OPINION> EDITORIALS
|
OPINION> EDITORIALS
|
|
Both scales of justice
(China Daily)
Updated: 2009-06-17 07:46 Congratulations, Deng Yujiao. The otherwise innocent young lady need not go behind bars for defending herself, though excessively, from the assault of reckless officials. Deng has been found guilty of causing intentional injury by the court of Badong county in Hubei province but exempted from punishment, thanks to mitigating factors. Congratulations are in order to all those who, out of scorn for thuggish officials and suspicion of judicial injustice, feared that Deng might be sentenced to more than what she deserved. The court outcome may well be better than was expected. Congratulations to the court of first instance, too. Not that it produced a judgment in tune with public opinion. The verdict is as we desired but not anticipated: solid and well reasoned. Deng was found guilty of intentional injury in excessive self-defense but exempted from penalty on grounds of mental disorder and confessing (her crime) to the police. An impressive verdict that takes into account the finer points of the case, which we once assumed to be beyond the capabilities of a county-level court. Now we wish that the county court of Badong in Hubei province is not an exception. Morally, most of us would like Deng to be pronounced not guilty. But, in the eyes of the law, she is.
We are actually glad to see the court declare Deng guilty. Which convinces us that the law did not bow to popular sentiment. This upholding of the majesty of law is more important than whether or not Deng ends up serving term in prison. Much more than a not-guilty conclusion, this outcome is reassuring, for it underscores that the court is preoccupied with upholding principles of the law. The court of first instance's decision may very likely seal the sensational case. And, the result is almost an all-win, all-happy scenario, except for the dead and injured officials. Deng, the popular victim-heroine, escaped the feared fate of falling prey to further injustice. Now justice has prevailed and, at the same time, a potentially explosive credibility crisis has been averted. That the court stayed true to justice in spite of public opinion being extremely one-sided is cause for celebration. Nevertheless, the role of public interest and scrutiny was crucial. It is indeed rare for a desirable court ruling to be also a triumph of public opinion. That is not expected of the rule of law. Yet that is the case here to some extent. Which raises an essential, though hypothetical, question: Would the verdict have been the same were it not for the intervention of the sympathetic public? We wish the local justices could assuredly say yes. (China Daily 06/17/2009 page8) |
