I watched Er Chuang’s short video, and everything went numb!

Tang Taizong's plane.

While thinking in his mind, Li Shimin asked the ministers of Tang Dynasty:.

"What do you think of the jury system?"

"Your Majesty, I think this system is inappropriate. Judging a case is a big deal. How can ordinary people decide? Most ordinary people don't know the law, how can they judge a case?"

Changsun Wuji was the first to answer.

Following.

Fang Xuanling and other people also spoke up:

"I also think it is inappropriate. Randomly selecting common people to form a jury cannot guarantee that the people selected understand the law and have enough knowledge, and it is easy to make wrong judgments."

"That's right. Looking at this case, isn't there a wrong judgment? It is enough to prove that it is unreliable!"

"Guilty or innocence must be decided by court officials, not ordinary people, otherwise where is the majesty of the court?"

"Such practices are too frivolous and absolutely unacceptable!"

"Why does this Eagle Sauce country always have absurd things?"

"..."

The officials of the Tang Dynasty not only denied the jury system, but also expressed their contempt for the Eagle Sauce country.

Based on their identities and their positions, Changsun Wuji and others naturally could not agree with the jury system.

However, they did not oppose it purely for the sake of opposition.

These reasons for opposition are indeed what they think in their hearts.

After hearing the opinions of Changsun Wuji and others, Li Shimin nodded slightly.

He did not agree with the jury system.

……

At the same time.

Discussions similar to those in the Tang Dynasty Taizong plane were taking place in many other dynasties.

Different groups naturally have different views.

For the emperors and court ministers, they certainly did not agree with the jury system.

Even many ordinary ancient people did not agree with this system.

Because they felt that they were not capable of judging the case.

But not all people thought so.

There were also some open-minded and knowledgeable people who agreed with this system.

……

[So, why did the jury make such a verdict? ]

[Because there are some important doubts in this case. 】

【First, the police actually carried Simpson's blood sample and stayed at the crime scene for three hours, so Simpson's defense lawyer believed that the bloodstains at the scene were probably faked by the police. 】

【Second, the bloodstains on both sides of the white socks were exactly the same. If the socks were worn on people's feet, the bloodstains on both sides could not be exactly the same, so the defense suspected that the bloodstains were probably smeared on by someone, otherwise how could they be so identical? 】

【At the same time, the most important physical evidence, the bloody gloves, also had doubts. 】

【310 Officer Forman, who found the contestant's bloody gloves at the time, said that when he found them, the bloodstains on the bloody gloves were wet, butIt was the defense expert who thought this was impossible, because the murder took place at 10:30 p.m. on June 12, and Foreman found the bloody glove at 6:10 a.m. the next day. 】

[It took more than 7 hours, and under the climate at the time, the blood must have dried in 7 hours. 】

[More importantly, in order to prove that Simpson was the murderer, the prosecutor asked him to wear the blood-stained glove in front of the jury, but Simpson had difficulty putting it on. 】

[So, the defense said that the glove was too small and could not belong to Simpson. 】

[The prosecution invited a glove expert to testify, claiming that the glove might shrink after being stained with blood, but the defense expert believed that this was a high-grade leather glove that had been pre-shrunk and would not shrink after being stained with blood. 】

[The prosecution and the defense each held their own views and argued endlessly. 】

……

Many ancient people from all dynasties saw this.

My heart began to waver.

After seeing the various evidences found by the police, they originally thought that Simpson must be the murderer.

But the content on the giant screen said that the previous evidence was problematic and Simpson was not necessarily the murderer.

This made the ancients very confused.

At the same time, they were extremely curious whether Simpson was the murderer.

Wu Zetian asked Di Renjie:

"Lord Di, do you think this person is the murderer?"

Looking at Wu Zetian's expectant eyes, Di Renjie smiled bitterly in his heart.

How could he know this?

He was not at the scene. If he could know the truth based on the information revealed by the giant screen, he would be a god.

"Your Majesty, I don't know."

Di Renjie answered honestly.

Hearing this, Wu Zetian was quite disappointed.

……

[During the Simpson trial, the person who made the defense camp most suspicious was the prosecutor's "star" witness, Officer Fuhrman. ]

[Because all the important evidence was discovered by him, but the officer's own words and deeds had many problems. ]

[In an interview, he boasted that he was the key to the century's big case, and if I didn't help the prosecution, they would lose this big case. ]

[He also said: You just don't understand. There is no need for rules in the police business. It's all based on feelings. Forget the rules. We can just make up nonsense when the time comes. 】

[In this recorded conversation, Forman also brazenly boasted that he had framed innocent people. What's more outrageous is that he also blatantly said: "We policemen are not easy to mess with. Even if we kill people, we know how to say it."]

