滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Tales of an unjust justice]
滕彪文集
·邓玉娇是不是“女杨佳”?
·星星——为六四而作
·I Cannot Give Up: Record of a "Kidnapping"
·Political Legitimacy and Charter 08
·六四短信
·倡议“5•10”作为“公民正当防卫日”
·谁是敌人——回"新浪网友"
·为逯军喝彩
·赠晓波
·正义的运动场——邓玉娇案二人谈
·这六年,公盟做了什么?
·公盟不死
·我们不怕/Elena Milashina
·The Law On Trial In China
·自由有多重要,翻墙就有多重要
·你也会被警察带走吗
·Lawyer’s Detention Shakes China’s Rights Movement
·我来推推推
·许志永年表
·庄璐小妹妹快回家吧
·开江县法院随意剥夺公民的辩护权
·Summary Biography of Xu Zhiyong
·三著名行政法学家关于“公盟取缔事件”法律意见书
·公益诉讼“抑郁症”/《中国新闻周刊》
·在中石化上访
·《零八宪章》与政治正当性问题
·我来推推推(之二)
·我来推推推(之三)
·國慶有感
·我来推推推(之四)
·国庆的故事(系列之一)
·国庆的故事(系列之二)
·
·我来推推推(之五)
·我来推推推(之六)
·净空(小说)
·作为反抗的记忆——《不虚此行——北京劳教调遣处纪实》序
·twitter直播-承德冤案申诉行动
·我来推推推(之七)
·关于我的证言的证言
·我来推推推(之八)
·不只是问问而已
·甘锦华再判死刑 紧急公开信呼吁慎重
·就甘锦华案致最高人民法院死刑复核法官的紧急公开信
·我来推推推(之九)
·DON’T BE EVIL
·我来推推推(之十)
·景德镇监狱三名死刑犯绝食吁国际关注
·江西乐平死刑冤案-向最高人民检察院的申诉材料
·我来推推推(之十一)
·法律人的尊严在于独立
·我来推推推(之十二)
·听从正义和良知的呼唤——在北京市司法局关于吊销唐吉田、刘巍律师证的听证会上的代理意见
·一个思想实验:关于中国政治
·公民维权与社会转型(上)——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲
·公民维权与社会转型——在北京传知行社会经济研究所的演讲(下)
·福州“7•4”奇遇记
·夏俊峰案二审辩护词(新版)
·摄录机打破官方垄断
·敦请最高人民检察院立即对重庆打黑运动中的刑讯逼供问题依法调查的公开信
·为政治文明及格线而奋斗——滕彪律师的维权之路
·“打死挖个坑埋了!”
·"A Hole to Bury You"
·谁来承担抵制恶法的责任——曹顺利被劳动教养案代理词
·国家尊重和保障人权从严禁酷刑开始
·分裂的真相——关于钱云会案的对话
·无国界记者:对刘晓波诽谤者的回应
·有些人在法律面前更平等(英文)
·法律人与法治国家——在《改革内参》座谈会上的演讲
·貪官、死刑與民意
·茉莉:友爱的滕彪和他的诗情
·萧瀚:致滕彪兄
·万延海:想起滕彪律师
·滕彪:被迫走上它途的文學小子/威廉姆斯
·中国两位律师获民主奖/美国之音
·独立知识分子——写给我的兄弟/许志永
·滕彪的叫真/林青
·2011年十大法治事件(公盟版)
·Chinese Human Rights Lawyers Under Assault
·《乱诗》/殷龙龙
·吴英的生命和你我有关
·和讯微访谈•滕彪谈吴英案
·吴英、司法与死刑
·努力走向公民社会(视频访谈)
·【蔡卓华案】胡锦云被诉窝藏赃物罪的二审辩护词
·23岁青年被非法拘禁致死 亲属六年申请赔偿无果
·5月2日与陈光诚的谈话记录
·华邮评论:支持中国说真话者的理由
·中国律师的阴与阳/金融时报
·陈光诚应该留还是走?/刘卫晟
·含泪劝猫莫吃鼠
·AB的故事
·陈克贵家属关于拒绝接受两名指定律师的声明
·这个时代最优异的死刑辩词/茉莉
·自救的力量
·不只是问问而已
·The use of Citizens Documentary in Chinese Civil Rights Movements
·行政强制法起草至今23年未通过
·Rights Defence Movement Online and Offline
·遭遇中国司法
·一个单纯的反对者/阳光时务周刊
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Tales of an unjust justice

   
   by Teng Biao Published 18 October, 2012
   
   http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/world-affairs/2012/10/tales-unjust-justice
   


   New Statesman
   
   
   If it is true that you won’t understand Chinese society through Xinwen Lianbo (Chinese state television’s daily news programme), you should not build a picture of China’s legal system from its laws, either. In many cases, legal clauses have not been properly implemented. What is the state of China’s judiciary? After you have dealt with it at first hand a few times, you will know.
   
