JUSTICE IN THE EYES OF A LAYMAN / 公正

JUSTICE IN THE EYES OF A LAYMAN

（一个外行眼中的正义）

 

This article will talk about JUSTICE from a layman’s perspective and will not involve specific cases.

 

Topic 1: God exists, and so does Suspicion!

 

(1) Evidence of God's existence

So far, there is no evidence of God's existence, but people still believe that God exists, why? Because of "SUSPICION" (no derogatory meaning).

SUSPICION is a presumption of probability of the existence of an event, based on reasonable logic.

        ·   Logic is the bottom layer of evidence, and if the evidence is lacking, one must presume the probability of the event according to reasonable logic.

        ·   Believe that God exists or not depends on the logic of people’s thinking, not evidence.

        ·   In litigation, it is the criminal's instinct to deliberately hide the evidence of the crime, and when the evidence of the crime is not readily available, the judge's duty is to weigh the existing evidence against the internal logic.

 

Topic 2: The Protection Appeal and the Punitive Appeal has different requirements for the evidence!

 

(2)  Citizen's legal appeals

In a society ruled by law, there are bound to be some legal appeals of citizens, which can be divided into three levels, namely 1 BASIC APPEALS, 2PROTECTIVE APPEALS, and 3 PUNITIVE APPEALS.

BASIC APPEALS are the appeals for the most basic human rights, which include the appeal of right for survival and the appeal of right for freedom (including freedom of speech, action, belief, etc.).

        ·   The basic appeals are naturally justified.

        ·   For example, faith in God is the basic appeal of faith, which requires no evidence, only logic, and when logic is not refutable, people have the right to freedom of belief.

PROTECTIVE APPEALS are the appeals by which people seek legal protection from infringement.

        ·   A Protective Appeal can be applied to Civil infringement Cases, and it requires reliable logic and sufficient superficial evidence to prove the other party's suspicion of infringement exists.

PUNITIVE APPEALS are the appeals by which people require the law punish the criminal for the crime.

        ·   A Punitive Appeal can be applied to Criminal Cases, and it requires reliable logic and unquestionable core evidence to prove a real crime has been committed by the other party.

 

(3) Determining the attribution of the relevant benefits.

Corresponding to Protective Appeals and Punitive Appeals, there are two principles for determining the attribution of relevant benefits, namely 1 “THE PRESUMPTION OF SUSPICION“，and 2”THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE“.

THE PRESUMPTION OF SUSPICION (short in PS) means that when the defendant's infringement suspicion is established, the competing benefits are attributed to the plaintiff, and when the defendant's infringement suspicion is not established, the competing benefits are attributed to the defendant.

        ·   Also called “The benefits are attributed to those who have no infringement suspicion”.

        ·   The law does not need to correct the trajectory of the event when no suspicion exist, and the law should correct the trajectory of the event when suspicion exists！

        ·   The PS applies to the Protective Appeal and should be limited to civil infringement cases only.

        ·   This legal principle reflects the legitimacy of the protection of people with no suspicion.

        ·   The determination of the infringement suspicion requires reasonable logic and relevant evidence, even if it is not the direct evidence.

        ·   It is the judge's responsibility to determine whether the logic and evidence presented by the plaintiff is sufficient to establish the defendant's infringement suspicion.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (short in PI) means that the benefits are attributed to the defendant when the evidence against the accused is insufficient to convict him.

        ·   Also called “The benefits are attributed to the defendant when evidence is in doubt”.

        ·   The PI applies to the Punitive Appeal and has dominated the most Criminal Cases.

        ·   This legal principle reflects the legitimacy of avoiding the wrongful conviction.

        ·   The exclusion of doubts in the evidence requires both reasonable logic and hardness evidence.

        ·   It is the judge's responsibility to determine whether the prosecution's evidence is in doubt and to ensure that the offence is punishable by hard evidence.

