2013,31(03):143-150—What does China's legal construction have to do with Abraham?
Abolish political trials, abolish the death penalty, and abolish the ...... of incitement to the stateThe righteousness of "asking for life for the people" and "sacrificing oneself to seek the law" is awe-inspiring, but everyone knows that it is just self-righteous and self-moving, "Oh, how great I am!" ”。
Whose democracy are the jurists pursuing in their pursuit of democracy? Jurists pursue freedom, whose freedom is it seeking? Jurists pursue equality, whose equality is they seeking? Jurists pursue rights, and whose rights are they pursuing? Without class analysis and without a clear understanding of the subject, all these beautiful pursuits become unclear in purpose and unclear in effect.
At this point, let's go back to the original question: why are legal people always ridiculed by everyone?
The law school has produced students like me, and jurists have put forward many views that are out of touch with Chinese society and against the will of the masses.
If you can't do it, you should ask for yourself.
Postscript: This essay is a reflection and a self-criticism of mine. I speak in vain, and everyone listens to it. Of course, I would be very happy if I could throw bricks and lead to some thinking from everyone.