Until now, some of my classmates still work in the public security, procuratorate, and judiciary systems.
Also, some classmates, friends, and mentors are scholars.
If we don’t talk about work, most people are peaceful, restrained, and rational “good people”.
But just don’t talk about work.
Whenever work is mentioned, it’s bound to be a split.
For so many years, I’ve always said I’m not a “die-hard” lawyer. Those famous “die-hard” lawyers in the江湖 (jianghu, a term for the legal profession), if you have the chance to ask them, they probably wouldn’t think I’m a “die-hard” lawyer either.
But my classmates, my friends, my mentors, almost unanimously think I am a “die-hard” lawyer. Some mentors also don’t forget to earnestly advise, “Hongwei, don’t be too extreme, and don’t just follow what others say.”
Take a simple example, torture to extract confessions.
Suppose there are 10 people: 3 are mentors (one purely academic, one part-time civil and commercial lawyer, one part-time criminal lawyer), 3 lawyers (two civil and commercial, one criminal), and four classmates or friends within the system.
If I talk to these ten people about torture to extract confessions.
Generally speaking, only the two classmates or friends who do criminal law will talk to me about the torture to extract confessions they encounter in their work.
The rest, a purely academic mentor, a mentor who is a part-time civil and commercial lawyer, two classmates or friends who are civil and commercial lawyers, and four classmates or friends within the system. These eight people will all say in unison: “How could there still be torture to extract confessions now? There’s a lifelong responsibility system now, who would take this risk for a case?” (Why do I say “generally speaking”? Because a classmate of mine didn’t believe there was torture to extract confessions before, but later he was investigated himself, and he believed it)
There is now a particularly popular “rhetoric” that despises lawyers in the market, especially scholars or people within the system who are very fond of this set of “rhetoric”—”You lawyers do everything for money, eat and drink and invite guests every day, how can you have time to study the business? You lawyers are not professional, you lawyers don’t understand judicial practice at all, you lawyers don’t know the situation on the front lines of case handling.”
This “rhetoric”, doesn’t it sound familiar?
Once, my classmate also came to me with this set of rhetoric. I said to my classmate—you should know that I have appeared in court from the Supreme People’s Court to most provincial high courts, as well as countless intermediate courts and grassroots courts. I have handled cases in all provinces of China. I have been in contact with all the public security and procuratorial systems of all provinces (the only exception is that I haven’t been to court in Xinjiang. There was originally a case in Xinjiang, but it was dismissed halfway. This is also the only province where I haven’t been to court).
To put it bluntly, I’ve seen all sorts of tricks.
Sometimes, when I attend seminars for young lawyers, I am asked how to cultivate “confidence”. My answer is always: “Lawyers can be very confident, because as long as you don’t choose to cultivate a specific area, as long as you run around in a few places, your vision will far surpass those classmates who are engaged in academics or enter the system. Including classmates who have already entered leadership positions, what they can access is only the affairs of their own unit and their own department. The interaction between departments 2 and 8 within a unit is limited. Not to mention people from different units. As long as you have handled official crimes, you will find that many people who go in will say something like ‘How could this be, I really didn’t expect it to be like this’.”
Traveling ten thousand miles is the source of confidence for us lawyers.
And the core reason why some scholars or classmates and friends within the system form the wrong understanding of “How could there still be torture to extract confessions now? There’s a lifelong responsibility system now, who would take this risk for a case?” is that they have “traveled” too little.
Caijing (財新) and Southern Weekend (南方周末) have both reported on two recent cases of torture to extract confessions in Hebei. (See “The Death of a Person Under “Designated Residence”, 8 Case Handlers Accused of Torture to Extract Confessions“)”
Here, the “liar paradox” appears in logic.
The so-called “liar paradox” is a thought exercise passed down from ancient Greece: “A person says, I am telling a lie”.
So, is this person telling the truth? Or a lie?
Those who have studied logic are not unfamiliar with the “liar paradox”.
The biggest characteristic of the Hebei torture to extract confessions case is that a suspect died unnaturally during the period of designated residence, and the family members accused the “previous batch of case handlers” of torture to extract confessions. Under the supervision of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the “previous batch of case handlers” were also arrested. (I won’t mention the names here, just to simplify memory. The specific names are in the news reports)
I don’t quote the suspect’s family’s accusations of torture to extract confessions. Because as soon as all the classmates within the system hear that it is the suspect’s family accusing torture to extract confessions, the natural reaction is: “Exaggeration, making up stories”.
