To answer whether late justice is justice, we must first solve what is late justice and whether it is synonymous with late justice is not justice and late justice is justice.
The author of Ye divides "justice" into three categories: one is "early justice", that is, the case is concluded fairly before the expiration of the trial period stipulated by law; The second is "trial on time", that is, the case is concluded fairly when the trial period stipulated by law expires; The third is "belated justice", that is, the case did not get a fair result after legal trial procedures, and it took a long time and more application procedures to get a fair result. In addition, there is "justice has not arrived", that is, the case has not received a fair trial result from beginning to end. It can be seen that the author of Ye defines "fair on time" and "fair late" purely by time, specifically by whether the "fair trial result" exceeds the trial period stipulated by law.
If the author and the author of Ye have no objection to the meaning of "late justice", it refers to the final judgment result of substantive justice made by the judicial organ after hearing the case. The author believes that although it is reasonable to judge and determine whether it is "late justice" by whether it exceeds the statutory trial limit, it cannot be simplified, absolute or extreme, and everything is obtained within or outside the statutory trial limit.
In my opinion, the fairness of being late is not only a judicial issue, but also a legislative issue. As far as legislation is concerned, the trial period of a case is determined by the legislator, and when determining the length of the trial period, the legislator will inevitably consider and should consider how long the trial period is generally stipulated, which will not only enable the judicial organs to have enough time to hear the case and make a fair substantive judgment, but also meet or adapt to the psychological expectations of the parties in pursuit of a fair judgment result in time. If the prescribed trial period is too short to allow the judge to hear the case normally and make a fair judgment, not only the judge will have opinions, but also the parties and even the public will have opinions. On the contrary, if the prescribed trial period is too long, which exceeds the normal needs of judges in hearing cases and exceeds the expectations or affordability of the parties and the public, it will naturally raise objections. Imagine, if the law stipulates that the trial period of ordinary civil cases is three to five years, will people still think that a fair judgment of a civil case after three to five years of trial is "trial on time"? Therefore, even if the legislation stipulates the time limit for hearing cases, there is still a problem of "degree". Within this "degree", people may think it is appropriate, and beyond this "degree", people may think it is inappropriate. It doesn't mean that no matter how the legislation stipulates the trial period, it is "justice on time" and there is no problem of "justice late".
As for the administration of justice, in the abstract, it is not "belated justice" to say that the case has not received a fair judgment beyond the statutory trial period. But the problem is that judicial activities have always been carried out for a specific case, and there is no abstract and generalized judicial activity. This is one of the essential attributes that distinguish judicature from legislation. Therefore, in judicial activities, justice is always concrete and specific, and there is no abstract and universal justice. Judging whether a just substantive judgment result is "justice of being late" or "justice of arriving on time" is a concrete problem in itself, which needs to be analyzed in detail and varies from case to case. There shouldn't be and can't be an absolute objective standard applicable to the evaluation of all cases, no matter whether the fair trial result is "justice on time" or "justice late". If this is the case, those cases that have been disclosed in newspapers for three, five or even eight or ten years and experienced three, five or even eight times of first instance-second instance-remanded for retrial-second instance-remanded for retrial, as long as the results are fair, as long as each trial procedure does not exceed the legal trial period, are all "justice on time" rather than "justice late". I'm afraid it's hard to agree with this. Therefore, judging whether a fair judgment result is "late justice" cannot be simply, mechanically and absolutely based on whether the legal trial period is exceeded. A case with simple case, clear facts, clear responsibilities and clear legal basis can be judged in a short time after the trial, but it was artificially delayed for half a year before the judgment was made. Even a fair judgment that could be made in the first instance procedure was artificially made after the second instance procedure. These situations cannot be said to be "justice on time" but "justice late".
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the author and Ye's author have the same meaning, understanding and use of "late justice", which refers to the substantive and fair judgment results made by the judicial organs after the trial of the case, but the difference is that they have different understandings of the meaning of "late". But this difference is not substantial, and the fundamental difference lies in "justice that is late is not justice" or "justice that is late is also justice".
