Many people repeatedly pondered over the name of the bandit law, but Fang Yun continued speaking.
"Therefore, it's very simple to determine whether a law is a righteous law or a bandit law. If a law is inclined to protect victims and potential victims, it's definitely a righteous law. If a law is inclined to protect murderers, it's definitely a bandit law.
"I'll use an example to illustrate why some laws are bandit laws and not righteous laws.
"If someone commits fraud, for example, he says that he wants to do a big business and asks his relatives and friends to lend him money. He'll pay them back double afterward. But in reality, he keeps the money for himself and spends it extravagantly. Then, he lies to his relatives and friends that he lost money in the business.
"We all know that for swindlers, there's no cap on their punishment in the past. There's a death sentence. However, some countries now believe that all crimes of fraud shouldn't be sentenced to death because there's no direct killing. However, the swindler's case isn't over. The people who were swindled run out of money. Some people even borrowed money from others to pay the swindler. These people can't live as usual. Therefore, some of them committed suicide. Some even committed suicide by ingesting arsenic. Dozens of people died.
"According to the current laws of some countries, this swindler will be exiled for at most twenty years. However, in reality, the harm this criminal causes to society is far greater than ordinary criminals on death row. They've indirectly killed too many people. Any righteous group will believe that such people deserve to die. However, if a country believes that such criminals don't deserve to die no matter how many people they indirectly kill, it means that the country's laws don't protect the victims to the greatest extent. They also give up on protecting their citizens who might be harmed in the future. This is a bandit law that protects murderers.
"Then, what's the greatest protection of citizens? It's very simple. It's to eliminate the direct factor that harms citizens, which is the existence of murderers. Therefore, the existence of the death penalty is to protect the kind citizens to the greatest extent.
"Some legalists like to say that once a criminal realizes that they've committed a capital crime, they'll give up on themselves and become worse. Anyway, they'll die anyway. If this logic is true, then there's bound to be another type of criminal who won't commit crimes because of the death penalty, but since they realize that they won't die no matter how serious the crime is, they'll simply do whatever they want and become even worse.
"In reality, the truly vicious criminals aren't afraid of any threats. Whether there's a death penalty or not, they'll commit heinous crimes. Criminals who weren't so cruel often gave up on committing crimes because they were afraid of death. Then, was it the cruel criminals who gave up on themselves and increased the destruction and killed more people, or was it the criminals who reduced the destruction and did not kill more people because they were afraid of the death penalty? We don't have accurate data, so I don't know the results. I can't be like some people from the Legalists who say that the death penalty won't deter criminals and will only make them worse. "
"There is a large amount of evidence to prove that when the death penalty is abolished in a region, there will be a sharp increase in vicious crimes, so much so that some regions have no choice but to reinstate the death penalty. Moreover, in different areas with similar levels of wealth, areas with the death penalty tended to have a lower rate of vicious crime than areas without the death penalty. Of course, there are a few regions that have different statistics, but they can only be treated as examples and are meaningless. "
"There are also people who believe that everyone's life is equal. It's wrong for a murderer to kill someone. We don't have the right to take away a murderer's life. If we do, we'll be the same as a murderer. This view sounds very reasonable at first. "
"We have to understand that a person doesn't only have one life. He has many other existences, such as his feelings, his concerns, his experiences, his abilities, his contributions, and so on. There are also other people's hopes in him. He carries the love of his parents, the feelings of his relatives, the feelings of his husband, wife, or children, the friendship of his friends, and the mission of his country and his people. A person is an infinite collection of things. "
"Then, when a murderer kills a victim, not only does he erase the victim's existence, but he also erases the feelings of his friends and family. Do his friends and family have the right to punish him? I think so. If a murderer erases a part of his country and his people, does the power of the country have the right to punish him? I also think so. "
"There are also people who say that because there will be unjust cases, the death penalty will kill innocent people. Then, if there is no death penalty, will there be no unjust cases? According to this logic, since there might be unjust cases, it's better to give up on justice and not arrest all the criminals to ensure that there won't be any unjust cases. This is a classic example of giving up eating for fear of choking. Even children understand this logic. We know that we can choke to death when we eat, so what we need to do is to avoid choking to death, not avoid eating! "
"There are all kinds of theories, but they can't avoid a problem. The executors of the law can do their best to ensure that the death penalty convicts deserve to die, but what can those who oppose the death penalty use to ensure that more innocent people won't be killed? They can't do it. They can only talk about it because they won't be the ones dying. "
"There are a few Legalists who want to abolish the death penalty for another reason. It's the same method as the bandit group I mentioned before. That is, in order to gain more power, the Legalists have to set a new Legalist standard. Furthermore, only the Legalists can understand, interpret, and use this new standard. Only then can the Legalists have sole control over the law. Think about it, if everyone can influence the law and use it, what will the status of the Legalists be? Therefore, the Legalists want to monopolize everything related to the law, deny the original moral standards, and rebuild a legal standard that benefits them. This is what they have to do. "
"This also explains why the Legalists don't use the moral standards that are universally applicable to the human race. Instead, they create or borrow all kinds of new theories and new standards, and then make laws based on these new standards. This is not allowed to happen in Jingguo! "
Fang Yun scanned the venue with a cold gaze.
Many Legalists felt guilty because Fang Yun was right. The Legalists constantly influenced the law in order to protect their own interests. They were actually another form of bandit group.
Fang Yundao: "Then, will there be a bandit law in the kind-hearted group? My answer is that there will be. Some people will find it strange. Didn't they say that the descendants of kind-hearted groups don't have the bloodline of bandits? Yes, some people don't have the bloodline of bandits, but some people are like the bandit group. They clearly know that they are far more likely to commit crimes than normal citizens. This is very consistent with the instinct of the descendants of bandits. "
You've already exceeded your reading limit for today. If you want to read more, please log in.
Login
Select text and click 'Report' to let us know about any bad translation.
