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
·激 活 宪 法
·孙志刚事件:知识、媒介与权力
·司法的归司法,舆论的归舆论?—从张金柱案到黄静案
·谁能阻止一个人心底的眼泪—日记16则,纪念父亲
·生活是维权运动的源头活水
·虚构的故事
·体制的边界
临沂计划生育调查手记
·蒙河边的抗争—临沂计划生育调查手记之一
·“我家亲戚被抓了22口”—临沂计划生育调查手记之二
·她的眼里没有泪水—临沂计划生育调查手记之三
·到办公室上课去!—临沂计划生育调查手记之四
·不扎也得扎!—临沂计划生育调查手记之五
·学习班—临沂计划生育调查手记之六
·向人性宣战—临沂计划生育调查手记之七
·“盯关跟主义”—临沂计划生育调查手记之八
·人性不曾屈服—临沂计划生育调查手记之九
·野蛮是如何炼成的?—临沂计划生育调查手记之十
·后记:
·有谁战胜过真相
·法治中国需要中国法律人的良知及责任—致世界法律大会中国代表的公开信
·从上书到公开信
·是谁在“严重威胁社会秩序”?—关于游行示威权利的行政复议申请书
·致陈光诚的一封信
·用微笑来面对那些制造恐惧的人——和高智晟在一起的一个下午
·2+2=4的自由
·推倒「新闻柏林围墙」——透视中国新闻自由的前景
·恢复收容遣送制度等于开历史倒车
·陈光诚案凸显中国法治的困局
·暗夜里的光明之舞
·中国维权运动往何处去?
·陈光诚是如何被定罪的?(补充版)
·Crusader in a legal wilderness
·China’s blind Justice
·China's Political Courts
·以公民的姿态挺身而出/闵家桥
·“最可贵的是她有健康的公民意识”——关于公民王淑荣的对话
·“阳光宪政”的护卫者/民主与法制杂志
·要让好人走到一起,才能合力纠错——奥美定事件亲历者访谈录/南方周末
·李卫平: 被迫走出书斋的维权者——著名维权律师滕彪访谈录
·太阳城:写在第三期“名家说法”被命令取消之后
·滕彪印象/法制日报
·Rule of Law requires our consciousness and responsibility
·临沂野蛮计生与陈光诚事件维权大事记(2006-11-7)
·耻为盛世添顺骨
·中国时报专访:盼与政府互动 和平维权
·滕彪博士:精神家园的守望者/刘爽
·司法改良和公民维权——学而思沙龙的网谈
·学术、政治与生活——2006年12月17日做客沧海论坛在线交流记录
·黎明前的见证
·看看我们的朋友——致受难中的高智晟和他的妻子和孩子
·临沂警匪暴行录
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(五——七)
·中国当代宪政主义者的困境和选择/林泽波
·通过汉语改变中国
·茶人滕彪/萧瀚
·崔英杰案:“慎杀时代”的第一个考验
·死刑、司法与中国人权
·废除死刑的中国语境——在第三届世界反死刑大会上的发言
·司法独立,和谐中国——2007年“两会”之际的公民呼吁/许志永 滕彪
·彻底改革司法才能避免滥用死刑
·崔英杰案,在多重反思中寻找契机
·从“两会”看赎回选票运动
·关于尽快将青岛市四方区政府违法拆迁行为纳入法制轨道的法律意见书
·青岛野蛮拆迁:袁薪玉被控放火和妨害公务案一审的当庭辩护意见
·维权书简·戴脚镣的舞者
·被遗忘的谎言——就《成都晚报》事件致中宣部长和教育部长的一封信
·滕彪:可怕的“冤案递增律”
·不是我不明白
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
·专访滕彪律师:《律师法》2007修订与维权/RFA张敏
·The Real China before the Olympics/Teng Biao,Hu jia
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
·关于审查和改变《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》部分不适当条款的建议
·胡佳的大爱与大勇
[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