I comprehend, this post came out, bound to detrimental critique. But the rule of law in terms of China had made.
I am well aware of the seriousness of the judicial legislature, in counting apt wrong decision into efficacy, injustice, alternatively tin no be changed. Today, beneath the pressure of public opinion, the High Court determined to retrial Yunnan Li case with illegal direction to correct the erratic light ahead the ruling. So, Yunnan determine if the High Court for retrial in line with decrees and regulations and the rule of morale?
Yunnan High Court cited Court should re-trial: (c) the native decision, ruled that the seemly law is naturally wrong. Li Changkui case, the facts are clear intentional homicide, the law seemly to non-existent problem, Court of First Instance has given the decease sentence. Only in the sentencing court of second instance aboard a characteristic revision, and change the necrosis penalty quickly for the reprieve, and the 1st trial did not veto the truths base and the appropriate law.
reprieve High Court ruling in Yunnan is still within the scope of the statutory sentencing. Any culprit deed has certain statutory sentencing range, the magistrate dealing with cases of special note, the defendant afterward conviction and sentencing have some chariness. Death immediately suspended for two years with the death penalty under the Penal Code of offenses are extremely solemn criminal penalties applicable, and are extremely caustic penalties, the trial referee and the defendant does not surpass the applicable criminal law reprieve limit the sentencing range. Therefore, the sentence reprieve in force at a time the facts are clear, correctly applies the law should not be exchanged way retrial.
Some savants have pointed out that the Supreme People's Court In the case of execution,
Men's Air Max 2009, not to enhance the trial level, etc. increase the defendant's sentence. and to prohibit the death penalty suspended for two years to take the case for review by anyone manner reprieve commuted to death immediately. This spirit, the highest judicial organ in China should be commuted to the problem of the attitude of reprieve case, since the second trial and review shall not be changed,
Men's Air Max 2003, then the nuclear complicated has been extra forcible decisions can not be changed.
Lee case came to light on the web,
Men's Air Max Ltd, the Say
himself does not think herself a , pill case sentencing is incongruous with similar cases, affect the unity of righteousness,
Air Max 2003, is reverenced by the court of public opinion and Shaanxi Today, I am contrary to retrial Li Changkui, is not that Lee is not got to, but oppose the use of illegal means to draw the so-called retrial. China's long-standing administration of justice Li the case of rift proceedings to force a retrial, is bound to make this tread by step to deepen the disadvantages.
Li case second instance commuted reprieve, clear light sentences, judges should be narrated to deed, but the force's decision should not be easily commuted. Like football,
Nike Shox NZ, misjudged misjudgment referee whistle qualifications will be canceled, merely the game has finished, merely can not replay.
criminal act is the erasure of existing social narrations. In Li Changkui with violence undermines our society, the ambitious of the court for retrial in violation of procedural law, undermine the rule of law and the way to go, this twice damage,
Men's Air Max 1, rule of law in China can not afford.
In array apt rule China , and resolutely contrary
most
Linear Mode
