Defendant Lin Senhao argued that he only poisoned Huang Yang on April Fool's Day and did not intend to kill Huang Yang. Defenders have no objection to the charges in the indictment, but they suggest that Lin Senhao was an indirect intentional homicide. After arriving at the case, he can truthfully confess the crime and has a good attitude of pleading guilty. It is recommended to give a lighter punishment according to law.
In the end, the court sentenced the defendant Lin Senhao to death and deprived him of his political rights for life for the crime of intentional homicide. After the death sentence, the defendant's defense lawyer immediately appealed and the case entered the second instance.
Before the second trial, a petition letter signed by Fudan University 177 students about not sentencing Lin Senhao to death was sent to the Shanghai Higher People's Court, along with a statement. It is suggested that the defendant Lin Senhao be given a chance to turn over a new leaf and take care of the parents of the victim Huang Yang in the future. "We are students of Fudan University, and we ask the court not to immediately sentence Lin Senhao to death." The request letter said that Lin Senhao poisoned his classmate Huang Yang, which was a serious crime with unimaginable consequences. Lin himself must repent from the bottom of his heart. If he survives, he should do his filial piety and try his best to atone for the victim's parents. Fudan students jointly pleaded for the murderer of the poisoning case, and most netizens said it was difficult to understand.
So, should the defendant Lin Senhao apply the death penalty for immediate execution? It deserves our attention. Here, the author believes that according to the current laws, legislative intent and the development trend of death penalty in China, Lin Senhao, the defendant in Fudan poisoning case, should not be sentenced to death immediately. The following is the legal basis and analysis of my conclusion:
I. Legal basis:
Article 48 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "The death penalty is only applicable to criminals who commit extremely serious crimes. For criminals who should be sentenced to death, if they do not have to be executed immediately, they can be sentenced to death with a two-year suspension. " It can be seen that the death penalty is only applicable to criminals who commit extremely serious crimes, that is, criminals whose criminal punishment is particularly harmful to the interests of the country and the people and whose circumstances are particularly bad. According to the theory of criminal law, "extremely serious crime" is the result of "unity of subject and object"
The author's understanding of "extremely serious crime" must have two aspects: 1, the objective harm caused by the crime that has happened is extremely serious; 2. The criminal's subjective malignancy or personal danger is extremely serious. In other words, it is necessary to understand and determine whether the perpetrator's crime belongs to "extremely serious crime" from two aspects: the actual harmful result caused by the perpetrator's crime and its subjective malignancy.
In the Fudan poisoning case, one person died objectively, which is extremely serious. As to whether the viciousness in subjective aspect and behavior belongs to "extremely serious crime", the author does not agree with the "extremely cruel means" identified by Shanghai Intermediate People's Court. Defendant Lin Senhao argued that he only poisoned Huang Yang on April Fool's Day and did not intend to kill Huang Yang. For this excuse, the public prosecution agency's rebuttal is relatively weak.
Two. Applicable standards of immediate execution of death penalty
20 1 1 On May 24th, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its annual work report for 20 10, stating that when the Supreme Court tried the death penalty review cases, it was not necessary to sentence the death penalty to be executed immediately, and all of them were sentenced to death penalty with a two-year suspension.
Unify the applicable standards of the death penalty. According to the report, the Supreme Court insists on hearing all death penalty cases in the second instance, strictly grasps and unifies the application standards of the death penalty, and ensures that the death penalty is only applicable to a very small number of criminals with extremely serious crimes. In accordance with the requirements of "Several Opinions on Implementing the Criminal Policy of Tempering Justice with Leniency", those who are given a lighter or mitigated punishment according to law shall be given a lighter or mitigated punishment according to law; If it is not necessary to be sentenced to death immediately, the death penalty shall be suspended for two years.
At the same time, carry out mediation in incidental civil litigation in accordance with the law, promote the victims and defendants of crimes caused by intensified civil disputes to reach an understanding agreement, try not to be sentenced to death immediately according to law, and resolve social contradictions to the greatest extent.
In this case, because the defendant Lin Senhao's crime has reached the level of "not particularly serious", should the death penalty be applied and executed immediately, and should he be sentenced to death immediately? In my opinion, it is not absolutely necessary to sentence the death penalty to immediate execution. His criminal behavior did not reach the level of the most heinous crime.
Third, the development trend of the death penalty system
In the past 20 years, the pace of abolishing the death penalty in the world has obviously accelerated, and abolishing or restricting the death penalty has become a worldwide trend and trend. As of April 30, 2009, more than two-thirds of countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in fact, of which 92 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, 10 countries have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes, and 36 countries have actually abolished the death penalty (based on the fact that the death penalty has not been executed in the past 10 years), which means that as many as 65,440 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in fact. 20 14 Countries that have not abolished the death penalty are mainly concentrated in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia.
With the development of economy and the progress of society, human's legal consciousness is generally enhanced. Since the modern western bourgeois enlightenment thinkers put forward the humanitarian thought of punishment, the necessity and rationality of the death penalty began to be doubted. Beccaria, an Italian criminal jurist, was the first to attack the death penalty in an all-round way, and put forward the idea of abolishing the death penalty systematically in theory. Beccaria clearly pointed out in the book Crime and Punishment published by 1764: "The death penalty is not a right, and I have proved that it is impossible." Moreover, he believes: "It is no good to use the death penalty to prove the severity of the law."
From a humanitarian point of view, the abolition of the death penalty is an international development trend and the only way to develop the concept of human rights. We can not only maintain social stability by executing criminals, but also have other better, more humane and more effective alternatives to the death penalty.