Recently, the "Little Yue Yue Incident" in Guangdong has aroused strong repercussions in the society. On the one hand, we condemn 18 indifferent passers-by, on the other hand, we are also rethinking and discussing, looking for a way out to solve the problem of falling down. Some people say that destruction must be punished by legislation, others say that it is necessary to reward those who do good deeds, and still others say that they should help those who are wronged by doing good deeds. Can this solve the social problem of not helping?
Belief in destruction may backfire.
After the "Little Yueyue Incident", indifferent passers-by were severely condemned. Some lawyers and scholars suggest that those who abandon themselves should be severely punished, which can not only meet the needs of social assistance, but also improve people's moral level. In my opinion, the legalization of morality must have its limits, and the laws that exceed the limits are either invalid or unreasonable. Judging from the current social situation and people's moral level in our country, making self-destructive behavior a crime may not prompt people to help people in need.
Under the current social situation in China, the implementation of this system will not only make more people get help, but will make more people suffer more injuries or die because they can't get help. This is because, before from ruin was defined as a crime, although there was often an empty silence without assistance, the onlookers of China people also had a strong signal function. Many times, some virtuous people, such as soldiers and students, often rely on this signal to find people in trouble and rescue them. If suicide is defined as a crime, people will inevitably have their own countermeasures. For fear of being accidentally involved in crime, people even dare not look at the objects in need, such as the old man who fell down and the man who fell into the water. Finally, there are no onlookers, so people who need help can't be found by virtuous people in time through onlookers, resulting in more people dying because they can't get help.
On the other hand, this system makes everyone feel insecure, thus not only failing to improve people's moral level, but also alienating people. This indifference is the real human tragedy. From the perspective of law enforcement agencies, it needs information support to identify and investigate his responsibility from the ruins, and law enforcement agencies are faced with information barriers when looking for it from the ruins, which will make the system ineffective.
It is difficult to provide legal aid to those who do good deeds against being wronged.
Faced with the problem, some people say that they should help those who have been wronged by doing good deeds. A few days ago, some domestic lawyers responded to the continuous cases of being framed for saving people. It is proposed to create a "Lawyers' Union to Stop Indifference". If someone takes the initiative to save someone and is blackmailed, the lawyers' group will provide free legal aid. This is naturally a good thing. For those who have been framed, help is better than no help. But the question is, how helpful is this? The reason why it is difficult to judge the case of being framed for saving people in China is not that the law is difficult to apply, but the fundamental reason lies in the facts. If there are no camera records and no witnesses, it will be difficult to find out the facts, and lawyers can play a very small role in the facts. On the contrary, in the case that the facts cannot be clarified, this kind of assistance from lawyers may also benefit the real perpetrators. Therefore, judging from the nature of the case, the role that legal aid can play in such cases will not be as great as imagined.
The law must respond to those who design it.
What should we do in the face of social indifference reflected by falling down and not helping? Can the condemnation and punishment of indifferent passers-by, as well as the reward and help of helpers, better solve this social problem? We must first ask, who created this indifference? To solve the problem, the law must respond to those who are framed and those who really hit people. Otherwise, what we are talking about now is just a slogan.
Of course, the premise of this reaction is that society should have the ability to discover the truth. How to find out the truth? A reporter analyzed 15 cases reported by the media in recent years in which an old man fell on the street and was "framed", and found that six cases involved successfully proved his innocence, two of which were through surveillance videos and four were through other witnesses.
40% surprised me very much. With the installation of more cameras and the appearance of more witnesses, more truths will be discovered, and the proportion of unsuccessful framing will be above 50%. This information should be widely disseminated and known to potential policymakers. Of course, it is not enough to know, and the law must also respond to those who frame it. Legal response must also play a good role on the premise that "the truth of more cases will be discovered". This response includes administrative punishment and criminal responsibility for the framed person. This kind of punishment is necessary because the behavior of the framed person has a strong negative externality, which has caused serious consequences to others and society. It is believed that the situation of saving people from being framed will appear in the future. In order to solve the problem effectively, China must have cases of severely punishing those who have been framed. For example, its suppression of potential policymakers and its inspiration to the public are immeasurable. Therefore, law enforcement departments should actively enforce the law, and should not give up law enforcement just because the old lady who fell down was pitiful or repented. It should be noted that this kind of law enforcement is the key to solving the problem of not helping the society. The model of "high proportion of unsuccessful framing+legal consequences of unsuccessful framing+cases that are unfavorable to framing" will inevitably make potential framing people afraid to take risks.
It is necessary to find out and severely punish the perpetrators according to law.
In addition to punishing those who have been framed, concrete measures should be taken to urge the real perpetrators to take the initiative to fulfill their obligations of helping the victims and sending them to the hospital. Because if it weren't for his escape, such a social situation wouldn't have formed. The legal response to the attacker can include setting severe civil liability, administrative liability and considering setting criminal liability. Among them, a punitive compensation system must be set up in civil liability, that is, the person who hits and escapes must bear three to five times the medical expenses and other losses of the victim.
There is also a kind of people, that is, those who beat people and take the initiative to send them to the hospital. Because they firmly believe that it is impossible to prove that they are beating people, they pretend to be good people. This kind of person will also exist in reality, but because the truth of what happened in an instant cannot be discovered, it has not entered everyone's field of vision. Although these people sent the victims to the hospital, their denial behavior directly led to the indifferent reaction of the public, and its negative impact was more obvious. So they have to bear more severe legal responsibilities than fugitives. Of course, similar to the punishment of the above-mentioned framed person, the effectiveness of the attacker's legal responsibility as a threat also depends on a certain proportion of truth discovery through surveillance video and witness testimony. And at present, a certain proportion of truth discovery is feasible. (The author is a professor at Shenzhen University Law School)