...

Daqin plane.

Qin Shihuang frowned and snorted coldly:

"Evil official!"

For Forman, who is a law enforcer but disregards the law, he really doesn't like it.

And he thinks that this kind of behaviorThe words of a bad person may not be credible.

This suspicion of Qin Shihuang was actually the main point of Simpson's defense team at that time.

Because of the influence of the "character evidence" tradition in the common law of the United States, the evidence laws and precedents of the United States and California stipulate that if the character of the witness in court is proven to be flawed, then some of the testimony presented by the witness in court will not have legal effect.

……

[This recording became the last straw that broke the camel's back of the prosecution's chain of evidence. ]

[There is a famous rule of evidence in the laws of the United States: "There can only be one stink bug in the noodles." ]

[This is a vivid metaphor: when anyone finds a stink bug in his bowl of noodles, he will never look for the second one, but pour out the whole bowl of noodles. ]

[This is actually the exclusion of illegal evidence, that is, as long as one piece of evidence is obtained illegally, then all evidence cannot be accepted by the court. 】

……

“This…”

In the Wu Zhou plane, Di Renjie frowned.

To be honest, he couldn’t quite understand this approach.

When solving a case, shouldn’t we consider the authenticity of the evidence?

As long as the evidence is true, it doesn’t matter what means were used to obtain it.

Why can’t evidence obtained illegally be accepted?

This is unreasonable.

Not only Di Renjie thinks so, but also many ancient people in many other dynasties think so.

They do not agree with the practice of “excluding illegal evidence”.

……

[In the Simpson case, the evidence obtained by the police had a lot of irregularities. ]

[For example, without a search warrant, Foreman searched Simpson’s house alone and found the bloody gloves. 】

[Another example is that the police did not immediately submit Simpson's blood sample for testing, but instead took the blood sample back to the crime scene 32 kilometers away and stayed at the crime scene for three hours. 】

[Everyone knows that "innocent until proven guilty" is a basic criminal procedure rule. If the existing evidence cannot prove that the suspect caught at the current stage is definitely guilty, even if it cannot prove that the suspect is innocent, he must be dealt with according to the standard of innocence. 】

……

"Innocent until proven guilty?"

Many ancient people in all dynasties were stunned.

This is the first time they have known this rule.

But in fact, "innocent until proven guilty" has already appeared in the ancient Chinese pre-Qin period.

It is recorded in "Shangshu Da Mo": "If there is a doubt about the crime, it is light; if there is a doubt about the merit, it is heavy. Rather than killing the innocent, it is better to lose the truth."

It's just that by the Qin Dynasty, the judicial thought was based on the presumption of guilt.

In the subsequent dynasties, the idea of ​​"innocent until proven guilty" was no longer used.

However, the presumption of guilt was not used, and a compromise solution was usually adopted.

For example, the Tang Code》 stipulates that a suspect can be redeemed with money.

For example, the Song Dynasty's "Datong Yuan Law" stipulates that "all suspects who are imprisoned for less than five years without a verdict shall be pardoned."

Therefore.

Many ancient people who did not know about this change in judicial thought would be surprised to hear the practice of "presumption of innocence" at this time.

……

[On the day of the trial, the entire United States seemed to be in a state of stagnation, and everyone was paying attention to the trial of this case. ]

[At that time, the President of the United States was no longer in office, and the Secretary of State postponed his speech. ]

[Statistics show that about 140 million Americans watched or listened to the final verdict of the century trial. ]

[And as just said, the jury finally ruled that Simpson was not guilty. ]

[Although 83% of Americans believe that Simpson is guilty of the charges in this case, more than 90% of people believe that the court's verdict is fair. 】

……

“?”

Many ancient people in all dynasties were confused.

This phenomenon in the United States made them feel very puzzled.

According to this ratio, there must be a large number of people in the United States who both believe that Simpson is guilty and that the court’s verdict is fair.

The ancients thought that this was too strange.

If Simpson is considered guilty, then this acquittal should be an unfair miscarriage of justice?

How can it be fair?

The confusing behavior of these people in the United States completely confused many ancient people.

