Why are villagers supporting the illegal administration in Guangdongs 10 drug-related families?

category:Global
 Why are villagers supporting the illegal administration in Guangdongs 10 drug-related families?


In May 9th, the publicity of Huilai County Public Security Bureau and county Party committee did not confirm the authenticity of the incident. It turned out that the practice of painting is not a public security organ, but a special action organized by the government of Ao Jiang town. The local drug control office said 10 families were painted from five villages, and family members involved the heavy system of drug trafficking cases and spray painted drug-related families, with the consent of the local villagers. However, in the evening of the event of May 8th, the office of the anti drug office in the town of Ao Jiang said that they were aware of the inadequacies of the spray painting behavior and had begun to carry out the removal work. In response to this incident, the Internet public opinion quickly split into two distinct parties. One side opposed the local governments painting practice while the other side had the opposite. One faction against local government practices believes that the spray painting behavior of the government of the Ao Jiang town is discriminatory. It can not be supported by laws and regulations, nor is it contrary to the unconnected modern rule of law. Such a practice is totally contrary to the goal of comprehensively administering the country according to law, and such ethos can never be encouraged. The other one believes that only the heavy code can effectively punish the evil, and to deal with the suspected drug trafficking of malignant criminals, it is necessary to use such extreme means. Therefore, they not only firmly support the government of the government of the town of the poisonous family spray painting, even the government and the police should take more of the means of thunder, to fight drug crime. The two views are arguing fiercely, so that the dispute of the event is not just whether the local government is right or wrong, but what is the information hidden in the public opinion dispute. On the face of it, the focus of the controversy is the rule of law. However, if we take the law as the criterion, we will find that the facts and jurisprudence of the incident are very clear and there is not much room for controversy. There is no doubt that the practice of the government of the Ao River has no evidence in law. The criminal law will never support the punishment of the family members of the criminal suspects, and the administrative regulations have never given the authority to the local government to discriminate discriminatory against the criminal family. As for the unjustifiable behavior of this kind of behavior, the attitude of the government of the Ao Jiang town is very correct, quickly acknowledges its own mistakes and immediately begins to take corrective measures. Therefore, on the level of rule of law, it can be said that there is a definite answer. Since the incident has already had a definite answer to the rule of law, the real core of the controversy is no longer the rule of law itself. In fact, even those who most support disciplinary measures such as paint spraying in drug-related families do not justify such acts in legitimacy. What they really care about is not whether this is legal or not, but whether it is effective. In other words, for those who support such practices, whether the measures taken by the criminals and their relatives is strictly in accordance with the requirements of the laws and regulations is secondary. It is their most concern if they can effectively combat crime and curb crime. The objections will undoubtedly pay more attention to the legitimacy of this practice and whether it is in conformity with the spirit of the modern rule of law. In essence, they are supporters of the spirit of the rule of law and procedural justice. By contrast, those netizens who shout good shots are undoubtedly fans of traditional morality and result justice. Many peoples sense of justice is very simple. When people see evil people, they naturally think of punishing them. This kind of punishment is often expanded because of the resentment of evil people and even others. There is no doubt that such a principle of justice has a certain effect on restraining evil and that it can be used for thousands of years and that it remains in the hearts of some people until today. The procedural justice corresponding to result justice is the symbol of the spirit of modern rule of law. This concept holds that the authority of law and the rule of law is reflected in the just, strict and consistent implementation. Therefore, only by strictly observing the law and respecting the procedure can justice be carried out. It is doubtless unfair to impose punishment on the people around him because of ones crime and no legal support. We often assume that people have accepted the principle of procedural justice for a long time, but they ignore the potential impact of outcome justice in many peoples hearts. The fierce controversy surrounding the spray painting incident is a direct manifestation of this social reality. On this incident of painting the drug-related families, we will find that the villagers agree with the government. These villagers may not all know the law, but they must be deeply disgusted at the same familys drug manufacturing and trafficking. It is true that we must condemn the irresponsible practice of the local government, which is irresponsible for the law and the rule of law; but at the same time, it should be seen that the local family related crime is indeed serious to a certain extent and must be deterred by powerful means. On the issue of combating crime, it is by no means the two option of Inaction and reckless action. On the basis of strict compliance with the law, it is the ultimate goal to fight against crime actively and moderately. Source: China Youth Net editor: Guo Ping _B7442 We often assume that people have accepted the principle of procedural justice for a long time, but they ignore the potential impact of outcome justice in many peoples hearts. The fierce controversy surrounding the spray painting incident is a direct manifestation of this social reality. On this incident of painting the drug-related families, we will find that the villagers agree with the government. These villagers may not all know the law, but they must be deeply disgusted at the same familys drug manufacturing and trafficking. It is true that we must condemn the irresponsible practice of the local government, which is irresponsible for the law and the rule of law; but at the same time, it should be seen that the local family related crime is indeed serious to a certain extent and must be deterred by powerful means. On the issue of combating crime, it is by no means the two option of Inaction and reckless action. On the basis of strict compliance with the law, it is the ultimate goal to fight against crime actively and moderately.