法律和其他人类著作相同，出自人类灵魂之手，必受人类灵魂之扰，一部法律必然存在一种倾向，倾向于有罪的人难逃法网，或倾向于无罪的人难被诬陷。
Laws, like all other human creations, originate from the human soul and are inevitably influenced by it. Every law must inherently lean in one of two directions: either toward ensuring that the guilty cannot escape justice, or toward ensuring that the innocent cannot be wrongfully convicted.
而对于政府、权力者、资本持有者而言，无论什么样的社会中，他们对于平民都拥有天然的优势，如果一部法律倾向于给有罪的人定罪，那么冤假错案的发生必然水涨船高，对于任何一位普通公民而言，是倾向于给一个与自己无关的有罪的人定罪，还是保护自己在内的每一位公民不会轻易被权力者污蔑而定罪，选择和答案不言而喻，必然是保护大多数人包括自己的幸福为目的的法律，才是正义的法律，这种法律才有合法性。
For governments, those in power, and holders of capital, their advantage over ordinary citizens is inherent in any society. If a law is inclined toward convicting the guilty at all costs, the occurrence of wrongful convictions will inevitably increase. For an average citizen, the choice is clear: should we prioritize convicting a guilty person unrelated to ourselves, or should we prioritize protecting everyone, including ourselves, from being unjustly accused or convicted? The answer is self-evident: a just law must aim to protect the happiness and rights of the majority, including oneself. Only such a law can be considered legitimate.
而程序正义，正代表了法治一部分的正义性。
Procedural justice embodies the principle of fairness within the rule of law.
现实中一些大案要案，时常被“资本家”或“政治家”通过所谓的取证程序错误，审理程序错误等等程序上漏洞，而让一名看似案情确凿的人逃脱法律的制裁，让人心生感慨和愤懑！但是这正是程序正义的可贵之处！
什么叫做事实清楚，证据确凿？如何界定和判断？谁来界定和判断？如果所谓的事实清楚，证据确凿，就可以绕开程序的正义，直接给予罪犯审判，或者直接不经审判而定罪甚至惩罚，又如何保障无罪的人不被轻易诬陷和定罪呢？
权利者如果想栽赃陷害，收买几个证人，制作一些虚假的视频影像，甚至栽赃陷害一些物证在普通公民身上，这在法庭上算不算事实清楚，证据确凿呢？而程序正义看似给权利者开后门，事实上确是普通公民最后的铠甲！
In reality, we often witness high-profile cases where “capitalists” or “politicians” exploit procedural errors—such as flaws in evidence collection or trial processes—to escape conviction, even when their guilt seems obvious. Such instances can provoke public frustration and indignation. However, this is precisely the value of procedural justice.
What does “clear facts and conclusive evidence” mean? How is it defined or judged? And who gets to make this determination? If so-called “clear facts and conclusive evidence” could override procedural fairness, allowing for direct judgment or punishment without proper trial, how could we ensure that innocent individuals are not wrongfully accused or convicted?
If those in power seek to frame someone, they could bribe witnesses, fabricate videos, or even plant material evidence on an ordinary citizen. Would such manufactured scenarios be considered “clear facts and conclusive evidence” in court? Procedural justice, often perceived as a loophole for the powerful, is in fact the last armor protecting ordinary citizens.
无论是否“事实清楚、证据确凿”，都不能绕开正常的取证程序，审理程序，审判程序，执行程序等等程序，才有申辩的机会，才有质证的权力，才能尽可能保障公民的基本权利。
当然，我们渴望一个不放过一个坏人，也不冤枉一个好人的社会，但在人类社会中，这只是一个美好的幻想和期待，我们怀揣的这样那样的愿望，却不能罔顾现实世界的残酷。
无论是亿万富翁还是高级官员被定罪无疑是重要的，甚至可能在一定程度上影响我们。但是，如果对他们的定罪是以牺牲我们的个人权利为代价的，并为迫害大多数人打开了大门，那么，与保护我们自己权利的重要性相比，他们的命运就显得微不足道了。
维护程序正义是法治国家中所有公民应该共同努力维护的法治基石！
No matter how “clear” or “conclusive” the evidence may seem, the legal process—including evidence collection, trial proceedings, and sentencing—must not be bypassed. It is through these procedures that defendants have the opportunity to defend themselves, challenge evidence, and safeguard their basic rights as citizens.
Of course, we aspire to a world where no guilty person escapes justice and no innocent person is wrongfully convicted. Yet in human society, such ideals are but dreams and expectations. While we hold onto these hopes, we cannot ignore the harsh realities of the world we live in.
Whether a billionaire or a high-ranking official is convicted is undoubtedly significant and may even impact us to some degree. But if their conviction comes at the expense of our individual rights and opens the door for the persecution of the majority, then their fate pales in comparison to the importance of protecting our own rights.
Upholding procedural justice is a cornerstone of the rule of law in any society, and it is the responsibility of all citizens to protect this foundation together.
Shao Suyang's Blog 
留下评论