To sum up, when the plaintiff appeals for protection, the law should apply the principle of PS, and when the plaintiff appeals to punish the crime, the law should apply the principle of PI.

        ·   When the PS applies, the judge's discretion should be reflected in his or her judgment of probability to the existence of suspicion.

        ·   When the PI applies, the judge's discretion should be reflected in his or her judgment of probability to the existence of evidence in doubt.

        ·   The Protective Appeal and the Punitive Appeal have different requirements for the evidence!

 

(4) The choice of the Protection Appeal.

Even the Protection Appeal can still be divided into two different directions, namely, the CPR and the CPB.

CPR - (Full name “the Claim for Protect the Rights”) is that people ask the law to protect their rights from infringement.

CPB - (Full name “the Claim for Protect the Benefits”) is that people ask the law to protect their benefits from infringement.

        ·   The Rights are the Benefits but beyond the Benefits.

        ·   The Benefits are the Rights but under the Rights.

Topic 3: the Justice of Correcting must take precedence over the Justice of Remedy!

 

(5) The Priority of Justices

According to the trajectory of events (point to The Suspected Civil Infringement Cases), the justice of the court is reflected in Justice of Correcting and Justice of Remedy.

Justice of Correcting (short in JC) is the corrective ruling taken by the court on the (suspected) Civil Infringement Cases during the trajectory of development.

        ·   JC changes the events trajectory of  the (suspected) infringement cases.

Justice of Remedy (short in JR) is a remedial ruling taken by the court on the consequences of the (suspected) Civil Infringement Cases after it has developed.

        ·   JR does not change the trajectory of the (suspected) infringement cases..

The fairness of JC has absolute priority！and only when JC cannot be used, can JR follow！

(It's like disease prevention must take precedence over disease treatment, such as COVID-19.)

        ·   When the judge has an opportunity to correct the trajectory of a (suspected) civil infringement cases, he or she must give priority to JC.

        ·   Protecting the benefits of third parties cannot be an excuse to sacrifice a single litigant party！

        ·   If the judge condones the development of that (suspected) infringement events, even if he or she grants JR to the consequences of these cases, it cannot be regarded as a justice judgment unless he or she has no opportunity to grant JC in the first place.

 

(10.10.2020 / Vancouver / Bare Room)

一个外行眼中的正义

- JUSTICE IN THE EYES OF A LAYMAN -

 

（本文将从一个外行的视角度来探讨司法意义上的正义JUSTICE，不会涉及具体案例）

 

主题1：神存在，嫌疑也存在！

 

(1)  神存在的证据

至今，没有证据可以证明神存在，但是依然有很多人信神，为什么？因为“嫌疑”（中性词，非贬义）。

嫌疑 是基于合理的逻辑对事件存在概率的假设。

l  逻辑是最证据的底层，如果证据不足，就必须按照合理的逻辑来推测事件发生的概率。

l  相信神存在与否取决于人的思维逻辑，而不是证据。

l  在诉讼中，故意隐瞒犯罪证据是犯罪者的本能，当犯罪证据不易获得时，法官的职责就是权衡现有得证据与内在的逻辑。

 

主题2：保护性诉求和惩罚性诉求对证据的要求不同！

 

(2)  公民的法律诉求

在法治社会中，公民必然会有一些法律诉求，可以分为三个层次，即1基本诉求，2保护性诉求，3惩罚性诉求。

基本诉求 是对最基本人权的诉求，包括生存权诉求和自由权诉求（包括言论自由、行动自由、信仰自由等）。

l  基本诉求是天然正义的。

l  例如，对神的信仰是基本的信仰诉求，不需要证据，只需要逻辑，当逻辑无可辩驳时，人就有自由信仰神的权利。

保护性诉求 是人们寻求法律保护他们免受侵权的诉求。

l  保护性诉求适用于民事侵权类案件，需要可靠的逻辑和充分的表面证据来证明对方存在侵权的嫌疑。

惩罚性诉求 是人们要求法律惩罚犯罪者的诉求。

l  惩罚性诉求适用于刑事案件，需要可靠的逻辑和无可置疑的核心证据来证明对方确实实施了犯罪。

 

