The Sage of Confucianism and Taoism

Chapter 2574 Maximum Protection

Many people pondered over and over what the name of the Robbery Law was, while Fang Yun continued to speak.

"So, it is very simple to judge whether a law is a just law or a robber law. If a law tends to protect victims and citizens who may be harmed, it must be a just law. If a law tends to protect murderers, then it must be a robber law."

"I will use an example to illustrate why some laws are gangster laws rather than just laws."

"If someone commits fraud, for example, he says he is going to do a big business, asks relatives and friends to lend him money, and then doubles the money back to relatives and friends. But in fact, he takes the money for himself and spends it lavishly. Then he lied to his relatives and friends that he had lost money in business.”

"We all know that for fraudsters, in the past, the penalty in various countries was unlimited, and there was a death penalty. However, some countries now believe that all fraud crimes should not be punished with the death penalty, because there is no direct killing. However, the fraudster's The matter was not over. The people who were defrauded had no money, and some even borrowed money from others. It was difficult for these people to live as usual. Therefore, some of them committed suicide, and even a whole family committed suicide by taking arsenic. Dozens of people died."

"Using the current laws of some countries, this fraudster would be sentenced to exile for up to twenty years, but in fact, this criminal caused far greater harm to society than ordinary death row prisoners. They indirectly killed too many people. Anyone with justice All ethnic groups will think that such a person deserves death. However, if a country believes that such a criminal cannot be punished without death, no matter how many people he indirectly kills, it means that the country's laws do not protect the victims to the maximum extent and give up the maximum protection. To limit the protection of citizens who may be harmed in the future is to protect the murderer and is a gangster law.”

"So, what is the maximum protection of citizens? It is very simple, eliminating the direct factor that harms citizens, that is, the existence of murderers. Therefore, the existence of the death penalty is to protect kind citizens to the maximum extent."

"Some legalists like to say that once a criminal realizes that he has committed a capital crime, he will give up on himself and intensify his efforts. Anyway, he will die. If this logic is true, then there will inevitably be another type of criminal who would have died because of the death penalty. He didn’t commit a crime, but since he found out that without the death penalty, no matter how many crimes he committed, he wouldn’t be able to die, so he simply acted recklessly and got worse.”

"In fact, truly cruel criminals are not afraid of any threats, and they will commit heinous crimes regardless of whether they have the death penalty. Not so cruel criminals often give up committing crimes because they are afraid of death. So, it is the cruel criminals who give up on themselves that increase the risk Do vandalism kill more people, or do they reduce vandalism and do not kill more people due to fear of the death penalty? We don’t have exact data, and I don’t know the results. I can’t be like some legalists who say that the death penalty not only fails to deter criminals but makes them worse off. ”

"There is a large amount of evidence that after the death penalty is abolished in an area, vicious crimes will increase sharply, so much so that some areas have to reinstate the death penalty after the abolition of the death penalty. Moreover, in different areas with similar affluence, where there is the death penalty, the vicious crimes The death penalty rate is often lower than in areas without the death penalty. Of course, there are also statistics from a few areas with different results, but they can only be reduced to individual cases and have no meaning.”

"There are also people who believe that everyone's life is equal. It is wrong for a murderer to kill someone. We have no right to deprive the murderer of his life. If we do, we are also murderers. This view sounds reasonable at first glance."

"We must understand that a person not only has one life, but also has many existences, his feelings, his concerns, his experiences, his abilities, his contributions, etc. In him, there are also other people's contributions to him. His sustenance carries the love of his parents, the feelings of his relatives, the feelings of his husband, wife or children, the friendship of his friends, and even more, the mission of the country and the ethnic group. A person is an infinite collection. ”

"So, when the murderer killed the victim, he not only erased the victim's personal existence, but also erased the feelings that his relatives and friends had placed on him. Do his relatives and friends have the right to punish him? I think so. The murderer erased the country and ethnic group. I think so, does the power representing the country have the right to punish him?”

"Some people also say that because there will be unjust cases, the death penalty will lead to the unjust killing of good people. So, if there is no death penalty, there will be no unjust cases? According to this logic, since there may be unjust cases, simply give up on justice and not arrest all criminals to ensure that there are no unjust cases. There will be unjust cases. This is a typical thing that even children will understand. We know that we may choke to death, so what we need to do is to avoid choking to death, not to avoid eating!”

"There are various opinions, but none of them can avoid one problem. The enforcers of the law can do their best to ensure that the death penalty prisoners really deserve to die, but what can those who oppose the death penalty do to ensure that more innocent people will not be killed? Die? They can't do it, they will just talk about it because it's not them who die."

"A few Legalists want to abolish the death penalty for another purpose. It is the same as the methods used by the bandit groups I mentioned before, that is, in order to gain greater power, the Legalists must formulate a new Legalist standard, and Only Legalists can understand, interpret and apply this standard; only In this way, the Legalists can control the law alone. Just imagine, if everyone can influence the law and use the law, what will happen to the status of the Legalists? Therefore, the Legalists want to monopolize everything related to the law and deny the original moral standards. , rebuilding legal standards that are beneficial to themselves is what they must do.”

"This also explains why the Legalists do not use moral standards that are universally applicable to the human race. Instead, they create or borrow various new theories and standards, and then formulate laws based on the new standards. In Jingguo, this kind of thing is not allowed. occur!"

Fang glanced at the venue with cold eyes.

Many Legalists feel guilty because Fang Yun is right. In order to protect their own interests, the Legalists continue to influence the law. In fact, they are another form of banditry.

Fang Yun said: "So, will there be bandit laws among the kind ethnic groups? My answer is yes. Some people will be surprised, isn't it said that the descendants of the kind ethnic groups do not have the blood of bandits? Yes, some people do not have the blood of bandits, but some people do not have the blood of bandits. Like the bandits, people clearly understand that they are far more likely to commit crimes than ordinary citizens, which is very consistent with the instinct of the descendants of bandits. "

"Let's take an example. A farmer who only knows how to farm would think that he is more likely to commit crimes than others? No. Because his desire may be great, but his power is very small. Even if he wants to do bad things, he will still be guilty. It can’t be done.”