Mo Huanjing, the defendant of Hangzhou nanny arson case, was sentenced to death in the first instance. What do you think of this matter?

On the morning of February 9, 20 18, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court issued a public verdict on the case of the defendant Mo Huanjing's arson and theft. The verdict found that Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire, which caused the victim Zhu and his three minor children to be trapped in the fire and died of carbon monoxide poisoning, and caused housing losses of more than 2.57 million yuan. In order to raise gambling funds, Mo Huanjing repeatedly stole Zhu's home items for pawn and mortgage, and obtained more than 6,543,800 yuan. At the time of the crime, the goods worth 6.5438+0.98 million yuan were not cashed. The court sentenced Mo Huanjing to death for arson, sentenced him to five years in prison for theft and decided to execute the death penalty.

According to the provisions of China's criminal law, arson is a crime that endangers public safety and is extremely harmful to society. Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire to a high-rise residential building in the early morning, causing four deaths and heavy property losses, and even causing irreparable human tragedy and social pain. Therefore, the result of this judgment of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court is not unexpected. But procedurally, this is only a first-instance judgment. Mo Huanjing has the right of appeal, and the case of immediate execution of the death penalty needs the approval of the Supreme People's Court before it can be finalized. All sectors of society still need to be patient and respect the follow-up judicial procedures.

From a purely legal point of view, this is not a particularly complicated case. However, in the course of litigation, especially in the trial of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, this case has repeatedly caused various disputes. From the withdrawal of the original lawyer to the subsequent dispute over the right of defense, from safeguarding the defendant's legal rights to balancing the just demands of the victim's family, from punishing the criminal murderer to finding out the truth of the whole fire, all kinds of public opinions have found their own entrance in this case. In the mass concern of public opinion, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court issued seven "information circulars" in an attempt to quell social doubts. There may be eternal tension between public opinion and judicial rationality, and judicial transparency and procedural justice are the only choices to alleviate this tension.

Take the defense dispute in this case as an example. Lawyer Lin Shan originally applied for a witness to appear in court and obtained relevant evidence. Why did the court reject it? Why did Mo Huanjing choose the lawyer appointed by the Legal Aid Center after lawyer Lin Shan retired from court? In these procedural matters, did Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court fully protect the legal practice rights of defense lawyers and Mo Huanjing's right to choose defense lawyers freely? When these issues caused controversy, the response of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court was not clear and specific. We noticed that after the legal aid lawyer participated in the defense, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court not only agreed that the lawyer applied for on-site inspection of the police to testify in court and obtained relevant documentary evidence, but also took the initiative to inform two fire experts from the Ministry of Public Security to testify in court. During the trial, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court issued the "Information Bulletin" for the first time, which fairly disclosed the cross-examination opinions and the focus of disputes between the prosecution and the defense. Obviously, this series of actions has significantly enhanced public confidence in the neutrality and materialization of the court.

One of the most essential features of the rule of law is procedural justice. If Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court had adhered to the position of trial centralism from the beginning, perhaps many disputes in this case would not have occurred. Now with the procedural guarantees mentioned above, coupled with the court's full interpretation of the law, the verdict of the case is bound to be more convincing. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, public opinion was much more stable than before, which is the best proof.

Although Mo Huanjing's arson is an occasional extreme event, the problems exposed are alarming. Follow-up accountability is also essential for serious problems that have been identified in the case. More importantly, the relevant units in the country should take a warning, draw inferences from others, conduct a comprehensive investigation and rectification of possible fire hazards, and establish a sustained and long-term mechanism.

The first-instance judgment of nanny arson is a short period. Tragedy has happened, and we hope that justice can be used to heal the wounds. We also hope that all parties concerned can learn from their mistakes and move on in pain.