Source: Red Star News
Author: Yuheng
Should Wu Moulong's behavior be dealt with according to the crime of trafficking children, or is it dealt with according to the crime of abducting children?
The prototype of the film, the dear prototype Sun Zhuo, was sentenced in Shenzhen.On October 13th, the People's Court of Nanshan District of Shenzhen made a public judgment on the first instance of the first trial to the defendant Wu Moulong's abduction of children and Wu Mouguang in accordance with the law.A certain time in prison is two years.At the same time, Wu Moulong was ordered to compensate Sun Moufei and Peng Mouying for losses of 420,000 yuan, and compensated Fu Mou and Peng Moumou to lose 420,000 yuan (RMB, about 78,000 yuan, the same below).
After Sun Zhuo was abducted, his father Sun Ocean spent 14 years and 57 days before reuniting with his son.Over the years, Sun Haiyang's difficulties in seeking relatives and the abduction of the child's abduction of the suffering and injuries brought by the Sun family, through the movie dear and related reports adapted from the story, many strangers have a more intuitive feeling.Therefore, the social concern of the case is very high, and the punishment of the wicked, including all sectors of society, including Sun Haiyang, has high expectations.For example, before the trial, Sun Haiyang said in an interview that he hoped to die for traffickers, and said that if the verdict was too different from his expectations, he would appeal.
In contrast, the current results of the first instance are obviously far from Sun's expectations.Whether the five -year imprisonment is too light for the traffickers, it has also become the focus of attention of many netizens.
It is worth noting that the charges of Wu Moulong, a trafficker in the first instance, were crimes of abduction of children, not the crime of trafficking.Don't look at the difference between the two, but the corresponding sentencing standards are significantly different.According to the provisions of the Chinese Criminal Law, those who have trafficking women and children shall be sentenced to imprisonment of less than five years and less than ten years, and a fine; one of the other cases will be sentenced to more than ten years in prison or life imprisonment, and a fine or confiscation of confiscationProperty; the circumstances are particularly serious, the death penalty, and confiscated property.In other words, the minimum sentence of the trafficking of women and children is five years, and the maximum can be executed.For minors who are less than fourteen years old, those who are out of their families or guardians will be imprisoned or detained for less than five years.That is, the crime of abduction of children can only be sentenced to five years in prison.Therefore, if Wu Moulong led five years in the first instance of the crime of abduction, it was already punished for five years.
At this point, a key issue has emerged -should Wu Moulong's behavior be treated according to the crime of trafficking children, or is it dealt with according to the crime of abducting children?To answer this question, we need to clarify the difference between these two crimes.Among them, the object of abduction of children is limited to minors under the age of 14, and the scope of the trafficking women and children's crimes can be widely scope. It can be an adult woman or a child.In addition, it can be seen from the differences in specific charges that the crime of deceiving children is mainly to adopt or call or slavery, while the crime of trafficking women and children is mainly for profit.Based on these differences, and combined with specific details, Wu Moulong punished according to the crime of abducting children. It is not unreasonable.
For example, the information that has been disclosed currently stated that the court's trial found that the defendant Wu Moulong had abducted the victim Sun Mou and Fu Moumou in Nanshan District, Shenzhen on October 9, 2007 and December 28, 2007., And bring the two (at the time of 14) to the defendant Wu Mouguang's residence.Subsequently, Wu Moulong gave the victims to his fellow or relatives.In other words, Wu Moulong's abduction of two children is mainly given to his fellow or relatives, not for profit.
There is indeed controversial space in this.For example, the abduction children are given to their fellows or relatives to raise them, and adopted themselves, at least from a social perspective, it is obviously different.Does Wu Moulong "profit" in the process, and what is its judgment standard?You must know that considering the relationship between the two parties or relatives, if you simply "trading" to determine whether "profit" is "traded" directly, it may not be fair.After many years, what evidence is this key details locked by?These doubts require more detailed information disclosure and response.Because the two crimes corresponding to the sentencing standards are too large, they must be carefully considered in the identification to truly reflect fairness and fairness.
In addition to sentencing less than external expectations, civil compensation is 420,000 yuan, which is also huge different from the 5.8 million yuan civil claims proposed by the previous two victims' families.In this regard, Sun Haiyang has expressed unacceptable, "the cost of searching for children in 14 years is much higher than 420,000 yuan."
In summary, the current judgment of the first instance, whether it is the criminal liability part or the civil compensation part, has an obvious gap with the expectations and social expectations of the victim's family members.Therefore, it is foreseeable that the case is difficult to end in judicial procedures.The victim's agent lawyer has also stated that he will collect evidence and protest with Sun Haiyang.
Objectively speaking, due to the focus of public opinion and the continuous strengthening of the social atmosphere of the "zero tolerance" of the "zero tolerance" of the violations of women and children in recent years, all parties in the society have high social expectations for the judicial performance of the case.It is inevitable that the controversy of the trial results will be further enlarged.Therefore, this also tests the judicial justice's ability to judge.In any case, the more social iconic cases, the more trials can withstand the test of law and conscience.It is hoped that the final result of this case will allow the evil to pay the cost, so that the victim's family members will get the deserved consolation, and to release sufficient deterrent effects to the trafficking crime.
