Nie Shubin, Teng Xingshan

 Nie Shubin, Teng Xingshan and call Geji Le figure, is the name of the judicial system can not be erased. These victimizes innocent citizens by the media after the case has aroused public strong response; so as to promote the January 2007 Supreme Court the right to recover the Death Penalty. It can be seen in 30 years, the most important criminal justice reform measures. It is out of favor in favor of judicial intervention in place, help unify the death penalty performance standards, conform to the reduction and the international trend of abolishing the death penalty, the death penalty in large part to reduce the number of wrongful convictions. Thus, in terms of policy or from the practice effect, are subject to the national and international recognition.
There is now a case will go to your hands, and a most likely innocent citizens were sentenced to death four times. His fate is in your hands. time constraints, we can only take emergency calls made in this way.
case basic situation is October 12, 2004, Chencun Town, Shunde District, Guangdong, Tzu Chi Abode of two nuns were killed in the same year on November 12 into the village with Ganxin Hao Gan Jinhua home due to being detained June 10 .2005 , Foshan City Intermediate People's Court on robbery and sentenced to death Gan Jinhua, sweet appeal. In the same year on December 28, the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court of Final Appeal upheld the original verdict .2006 April, Gan Jinhua innocence before execution, the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court sent the case to Back to the retrial. Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court handed down in December 2009 to maintain the death penalty.
counsel based on the case file and opinions, we believe that the case not only the procedural hearing many times, more importantly, no substantive issues to identify, counsel has not been a major doubt any reasonable explanation. judgments Gan Jinhua is no reliable evidence of the death penalty, not to mention the complete chain of evidence. For example, in accordance with the confession of the accused of abandoning the location of the tool, can not find the so-called weapon; prosecutors never presented in court confession of the accused's blood on the gloves, socks, blood, weapons, keys and any other physical evidence, because there is no find. For example, Gan Jinhua confessions and wounds the deceased has been unable to match the number and location. Provincial Public Security Bureau's submission before March 10, the day concluded, the prosecutor has never in the first instance, after the second trial and the retrial out of first instance stage.
our view, procedural justice relates to people's fundamental confidence in the judicial system. In this case, the accused and defense counsel is not required most of the key witnesses were allowed to appear in court, including the identification of experts, participation of police torture, no crime can prove Gan Jinhua time witnesses. the last time trial, the defendant's wife Wang Yuping, He Shuzhen mother, sister Gan Li Huan wait outside to testify in court, but the judge rejected. led the defense lawyer cross-examine the facts can not be critical. According to the principle of direct and words, the judge must personally listen to both parties, witnesses and other participants in the When tribunal oral presentation and the court debate, and can only be based on the oral cross-examination and debate of these to form the heart of certain facts of the case. This is clearly the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure; Supreme Court explanation , and can be used as the basis for deciding. ; (c) the testimony of the case can not afford to directly determine the role of the trial; (d) other reasons. the present case, no witness is a statutory condition that can not appear, nor the personnel to start court witnesses and experts do not get permission to appear.
the economy and society, traditional values and other factors, resulting in the appearance of witnesses in judicial practice rate in low; but this is not against the law to force provisions of the reasons. especially in death penalty cases and involving the key evidence, the more can not be sloppy. the case of witnesses, experts do not appear in court, not because witnesses fear threat, but because of fear of prosecution cross-examination. We hope that, through a major Supreme Court cases through efforts to make the concept of procedural justice can go to legal workers around the heart, and gradually being implemented.
China must gradually abolish the death penalty, but before the abolition of the death penalty must be strict, Caution, less killing. and unjust to kill victimizes innocent citizens, it is of any society and the individual can not accept. Death is final, mistakenly put through the judicial process executions of innocent citizens, not only to individual citizens and families can make up grief, but also bring to a nation enduring a deep pain. We call upon and improve the current death penalty review procedures, the prosecution and the defense the opportunity to be presented and debated to protect the procedural rights of the accused, reduce the death sentence in the community context, the gradual establishment of three-tiered system of death penalty cases; extend the period of the death penalty and make the greatest efforts to reduce the possibility of unjust killing victimizes.