Summary of Key Points
This article adapts a real case from the popular legal drama "Heavy Equipment" to illustrate the critical explorations in China's legal system construction from 1979 to 1997. It covers topics such as the abolition of the "hooliganism" crime, the arrest of lawyers for defending "morally corrupt" individuals, and the gradual establishment of the principle of "presumption of innocence." The core message is that the essence of modern rule of law is not a "convenient" tool, but rather a set of rules designed to limit public power and protect individual rights. The article calls on the public to move beyond simplistic moralistic thinking and understand the importance of the legal system (such as the lawyer profession and the presumption of innocence) for everyone.
Detailed Analysis
1. The Abolition of the Hooliganism Crime: Rule of Law is Not About Convenience, but About Restricting Power
How "convenient" was the hooliganism crime in the drama? Frequent romantic encounters and street arguments could be labeled as "other hooliganistic behaviors," which could even lead to the death penalty. The retired chief judge considered it convenient because it allowed for a wide range of criminal prosecutions. However, Luo Xiang pointed out that this goes against the spirit of the rule of law. The paradox of the rule of law is that it must both combat crime and restrict the power used to do so. In ancient times, the legalists believed that "unclear punishments would lead to unpredictable authority," meaning punishments could be arbitrary; in modern times, the rule of law binds power through written laws, clearly defining what constitutes a crime and preventing arbitrary labeling. The chief judge failed to realize that if he had been tried under the vague standards of the hooliganism crime, he might have been just as affected. This highlights the danger of unrestrained power: what you use to punish others today could be used against you tomorrow.
2. Lawyer Defense is Not About "Helping Bad People": Your Rights Also Need Protection
When Lawyer Li Xiang defended Qiao Zhiliang and was arrested, the public threw objects at him, accusing him of covering up a criminal. However, Qiao Zhiliang was only guilty of adultery (immoral but not a crime). Lawyer Yuan's words hit the nail on the head: lawyers defend defendants to protect the rights of all people. Imagine being wronged and facing the powerful state apparatus (police, procuratorate) alone—could you make your case clear? Lawyers act as your advocates. The lawyer system is not opposed to the judicial authorities; rather, it works together to prevent wrongful convictions. As Lawyer Yuan said, "If I defend Li Xiang today, someone might defend me tomorrow. This is how the spirit of the rule of law spreads, until everyone's rights are protected." Principal Jiang Ping put it more directly: "When lawyers thrive, the rule of law thrives; when the rule of law thrives, the country thrives."
3. The Trap of Pan-Moralism: Morality Cannot Be a Tool for Punishment
In the Qiao Zhiliang case, the public believed that "morally corrupt people should be killed," which is an example of pan-moralism—the use of moral standards to make legal judgments. Dai Zhen of the Qing dynasty said that "later Confucians used reason to execute people," meaning that judging by "moral principles" was more cruel than by law, as no one would sympathize with those considered "immoral." Luo Xiang reminds us that the law represents the minimum standard of morality. Adultery is immoral, but it is not a crime; lying is immoral, but it is not a crime either. If everything condemned by morality were considered a crime, even sages could be imprisoned (for example, Confucius, who might have been criticized for being "disruptive"). The danger of pan-moralism is that it leads people to ignore evidence and the law, sentencing people to death based on emotion alone, which is even more destructive to social order than the crime itself.
4. Presumption of Innocence: From "Leaving Room for Error" to "Acquitting Due to Lack of Evidence"
Luo Xiang was involved in a poisoning case where a couple was accused of murder, but the phone records showed that the conversation about the murder plan lasted only 0 seconds (it didn't go through), and there was also evidence of their absence at the scene. They were not sentenced to death immediately but to a death sentence with a reprieve. This is an example of a "judgment with room for error." Modern rule of law requires the principle of "presumption of innocence"—if there is insufficient evidence, a person cannot be convicted. Why? Because a wrongful conviction is irreversible; if someone is executed and later proven innocent, they cannot be brought back to life. Luo Xiang asks, "Did we win or lose this case?" The outcome is not the important thing; what matters is that the rule of law is improving, moving from a tendency to err on the side of severity to one that values protecting life.
5. The Cost of Legal Progress
The Li Xiang case in the drama is based on the real 1984 Taian Three Lawyers case, where three lawyers defended the suspects, arguing that the evidence was insufficient, and they were arrested for "concealing criminals" and were exonerated only after four years of injustice. This shows that the progress of the rule of law does not come easily; it is the result of countless sacrifices, including the arrests of individuals like Li Xiang and the injustices suffered by the three lawyers. Even today, some people still think that lawyers "help bad people," and some judicial officials use minor charges as a fallback when there is insufficient evidence. However, Luo Xiang emphasizes that history speaks to the living—these stories remind us that the rule of law protects not just the "bad," but every ordinary person who might be wronged.
Conclusion
The rule of law is not a set of cold statutes; it is a set of rules that ensure everyone can live safely. It requires us to move beyond emotional and moral biases and understand that the true spirit of the rule of law is about restricting power and protecting individual rights.