Second, what is "late justice is not justice"
What is "justice" in judicature? In recent years, there is a basic consensus in the theoretical and judicial circles that judicial justice includes substantive justice and procedural justice. Substantive justice refers to the fairness of the result, that is, the judgment result of the case is fair in entity. Procedural justice refers to procedural justice, that is, the opportunity and treatment provided by the trial process of a case to the litigants and other people involved in the trial process are fair, and "justice in the trial process of a case" of course includes that the judge shall not delay the lawsuit artificially in order to protect the interests of one party or for other reasons, so that the parties cannot get fair substantive judgment results in time.
The famous saying that "late justice is not justice" is based on the above understanding of judicial justice. Among them, "justice" in "late justice" only refers to the result of substantive justice, and "justice" in "injustice" refers to judicial justice including substantive justice and procedural justice. Due to the different connotations and extensions of "justice" in different contexts, the thesis that "late justice is not justice" has been formed. In my opinion, its basic meaning is as follows:
First, "belated justice", even if it is a correct judgment of the essence of the case, should not be done. Because "being late" means not arriving on time normally, which makes the waiting parties pay more time, energy and resources that they don't need to pay.
Secondly, "late justice" also means that it is caused by people, or because investigators are irresponsible in their work, or because investigators need to protect one party. In judicial practice, some judges want to help a party for some reason, but if they can't help in substance or in procedure, they deliberately delay the proceedings and deliberately cause "belated justice". It is not uncommon for the author to be a full-time lawyer 10 years.
Third, although "late justice" can make the winning party get a fair legal evaluation, this late evaluation not only prolongs the undue damage to the reputation of the party concerned, but also may cause undue loss of interests, such as making him lose a job opportunity or business opportunity.
Fourth, "belated justice" may lead to the winning party getting "legal IOUs" instead of the economic benefits determined by the judgment. In judicial practice, there are often some parties who wait for a long time and finally get a successful judgment but can't execute it, or the other party's whereabouts are unknown, or the other party's property has all evaporated, or the other party looks like a rogue: "You want money, there is one."
Fifth, "belated justice" may cause irreparable consequences to the parties. As a defender, the author once handled a case of intentional homicide. The defendant was detained for three and a half years and was finally released after the court of first instance ruled that he was not guilty. But no matter what, it can't save the prison he suffered.
It is precisely because of the above that bourgeois thinkers have long put forward the conclusion that "late justice is not justice". It is precisely because of the above problems in China's real life, including judicial practice, that people have resonated with the famous saying that "late justice is not justice" from foreign countries and reached a consensus.
Regrettably, the author of Ye put forward the proposition that "justice that is late is also justice", and said that "justice will not change qualitatively because of the time sequence", "justice is late for whatever reason, but the final arrival of justice is expected by the whole society, courts and judges." Obviously, "justice" and "late justice" in the author's "justice also" are synonyms and both refer to the result of substantive justice. Even so, it cannot be said that "justice will not change qualitatively because of the time sequence", let alone that "late justice is also the ultimate goal expected by society, courts and judges". I have been a lawyer for 10 years, and I know that the justice people expect, whether it is the whole society or the litigants, is judicial justice including substantive justice and procedural justice. The justice that people expect is "justice that arrives early" and "justice that arrives on time", not "justice that arrives late". If some people "go through all kinds of hardships, they can bear all material, mental and even physical losses and pains at all costs, and the lawsuit will go from the grassroots to the central government", it is not because they are willing to "expect justice that is late", but because they have no choice but to get justice that arrives early and on time.
Let us correctly understand the famous saying that "late justice is not justice" and work together to obtain judicial justice including substantive justice and procedural justice of "early arrival" and "punctuality".
I don't think justice should be late.
1. First of all, justice is time-sensitive, and late justice is not real justice.
The fact is unique, so the result should be unique and correct.
3. If they are all tinkering, why bother with efficiency?
Flight delay costs money now. Although several airlines have tried their best to cheat, they still have to pay for it. This in itself is a respect for time.
Bernard Shaw, a great British writer, said that Nobel Prize in Literature was a life raft that came late. Is being late justice?
6. As a legal flaw, late justice should be paid by the court. Otherwise, every year on New Year's Day, a ticket for yesterday's (New Year's Eve) Spring Festival gala will be sent to the national judges to show fairness.