First, the other debater avoided talking about Xie's subjective intention and repeatedly avoided our questions. Does the opposing debater admit that he is wrong? The other debater only thanks? Kill cattle? What are its objective behavior characteristics? Vandalizing property? Obviously, it is an objective imputation and a serious violation of China's criminal law? Subjectivity and objectivity are consistent? Principle of conviction.
Second, the opponent's debater refused to admit that Xie had controlled the cow before killing it, which was purely sophistry. It has been clearly pointed out in this debate that Xie smuggled the cows out of the dairy farm on 10 and 10, which is not controlled possession. Is it necessary to bring cattle to Mars to be controlled and possessed?
3. The opponent's debater is only obsessed with Xie's first criminal act, but turns a blind eye to Xie's second criminal act, trying to generalize, which is completely the performance of the opponent's confession. Xie's two behaviors should be analyzed in a unified way.
We believe that Xie's behavior constitutes theft.
Xie has full criminal responsibility, subjectively has the intention of illegally possessing cattle, and secretly steals cattle, which infringes on the ownership enjoyed by the owner of cattle according to law, and meets all the elements of theft, so it should be characterized as theft. As for the act of killing, skinning and taking meat after stealing cattle, it's just a thank you for the disposal of stolen goods, right? Ex post facto impunity? .
We believe that Xie's behavior does not constitute the crime of intentionally destroying public and private property.
To constitute the crime of intentional destruction of public and private property, there must be intentional destruction of public and private property subjectively. In this case, Xie has no enmity with the dairy farm, and there is no reason to deliberately destroy the cows. If Xie just wanted to destroy the cow, he wouldn't take the cow out of the dairy farm and slaughter it, nor would he take the beef. Moreover, it has been clearly stated in the debate that Xie wants to possess cattle and obtain beef in order to eat fresh beef.
It can be seen that Xie did not intentionally destroy cattle subjectively, and obviously did not constitute the crime of intentionally destroying public and private property. Xie's behavior constitutes theft.
Finally, remind everyone that Xie's two acts can only be punished as one crime. This is also in line with the provisions of China's laws and judicial interpretations on theft.
According to the Supreme People's Court's explanation on the trial of theft cases, theft within one year, as long as the last theft constitutes a crime, should be classified as theft. In this case, Xie's two thefts occurred within one year, and the second theft of cattle worth more than 7,000 yuan undoubtedly constituted theft, so Xie's two thefts should be unified as theft.
Dear judges, debaters and friends at the scene, Bacon said in On Justice: An unfair referee is worse than many unfair behaviors, because unfair behaviors only pollute the water flow, while unfair referees destroy the water source. ?
Therefore, only a correct conviction can lead to a fair judgment; Only a fair judgment can safeguard the dignity of the law; Only by defining Xie's behavior as theft can we make a fair judgment and truly safeguard the dignity of the law.
The third part of the concluding statement of criminal debate 1. The plaintiff and his agent ad litem spoke.
After the presiding judge announces to enter the court debate stage, the plaintiff will first state his opinions on the facts, evidence and applicable laws investigated by the court. After the plaintiff's statement, if the plaintiff has an agent, his agent will supplement or further explain the plaintiff's statement in order to better safeguard the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. If the plaintiff does not appear in court, his agent ad litem may speak.
2. The defendant and his agent ad litem reply.
After the plaintiff and his agent ad litem have finished speaking, the defendant shall speak on the facts, evidence and applicable laws investigated by the court, and defend the plaintiff's speech. If the defendant has an agent ad litem, after the defendant has finished speaking, his agent ad litem will supplement or further explain the defendant's speech in order to better safeguard the defendant's legitimate rights and interests. If the defendant does not appear in court, his agent ad litem may speak in defense.
3. The third person and his agent ad litem speak or reply.
If a third party participates in a lawsuit, after the defendant or defendant has made a statement or defense, the court shall ask the third party to make a statement or defense, and let it put forward its own opinions on the facts and evidence investigated by the court, the applicable law and the defendant and the defendant's statements and defense. If a third party has an agent ad litem, he may speak or reply by his agent ad litem.
4. Debate with each other.
After the above-mentioned court debate sequence is over, the judge shall ask both parties and the third party to ask each other questions about the case, refute each other's claims and explain their opinions. When the parties argue with each other, the judge should focus on the problems that must be solved in the case, enlighten and guide the parties when necessary, and the judge must fairly protect the rights of the parties to debate. The parties shall not abuse their right to debate, argue unreasonably, quarrel with each other or even make trouble. At the end of the court debate, all parties have the right to state their final opinions. Therefore, at the end of the court debate, the presiding judge should consult the final opinions of the parties in the order of plaintiff, defendant and third party, so as to fully ensure the parties to exercise their litigation rights.