(3)  确定相关利益的归属

对应于保护性诉求和惩罚性诉求，有两个可以被用来确定相关利益归属的原则，即1“嫌疑推定”，和2“无罪推定”。

嫌疑推定（THE PRESUMPTION OF SUSPICION，简称PS）是指当被告人的侵权嫌疑成立时，系争利益归属于原告，当被告人的侵权嫌疑不成立时，系争利益归属于被告。

l  正所谓，当侵权嫌疑存在时，利益归于没有嫌疑的人。

l  当没有侵权嫌疑时，法律无需纠正事件的轨迹；当有侵权嫌疑时，法律应该纠正事件的轨迹！

l  PS 仅适用于保护性诉求，并应当限定于民事侵权类案件。

l  这一法律原则体现了法律对无嫌疑者的保护。

l  侵权嫌疑的认定需要合理的逻辑和相关的证据，即便不是直接证据。

l  法官有责任确定原告提出的逻辑和证据是否足以确定被告的侵权嫌疑。

无罪推定（THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE，简称 PI）是指当针对被告的刑罪证据不足以定罪时，利益归于被告。

l  正所谓，当刑罪证据有疑问时，利益归于被告。

l  PI 仅适用于惩罚性诉求，并主导了当前大多数国家的刑诉法律。

l  这一法律原则反映了避免错误定罪的合法性。

l  排除证据中的疑点需要逻辑的合理性和证据的确凿性。

l  法官有责任确定控方的证据是否存在疑点，并确保存在确凿证据的刑罪受到惩罚。

综上，当原告提出保护性诉求时，法律应适用PS原则；当原告提出惩罚性诉求时，法律应适用PI原则。

l  当PS 适用时，法官的自由裁量权应反映在对侵权嫌疑是否存在的判断上。

l  当PI 适用时，法官的自由裁量权应反映在对刑罪证据是否存在疑点的判断上。

l  保护性诉求和惩罚性诉求对证据的要求不同！

(4) 保护诉求的选择

即使是保护性诉求仍然可以分为两个不同的方向，即CPR和CPB。

CPR——（全称“The Claim for Protect the Rights”）是人们要求法律保护自己的权利（Rights）不受侵犯。

CPB——（全称“The Claim for Protect the Benefits ”）是人们要求法律保护他们的利益（Benefits）不受侵犯。

·         The Rights are the Benefits but beyond the Benefits.

·         The Benefits are the Rights but under the Rights.

 

主题3：纠错正义必须优先于救济正义！

 

(5) 优先的正义

依照侵权案件的事件轨迹，当侵权案件的嫌疑被推定存在时，法庭的正义体现为纠错正义Justice of Correcting和救济正义Justice of Remedy。

纠错正义（简称JC）是法庭对被嫌疑推定的侵权事件作出纠正轨迹的纠错性裁决。

• JC 改变了被嫌疑推定的侵权事件的轨迹。

救济正义（简称 JR）是法庭对被嫌疑推定的侵权事件发展的后果作出的救济性裁决。

• JR 不会改变被嫌疑推定的侵权事件的轨迹。

JC的正义性是优先的！只有当JC不能用的时候，JR才能适用！

（就如同对疾病的预防必须优先于对疾病的治疗，例如 COVID-19。）

• 当法官有机会纠正被嫌疑推定的侵权事件的轨迹时，他或她必须优先考虑 JC。

• 保护第三方利益不能成为牺牲单一当事人的借口！

• 如果法官纵容被嫌疑推定的侵权事件依照原来的轨迹继续发展，即使他或她对侵权事件的后果给予了JR，也不能被视为公正的判决。除非他或她一开始就没有机会给予JC。

 

(10.10.2020 / Vancouver / Bare Room)