Vistopia
Justice and Reality: Think Like a Lawyer
Zhan Qingyun
Keywords: abolition or retention of the death penalty, life imprisonment, parole, the jury system, social contract theory
Hello, I'm Zhan Qingyun.
Two cases we have followed for a long time have recently reached their conclusions: the Yingying Zhang case and the Zhang Koukou case.
Recently I have received many comments, private messages on Weibo, and interview requests asking for my views on these cases. I have resisted because they are profoundly painful, and because there is a gap between my objective analysis as a legal professional and my emotional wishes as an ordinary person.
But after seeing some discussions that I felt were less than rational, I thought that now the cases are settled, and the lives lost and harm done cannot be restored, perhaps the only thing we can do is use them to understand and reflect on our justice systems.
Before sentencing in the Yingying Zhang case, a newspaper asked me to predict whether the suspect would ultimately receive the death penalty or life imprisonment. I did not think such a prediction was possible.
As we have said before, trials are filled with enormous uncertainty, for both prosecutors and defendants. That is why more than 90 percent of cases never reach trial.
In criminal cases, most end in a plea bargain, an agreement between the suspect and the prosecution. A death sentence in particular requires a unanimous decision by twelve jurors. Such a case is genuinely hard to predict—or perhaps the prediction we are reluctant to admit is that sentencing someone to death is very difficult.
I saw comments accusing the twelve jurors of being inhuman and irresponsible, indifferent because the crime had not happened to them.
I do not know who these jurors were or what considerations led to their decision. But I know people who have served as jurors in capital cases. From a distance, as observers, many things seem self-evident: imposing death appears obvious, and saying so is easy.

Were the twelve jurors irresponsible and indifferent?

1. The psychological burden of voting for death

My friend said that when you actually sit in the jury box, you know your vote may truly kill a person. That person is standing before you and looks like an ordinary human being. The psychological burden of crossing the threshold to a death sentence is immense.
The jury system is therefore a social choice, and it inevitably brings consequences, including difficulty in sentencing.
Episode editor: 丫丫、Ly
2019.07.25
Audio in Chinese

Related programs

Cover of The Possibility of Rule of Law: Legal Reasoning in 30 Lectures
Zhai Zhiyong
The Possibility of Rule of Law: Legal Reasoning in 30 Lectures
Rule of law is a way of thinking
¥98.00
Included with membership
Cover of 35 Lessons in Critical Thinking: Think Like a Debater
Pang Ying
35 Lessons in Critical Thinking: Think Like a Debater
Challenge intuition and learn to think from the opposing side
¥98.00
Included with membership
Cover of Realizing Justice: The Legal System in 40 Lectures
Zhai Zhiyong
Realizing Justice: The Legal System in 40 Lectures
How far are we from the law?
¥128.00
Included with membership

Featured comments

63 comments
  • 寻找冯英杰
    2019-07-25 08:51:18

    昨天我做政治题的时候，发现历史和政治是有区别的。我看过《跌宕一百年》，《激荡三十年》，《激荡十年》，历史之于政治，相当于道德之于法律。历史可以拿出来讨论，没有放之四海而皆准的标准。政治就像法院的最终判词，这件事情就是这样了，到此为止了，老师表示同意。放在这里也一样，我们可以这个判决持有意见，可是判决已经定了，事情到此为止了，我们只能尊重并且接受这个结果了。

    nathaniel0831 Reply 易生 ：同意，否则谁来创造历史

  • 汪洋
    2019-08-14 06:09:50

    录音对话筒太近，时间长了感觉刺耳。

  • 臭咪之城
    2022-01-23 06:25:56

    死刑还有一个效果就是节省社会资源。

  • 217****925
    2024-04-04 10:02:58

    从去年来到UIUC，发现章莹颖的纪念碑就在每天去上学的必经之路上，CS院旁的花丛里，小小的，不走进草丛很难发现；直到现在，碑前还是永远有新鲜的花束，有人在一侧放了小狗雕像，还有人放了几只布偶娃娃。

  • 云雾蓬舟
    2022-11-30 09:58:28

    虽然死者不能复生。但是只有付出同等的代价，活着的人才能真正开始往前走吧……

    193****0244 ：我也觉得，践踏人权和正义，同等应该付出不被人权和正义保护的代价。

  • 王若舒
    2019-11-16 13:42:43

    这期很有意义。我们每个人构成的社会应该对这件事情负责，这个观点第一次了解到。我们不应该急忙给别人贴上白左的标签，也要想想他们有没有一定道理。每群人经历的社会变迁给了大家不同的思考方式，可以坐下来心平气和的沟通。

  • 破
    破晓天光
    2024-04-09 20:43:54

    请问阿詹老师，送到监狱服刑的目的是改造，现实中得到改造的人有多少百分比？有没有这方面的调查报告呢？谢谢回复谢谢

  • 临川仕
    2023-11-08 12:26:03

    嗯…

  • 大🐟
    2022-11-10 15:02:11

    人是不可以杀人的。纯粹的，简单的，彻底的，废除死刑！

  • 1
    189****0116
    2022-10-29 08:25:40

    阿詹一定要成为自己心中优秀的律师啊

  • 蓝了～
    2025-01-14 13:28:26

    很喜欢啊詹去年才知道她。

  • 连
    2022-10-24 14:53:06

    哪怕是距离这个案子的结果三年后，也还是觉得这些内容发人深省。当我们考虑一个人是否应该判处死刑的时候应该明白，雪崩的时候，没有一片雪花是无辜的。

  • aespa
    2022-08-31 18:52:59

    法律本身就是冰冷的，极度的理性，美国的陪审团制度加了一层感性。有了人就有了可操作的空间，这也是美国刑法案例有意思的地方

  • 窝
    窝在书页里摸鱼的猫
    2021-12-10 22:57:51

    太喜欢阿詹讲的了，就是有点舍不得听，每次只听一点点，怕听完没得听了。

  • 江海寄舟
    2021-11-26 11:00:42

    一个人可以在法外轻易剥夺另一个人的生命，甚至在临死前还要加以折磨，但法律却不能因此轻易剥夺施暴者的生命，还可以找各种理由脱罪减刑，给受害者家属无尽的精神折磨，试问法律的意义在这中间到底保护了谁。如果说这些判决只是为了以后社会更好，是不是说个体在社会面前根本就微不足道不值一提？