……

[The Simpson case is a very classic case that tells us the importance of procedural justice. ]

[As we all know, legal justice in reality cannot be perfect justice, it must be a flawed justice. ]

[It’s like no one can draw a perfect circle, although the concept of a perfect circle exists objectively. 】

【Human beings are limited, so the justice they pursue must also be limited. 】

【In law, we often talk about two kinds of justice. 】

【One is substantive justice, which is like a perfect circle and is unattainable. 】

【The other is procedural justice, which is equivalent to the circle we draw with a compass. It is not a perfect circle and has flaws. 】

【In law, we believe that procedural justice is higher than substantive justice. 】

【Because it is impossible for humans to find true substantive justice, we can only accept a flawed procedural justice. 】

【But we have to find a balance between procedural justice and substantive justice, or we pursue substantive justice through procedural justice, because only reasonable procedural rules can make us willingly accept an imperfect substantive justice. 】

【If people ignore procedural rules and pursue so-called justice, the final result may be counterproductive. 】

……

The words on the giant screen are a bit complicated.

But in all dynastiesIn the plane, there are still many ancient people who roughly understand the meaning of it by combining the content of the previous video.

The plane of Taizu of the Great Ming Dynasty.

Zhu Biao said:

"I understand."

"The reason why many American people think that Simpson is guilty and that the court's verdict is fair is because they think that the court's verdict upholds procedural justice."

"Although many evidences prove that it is very likely that Simpson killed someone, those evidences were obtained illegally and do not conform to procedural justice, so they are invalid."

"But in this case, if Simpson really killed someone, wouldn't it be that he escaped the punishment of the law in vain? And how unfair is it to the two people who were killed?"

Zhu Yuanzhang said.

He felt that this approach was too rigid.

He believed that the purpose of investigating and solving a case was to find the real murderer. As long as the real murderer could be found, what did it matter whether the procedure was fair or not?

Zhu Yuanzhang's idea was not surprising.

Procedural justice determines most of the difference between the rule of law and arbitrary or capricious rule of man.

In ancient feudal dynasties, there is no doubt that the essence was rule of man.

Especially the emperor, who was the highest owner of "rule of man power".

It is basically impossible to expect them to understand procedural justice.

Even if we put aside these emperors, ordinary people in ancient times also doubted "procedural justice".

This is normal.

Even in modern society, there are many debates about "procedural justice" and "substantive justice".

This is indeed a more complicated issue in itself.

……

[Through procedural rules, humans can accept a flawed justice. ]

[If we only pursue substantive justice, we may be restricted in a certain case, but it will open Pandora's box, and every innocent citizen may become the object of punishment in the Criminal Law. 】

【"If you want to accuse someone, you will always find a pretext for it."

"Killing thousands of people by mistake and not letting one person go" will continue to happen. 】

【Why do you think the law prohibits torture and forced confession? 】

……

See here.

The ancients of all dynasties were stunned.

"Prohibiting torture and forced confession" was simply incredible to the ancients.

In ancient times, "confession" was important in handling cases, and "torture and forced confession" was simply the only magic weapon for the government to handle cases.

Not only was it legal, but the methods were also varied.

What about beating with a stick, pinching fingers, etc., that was commonplace.

Now suddenly hearing that the law of later generations "prohibits torture and forced confession", the ancients were naturally shocked.

……

【Many people, including judicial personnel, believe that the reason for prohibiting torture and forced confession is that it will lead to false and wrongful convictions. 】

【But I have said in many places that in judicial practice,A considerable part of torture and forced confession will not lead to unjust, false or wrongful convictions, but will enable the case to be advanced efficiently and timely. 】

……

Many judicial personnel in all dynasties agree with this statement.

In their case handling practice, there are many cases that can prove this point.

Facing those stubborn prisoners, severe punishment is the simplest and most effective way.

So, why do later generations prohibit torture and forced confession?

……

[The prohibition of torture and forced confession is actually because it is procedurally unjust. 】

[It is still Martin Luther King’s words: means represent justice in the making and ideals in the realization. People cannot achieve the goal of justice through unjust means. 】

[The means are seeds, and the goal is the tree. 】

[Torture and forced confession are undoubtedly poisonous seeds, and the tree of justice cannot grow from them. 】

[Many people have the prejudice of emphasizing substantive justice over procedural justice. This concept needs to be changed. 】

[Many law enforcement officers, in particular, often claim to be the embodiment of justice, and often ignore the restrictions of rules. 】

[Only when life turns around and the spokesperson of justice becomes a prisoner, perhaps at this time, they can realize how important the restriction of power and procedural justice are. 】

[We can only pursue limited justice through established procedures. Without procedures, the justice pursued by people with enthusiasm and passion may be a greater injustice. 】

……

Conclusion after watching the video.

Some ancient people began to think about the issue of procedural justice.

But more ancient people were more concerned about whether Simpson was the murderer?

Unfortunately, no one knows the exact answer. Although most people believe that Simpson is the murderer, there is no official and clear conclusion after all.