In 2006, Nanjing's civil dispute of "a well-wisher helping an elderly man who fell down against the defendant" sparked heated discussions.
And the sentence of the judge in this case, Wang Hao, in the public court, added a handful of firewood to this matter:
Since you didn't hit it, why did you help it?In this way, the "well-wisher" Peng Yu became the "perpetrator" and finally compensated the old man 10,000 yuan.
Now, 17 years later, how are the people involved?
In 2006, the sensational "Peng Yu case" in Nanjing can be said to be a typical case of balance between law and morality.
According to Peng Yu, a party to the case, when he arrived at the station by bus, when he got off the bus through the back door, he saw the old man Xu Shoulan lying on the ground.
The kindness in his heart made him not think much about it, and hurriedly stepped forward to help the old man.
Seeing that the old man's condition was not very good, Peng Yu also helped the old man to the side to rest.
Later, he also assisted Xu Shoulan in contacting his family.
Until the Xu family arrived at the scene, he accompanied the old man and waited for his family throughout the whole process.
Not only that, after Xu Shoulan's family came, Peng Yu also helped send the old man to a nearby hospital together, and paid a few hundred yuan for medical expenses before leaving.
But in the mouth of the other party, Xu Shoulan, things are different.
At that time, there were two buses parked at the bus stop.
When she went to get into the car behind her, she was knocked down by Peng Yu, who got out of the back door of the previous car.
Afterwards, the hitter lifted her up and sent her to the hospital with the Xu family, who arrived later, and left after paying 200 yuan to the hospital.
After comparing the rhetoric of the two parties, it is not difficult to see that the difference between Peng Yu and Xu Shoulan lies in the determination of the facts of "knocking down the old man".
Peng Yu denied knocking down the old man Xu Shoulan.
And Xu Shoulan insisted that it was Peng Yu who knocked him down.
In the face of Peng Yu's categorical denial, Xu Shoulan was angry, so she took him to court and demanded compensation.
On September 3, 2007, the Nanjing Gulou District People's Court heard the case and rendered a judgment of first instance
Peng Yu bears 40% of the civil liability and needs to compensate Xu Shoulan 45,876 yuan.Hearing of this decision, Peng Yu immediately decided to appeal.
In fact, in the eyes of legal professionals, this judgment is not too problematic.
Although it was very difficult to investigate and collect evidence in this case, the court's effective determination of the evidence, as well as its final determination that "from a common sense point of view, the possibility of a collision between the two parties is relatively high", and the court's determination that the defendant Peng Yu should give the plaintiff a certain amount of compensation are all legally based.
Moreover, it is based on the relevant provisions of "fair responsibility" to make a judgment that the parties reasonably share the losses.
And the two parties seem to have slowly disappeared here.
The second time it appeared in the public eye was in 2012.
At that time, Nanjing reporters reported that Peng Yu admitted that he knocked down the old lady Xu Shoulan.
After negotiation, the two sides reached a settlement in private, and Peng Yu promised to compensate Xu Shoulan 10,000 yuan.
However, the case is over, but the ** storm caused on the Internet has continued.
Because the whole thing is full of weirdness.
The first is that the court asked for the police station transcript at that time.
Unexpectedly, ** couldn't take it out because it was accidentally lost.
The second is Judge Wang Hao's question in court:
Since Peng Yu denied hitting the old man, but if he didn't hit someone, why would he take the initiative to help someone?Later, even worse, he found out the "unusual" family background of the old man Xu Shoulan, saying that she was from a wealthy family and her son was a policeman.
And use this as evidence of "the old man slandering people" and "the judge arbitrarily sentencing".
This move obviously captures the usual social logic of evil - for the rich and unkind, ** knot.
In the end, under the condemnation of **, Xu Shoulan's son was removed, and their family was brutally subjected to cyberbullying and doxing.
Judge Wang Hao was transferred to the Rujiangmen sub-district office in Gulou District, 10 kilometers away from the court.
However, according to a person in charge of the sub-district office, Wang Hao was arranged to go to the Rujiangmen judicial office after he arrived at the sub-district office.
But the judicial office is in an alley in a dilapidated residential area.
As a result, some of the residents who live here are unaware that there is a judicial office.
In just a few sentences, he can already see the consequences of this incident.
But what is more serious is that the social winds brought about by this incident are extremely thought-provoking.
Because today, many people say that the world has deteriorated, and they will "dare not help" the old man in the future.
In fact, on this incident, not only did netizens comment nonsensically, but many ** comments also lost their objectivity and rationality.
At the time of the trial, they preconceived that Peng Yu was innocent.
Then, he grasped this determination and criticized it from the moral high ground.
In their "moral criticism", Xu Shoulan has become a typical example of slander, and judges have become a typical example of wronged good people.
After that, he began to call loudly for the re-establishment of social equity and justice.
Waiting for the rhythm of all walks of life, as well as the influence of netizens to add fuel to the fire, the Internet ** set off a wave of discussion about "whether to help or not".
On the surface, this massive discussion is a reflection on the "Peng Yu case".
In fact, it is an extension of the criticism of the old man Xu Shoulan and the judge.
Or to put it bluntly, it is to use the topic to play and create social anxiety.
This move successfully turned the social problem of "whether to help or not" and became synonymous with the "Peng Yu case."
Since then, when there have been similar cases of "helping the elderly and being falsely accused", people have repeatedly brought out the "Peng Yu case" when commenting.
For example, the so-called "Henan Li Kaiqiang case" and "Tianjin Xu Yunhe case".
This seems to have become a common phenomenon in society that cannot be ignored.
But in reality, they are individual cases.
What's more, there are many incidents of social warmth.
For example, in 2019, Guangzhou** reviewed the righteous and courageous events.
In June 2023, Peng Qinglin, a takeaway brother in Hangzhou, jumped off a bridge more than ten meters high to save the woman who jumped into the river.
At this point, it can be clearly seen that the network ** has deviated from the beginning, and then it has run farther and farther, which is more like a venting of anger wearing a mask of moral judgment.
And the truth of the "Peng Yu case" itself never seems to really be the focus of attention.
For example, the court only published the verdict without giving reasons and an explanation of the parties' discretion.
To a certain extent, this provides space for the deviated network** to continue to ferment.
This point may be the point that the judicial authorities need to pay attention to when encountering such cases in the future.
On the other hand, since the era of the Internet, the two-way influence effect of the Internet has become increasingly prominent.
Objective and impartiality can play an effective role in supervising judicial fairness.
This supervisory role is embodied not only in the timely correction of mistakes, but also in the prevention of judicial corruption.
And if the supervision is improper, it will also play a negative role in interfering with judicial fairness.
For example, the deviation of the "Peng Yu case" is **.
More importantly, 11 years after the incident (i.e., in 2017), the Supreme People's Court spoke out on the matter.
It reads, Peng Yu admitted that he hit the old man.
However, at this time, Xu Shoulan had been dead for 5 years.
And perhaps in the eyes of some, there is something wrong with this.
But none of this matters.
How to give full play to the positive role of supervision, while avoiding its negative impact is a major challenge in the era.
This may also require both legislative and executive efforts.
In addition, it is also necessary to increase efforts to improve the legal literacy of the whole people, especially the legal awareness of netizens.
In short, since the era, the construction of socialist rule of law should give full play to the positive role of supervision and promote judicial fairness and social justice.