   Cai Zhuohua is the pastor of a Christian house church. He and his family were sentenced for printing the Bible and distributing it to other Christians. In 2005, I defended him, along with other lawyers, including Gao Zhisheng. When the trial began, although we did everything we could, Cai’s mother was not allowed to enter the court as a spectator. During the trial, the judge bluntly interrupted the defendant and his lawyers dozens of times. In another case, Wang Bo, a Falun Gong student, and her parents were sentenced to four and five years in prison respectively in 2006, just because they were Falun Gong believers and they had published the truth about their torture on the internet. In our statement of defence, we challenged the entire legal basis of suppressing Falun Gong. After the trial, four enraged court workers lifted me up by my arms and legs, carried me across the high steps and threw me out of the court building. In such cases, the judges have no influence on the judgement, but they are willing to put their names on to the verdict. Evil can only be made real by the acts of individuals. The book Hitler’s Justice: the Courts of the Third Reich describes many cases of Nazi judges “legally” taking evil actions. There are many similar cases in current Chinese judicial practice.
   
   Most judges face a moral dilemma: if they give a judgment according to the wishes of their superiors, they are going against their own legal training and the rule of law. If they give a judgment based on the law and their conscience, then it will affect their promotion opportunities. They may even lose their job or encounter other troubles.
   
   In 2010 I established an NGO, China Against the Death Penalty, specialising in unjust death penalty cases. For example, in the “Gan Jinhua intentional homicide case”, I raised 22 serious doubts about the prosecution evidence. The judge took no notice and sentenced Gan Jinhua to death when important witnesses had not been allowed to testify in court. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court judges also approved the death penalty despite all that. In another death penalty case, four farmers in Leping, Jiangxi Province, were sentenced to death for “murder and rape”. After 11 years in prison, in late 2011, an arrested suspect confessed that he had committed the murder and rape. However, until today, the judicial authorities still refuse to rectify the case. In fact, according to our investigation, the four innocent farmers suffered extremely brutal torture. They were beaten up while hanging, deprived of sleep for a prolonged period of time, burned with a lighter and hit with bricks. They were interrogated by torture and forced to make a “confession” of guilt. The judge sentenced the four men to death, but apart from the oral confession there was no other evidence.
   
   The original motive of the police was that “fatal cases must be solved”. Under this pressure, they wanted to find a scapegoat and get credited and promoted for their service. Judges often yield to or curry favour with Public Security Bureau directors. In the party’s political and legal commission system, directors of the Public Security Bureau can give orders to lead judges. Within the court, lead judges can give orders to all judges. This system is the reason for a large number of unjust verdicts in China.
   
   After the verdict in the Gu Kailai case was announced in August, many people started comparing it with the case of Xia Junfeng, who I also represented. Gu Kailai was given a suspended death sentence for premeditated murder, but Xia Junfeng was sentenced to death for killing in self-defence. What is the reason for this? It is because Gu Kailai is the wife of an eminent official, and Xia Junfeng is a street vendor who was forced to defend himself from a violent urban management officer. This is China’s judiciary – in the case of small civil disputes, justice will still be justice, but as soon as local officials or the government become an issue, then it becomes merely a political game masked by justice.
   
   Thought control
   
   As I have been involved in many human rights cases, my lawyer’s licence has been revoked. China’s lawyers’ associations are almost completely controlled by the government. I have, like many other lawyers, tried to promote democratic elections in the Beijing Lawyers Association, to no avail. Many taking part in pushing for elections suffered reprisals and were stripped of the chance to practise law one by one.
   
   I have been hooded and kidnapped on two occasions. The kidnappers were special police in charge of thought control. They took me to a secret location and started to interrogate me, often involving torture. They would say, “Don’t talk to me about the law!” A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson,
    Jiang Yu, said: “The law is not a shield.” Her words were widely circulated. Clearly, in China, citizens are unable to rely on the law to protect their legal interests.
   
   There are 200,000 lawyers in China. Few are prepared to stand in sensitive cases and fight actively for human rights. Citizens, however, are becoming braver, including journalists, writers, students and internet users. They have stood up to fight for citizens’ rights in their fields and they are pushing for progress in the rule of law in China.
   
   As the regime is unable to solve the problem of political legitimacy, the crisis in society has intensified. The people demand democracy and their cries for human rights are increasing. I believe that the day China will put the rule of law into practice is not far off, and our efforts are meaningful.
   
   Teng Biao is a lecturer at the China University of Political Science and Law. He is the director of China Against the Death Penalty and a human rights lawyer. At present he is a visiting scholar at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
(2014/03/22 发表)
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场