This kind of interest is not reflected in how strong the legal professionalism of the film is, or even in its unprofessionalism. Leaving aside other pretentious and ignorant discussions about crime and punishment, Xu Baijiu alone is meaningful in the discourse of the legal profession.
Xu Baijiu, an arresting fast, today is a criminal policeman, a law enforcement officer whose main job is to solve the case, find evidence, identify the criminal suspect, or investigate the criminal suspect based on the report, and make decisions based on the evidence found. whether to file an application for arrest. Therefore, in the strict sense, Xu Baijiu is not a judicial person, that is to say, he has no right to draw a conclusion on whether a person is guilty or not, that is the job of the judge. So we saw that he was going to apply for a token for arrest, and at the back of the film, we repeatedly heard him say: I just want to arrest him for trial.
However, these actions are only in a formal sense.
Let's take a closer look at Xu Baijiu's inner meaning to see if he encountered obstacles and tried Liu Jinxi on his behalf. The answer is yes. From his self-indulgent crime scene reasoning, he entered into a preconceived notion of crime. Although those reasonings seem to be very good, but where is the evidence? The ancients said: "As long as the matter of human life, you need corpse, injury, disease, property, and trace. Only after all five things are completed can you infer." There are corpses, injuries, and the cause of death (disease), There are also physical evidences (the tables and chairs used for fights), but these evidences do not point to Liu Jinxi, especially the bad guy who slammed his head into the cabinet and died. The blood on the cabinet can clearly point out that person. He died because of his own reasons (here, Xu Baijiu once again changed the way of death by self-intentional obscenity, but he could not produce any evidence on the spot, everything was obscenity, everything was an illusion, and I read too many novels Well, dear.) Moreover, the most crucial witness testimony (trace) was completely subverted by his self-infatuation (the aunt and uncle who were robbed were in tears, they saw it with their own eyes, their testimony is direct evidence and not transmitted Evidence, dear! The power level of evidence, dear!). In fact, there are also physical evidences in the obscenity, such as the teeth that flew into the wine bottle, but the teeth flashed in and disappeared, so that we have no way to judge whether the broken wine bottle is his lust or the truth. is broken. (Also, even if the teeth break the wine bottle, it cannot prove that Liu Jinxi killed the family, and this chain of evidence cannot be formed.)
Therefore, Xu Baijiu, under the control of obscenity with Xu Baijiu (note that there are always two Xu Baijiu in the movie, one is Xu Baijiu in reality, and the other is obscenity Xu Baijiu, the latter dominates the former.), and definitely determined that Liu Jinxi murdered intentionally rather than negligently. For causing death, Liu Jinxi is a bad person and must be brought to justice. I will not discuss the issue of self-defense in detail here. In fact, even if Liu Jinxi deliberately murdered, it was entirely because of what he did when his life was threatened. Whether it is good or bad, this is also the question that this film has been asking the audience: what is a good person and what is a bad person? Can a bad guy who wants to reform himself be a good guy? I can't answer these questions because it's not a legal question, it's a moral question. It is true that Xu Baijiu, as a law enforcement officer, is even less able to answer these questions, and even he must strictly control his involvement in moral judgments in law enforcement, because moral judgments are not like judicial trials, and the answer is not unique. There are a thousand answers to good or bad, and these thousand answers may be justified on the moral level, but judicial judgment must be unique, which is strictly limited by legal provisions and factual behavior In the view of traditional legal positivists, a judicial decision is like a formula. Under the framework of traditional logical syllogism, by introducing legal provisions as the major premise and factual behavior as the minor premise, a definite and unique judgment can be obtained. There are even whimsical people who want to invent referee machines to replace judges.
Although this whimsical idea has been disintegrated in modern times, Holmes and others have launched an attack on this concept, arguing that the judge's experience has more influence on the judge than logic, but I think even Holmes himself cannot deny that in The obvious difference between moral judgment and judicial judgment. I am not here to provoke the eternal and intractable dispute between the rule of virtue and the rule of law again. I just say that virtue and the rule of law are two-level issues. You are judged by your actions, and at this level, a virtuous person can also break the law, and a badly virtuous person can also be a law-abiding citizen. But in any case, we cannot use moral standards to measure whether a person should be judged by the law, otherwise, he will fall into personal arbitrariness and despotism.
The horror of Xu Baijiu lies in the fact that he tried Liu Jinxi according to his personal moral standards. Under the domination of the moral belief that "bad people cannot become good people", he decided to use the police and the judiciary and other national forces to carry out his judgment against him. Liu Jinxi's punishment, juxtaposed against the law. We saw that he tried to arrest Liu Jinxi through various illegal means under the image of a seemingly fearless rule of law (for example, he spent 22 taels of money to illegally buy an arrest warrant without producing any evidence, etc.), what if All the law enforcement officers are Xu Baijiu, so how many innocent people will be arrested? And his crazy moral obsession comes from his early experience (that is, being calculated by a child), so how do we ensure that we will not be discovered by a female police officer who has been abandoned because of being gay We are gay, and it just so happens that we were abused by her power to arrest and indiscriminately arrest a robber because we were brave enough to injure a robber on the street?
Therefore, Xu Baijiu never represented the rule of law, but he represented the other end of the rule of law - the rule of man. We can see him struggling and swaying in the film. The reason for his hesitation and pain is precisely because he enforces the law based on morality rather than legal process. As I said earlier, moral beliefs can be justified at the same time in different situations, such as "bad people can't become good people" can be justified in children who steal things, and "bad people can be changed. "To be a good person" can be justified here by Liu Jinxi. When Xu Baijiu applied the moral beliefs he got from the children to Liu Jinxi, he found that it didn't work, so he began to revise his moral beliefs. At the end of the film, he finally completed the revision. But what's the use of this? Even if he doesn't die, he is still a fast hunter, so is it because he encounters another kid who steals things, and he starts to subvert the moral belief that "bad people can become good" that he finally established?
Of course, the proposition that the rule of man and the rule of law is better or worse, which has been completed between Plato and Aristotle, needs no further emphasis. I just remind all officials to beware of false rule of law like Xu Baijiu. His weakness does not mean that the power of the rule of law is weak in the face of traditional moral forces and public opinion, but only a painful decision-maker struggling with moral judgment.
As my classmate said, if in this case, the villagers who did not know the truth represented a kind of public opinion that was biased because of their simplicity, then the obscenity Xu Baijiu represented the public opinion that was biased to the other end because of being deceived in his early years.
However, the true rule of law dares to abandon all noise that has nothing to do with law. No matter this noise comes from people who don't know the truth, or from lustful Xu Baijiu.
View more about Dragon reviews
