I remember watching a talk show on CCTV (like "Studio 12") discussing how China introduced social services into the legal system. The debate at that time was not actually how to introduce it, but whether to introduce it. After seeing the ups and downs for so many years, I thought I was somewhat self-restrained, but that debate rarely aroused my anger. There are clear barriers between the two sides of the debate. The parties who oppose the introduction are all legal workers, prosecutors, judges, professors of law schools, etc., and their reasons for objecting are the same - not operable, a word repeatedly emphasized by one professor is " trouble", "too troublesome". The so-called lack of operability is no reason at all. Social service is already a fairly mature system in the West, and all we need is learning and practice. The only reason to oppose the introduction of social services is that legal workers are "troublesome"! Yes, reading the law and putting people in jail is of course easy, it's not troublesome at all. Could it be that the state spends money to train so many legal researchers and workers so that they can sit and eat without trouble?
I basically agree with the misdemeanor sentenced to social service. But there is always a disadvantage to Xingyi. I don’t know how many people will take advantage of this loophole to put criminals who should be in prison outside the iron bars, especially those who have money, status and connections. This is also a Chinese characteristic. For felons, I don't really believe that prisons can make people turn their backs on evil, it's more of a deterrent. Many people who commit minor crimes are due to impulsiveness and ignorance. Most of them are teenagers who are easily influenced by others. They are imprisoned because of impulsiveness or ignorance. When they are released from prison, those who are "complete with five poisons" are no better than social service Fewer escaped jail time. I don't know whether social service or incarceration is more beneficial to the offender and the general public, and my understanding of the function of social service was limited to that at the time.
That day, when I saw the boy in the TV series, I felt suddenly enlightened. In the shelter, the boy discovered that he has another ability besides making trouble. What he feels is the responsibility of an adult, the sense of accomplishment of helping people in need to start a new life, and the value of being a useful person . There is no doubt that possession is a joy, but giving is also a joy. It is the true meaning of social service to let a person discover his own kind nature, undertake the mission of helping the weak, and experience the joy of helping others.
People have been arguing about the good and evil of human nature for a long time. I think it is ridiculous. Does this need to be argued? Human nature has both good and evil, human nature is complex, and everyone's heart is a mixture of angels and Satan. Many times human nature is ugly, selfish, ruthless, greedy, unscrupulous to achieve ends. But there's a good side to human nature, even if most people don't usually show it. This Wenchuan earthquake, what shocked me was not the disaster itself, but the humanity in front of the disaster. Qiu Zhenhai divided the performance of netizens into three stages when talking about "Fan Paopao", saying that people's reactions in the first stage were the result of years of political education, and subsequent reflection was the result of people's use of rationality, and then the Ministry of Education issued a new Teacher ethics. Mr. Qiu has always liked sections and points, and usually seems to be very organized (probably because women don't speak logic, so I can't understand his method), but this time I think he is inexplicable. If people's first reaction is to instill the concept of "learning from Lei Feng", Lei Feng didn't know where he was when the ship was wrecked in the ice sea a hundred years ago, right? Who taught those men to selflessly give up their chances of survival to women and children? It can't be Marx, can it? Is that Jesus Christ? And who taught the Japanese to put the guy who disguised himself as a woman and ran for his life into the textbook as a negative teaching material? Amaterasu? If it is, it can only show that the strong protect the weak is not instilled by the concept of any political party, nor is it the unique moral standard of any country or nation, but the common values of mankind, which has nothing to do with Lei Bu Lei Feng. Those who defend Fan Paopao say that fleeing is an instinct, but some people argue that fleeing is an animal instinct, and protecting the weak is a human instinct. Who among the brothers, sisters and volunteers in Chengdu who spontaneously went to the disaster area for the first time thought of Lei Feng? Who would have thought of Lei Feng, the people who lined up in front of the blood donation car during the night, and the people who donated money to the disaster area automatically? Soldiers who parachuted from a height of 5,000 meters must have learned from Lei Feng, but which party did the foreigners who were originally tourists but stayed in the local area to rescue the wounded received education?
People have the instinct to do good, and people have the instinct of selfless dedication. Only by following such instincts can human beings be able to watch and help each other, fight against bad natural disasters together, struggle out of the ruins of war, and survive to this day. Because of this kind of human nature that is higher than animal instinct, human beings are fundamentally different from apes. Of course, the human self-interested instinct may prevail more of the time, and the good instinct is often suppressed. Isn't everyone saying that it's impossible to be a good person in this world right now? Because being a good person is likely to have bad results. Not unwilling, not should not, but can not. In my opinion, the kindness of the Chinese people will explode in a "blowout" way this time, perhaps because of the unscrupulous pursuit of money and interests in the primary stage of the past three decades, ignoring justice and slandering the sublime, which has made too many people's good nature. repressed. Fortunately, the good nature of human beings did not perish in silence, but broke out in silence through this opportunity.
Kindness is valuable because it is so rare, and it is only when disaster strikes that kindness is stimulated on such a scale. But if, if we just indulge the selfishness and ugliness in human nature, will we still remember that there is such a thing as kindness in human nature? When ruthlessness and indifference dominate the trend of social fashion day after day, will the good nature degenerate like the human tail? Isn't it necessary to discuss whether the teacher should leave the students and run away? Aren't there already so many people who regard animal instincts as their moral bottom line? If the Ministry of Education does not introduce a new code of ethics for teachers, what kind of teachers will our children be entrusted to?
The boy died, not at the hands of the drug dealers or the middlemen who "sold the stolen goods" on his behalf. He wanted to help a girl who used to have troubles like him on the right path, but the girl who was addicted to drugs left the boy and fled the scene alone after a car accident, and took the jewelry that the boy planned to return to exchange for drugs. The boy just died alone in the car, so worthless. Humans have a kind nature, but this nature is so fragile, so vulnerable, so in need of protection. And the world that this nature faces is so indifferent and so powerful. The boy's father fulfilled his failed wish for his son, and the shelter survived. The director of the center said regretfully, he is gone, where will he or she be next?
When walking on the street, if someone suddenly falls down, do you instinctively avoid it, or instinctively reach out to help?
View more about Without a Trace reviews