Isn’t that right?
Therefore, today I only excerpt the statements of the “previous batch of case handlers”. Because of the suspicion of intentional injury, the “previous batch of case handlers” are now also suspects, and their records state:
According to Xing Zichao’s confession, on the evening of July 19, 2023, while still in the hospital, Zhang Xuguang asked them to delete all information related to the special case from their mobile phones.
The case materials show that Hu Wei, the deputy head of the Criminal Police Brigade of the Shijiazhuang Municipal Public Security Bureau, has been prosecuted by the People’s Procuratorate of Anguo City, Baoding City, for the crimes of obstructing testimony.
Hu Wei confessed that on the morning of July 20, 2023, he convened a meeting of all case-handling police officers in the first-floor conference room with Zhang Xuguang and Geng Chunyuan, requiring everyone to keep it confidential to the outside world and to supervise the security guards internally not to disclose relevant information to the suspects. Afterwards, Hu Wei held a small meeting with Zhang and Geng. At the meeting, Hu Wei asked to disband or withdraw from the WeChat group of the case to avoid the procuratorial organs obtaining the previous chat records in the group. Hu Wei also met with Xing Zichao and Wang Ziqian, who were in charge of interrogating Bao Qinrui, on July 20 as the leader of the municipal bureau, intending to give them confidence and avoid them being unable to withstand the pressure during the investigation by the procuratorate and saying the situation of torture to extract confessions.
The surveillance video of the designated residence point, interrogation chairs, and other items were handled by Ma Shuai. Ma Shuai stated in the interrogation record that on the early morning of July 20, Zhang Xuguang asked him to remove the two hard drives from the surveillance video. One or two days after the incident, Zhang Xuguang asked him to find a place to hide the iron chairs and iron cages of the Xinle Hotel and the small courtyard.
Multiple defendants stated that after that, Zhang Xuguang also talked to them on different occasions, telling them to “be of one mind”, that the hard drive of the hotel surveillance had been destroyed by Ma Shuai, and that the procuratorate could not find substantial evidence, “If you say it (torture to extract confessions), everyone will be finished together”. To deal with the investigation by the procuratorate, Zhang Xuguang also asked them to conduct simulated interrogations, discussing what the procuratorate might ask and how to respond. During the drill, because Ma Linxuan was relatively nervous, Zhang Xuguang was worried that he would become a breakthrough, so he asked Ma Linxuan to say that he was from the comprehensive group and was in charge of running the procedures. Multiple defendants admitted in court that they tried to establish a “defense alliance” after the incident, while Zhang Xuguang overturned his confession in court, saying that he had not said this and had not heard it.
In fact, Ma Shuai did not clear the chat records of the special case team in the end, nor did he destroy the iron chairs, hand-cranked telephones, hard drives, and other items. The evidence presented by the prosecutor in court showed that the investigation agency obtained the aforementioned “5·25” special case team member division of labor table from Ma Shuai’s mobile phone. The prosecutor also mentioned the source of the physical evidence: one iron cage and ten iron interrogation chairs were found from Ma Shuai’s friend; one hand-cranked telephone was found in Ma Shuai’s dormitory cabinet; three hand-cranked telephones and hard drives storing surveillance videos were found in Ma Shuai’s home. Excerpted from “The Death of a Person Under “Designated Residence”, 8 Case Handlers Accused of Torture to Extract Confessions“
You see, the “previous batch of case handlers” clearly mentioned the methods of torture to extract confessions they used on the suspects in their confessions.
However, according to a report by Phoenix.com, during the trial, some of the “previous batch of case handlers” overturned their confessions, saying that “the previous confessions were made under torture to extract confessions, and some of the situations were inaccurate.” (See “8 Public Security Personnel Plead Guilty! Interrogation Methods Exposed“)”
Here, a quasi-“liar paradox” appears in logic (note that I used a “quasi” here). If the “previous batch of case handlers'” records are true, then they really did torture to extract confessions; if the “previous batch of case handlers'” statements in court are true, then they were really subjected to torture to extract confessions by the people who arrested them.
Ok, so, in the two situations, which statement is true?
If the records are true, then they carried out torture to extract confessions, so torture to extract confessions exists in judicial practice; if the statements in court are true, then they were subjected to torture to extract confessions, so torture to extract confessions exists in judicial practice.
Such cases are actually not uncommon. Several cases of case handlers suspected of torture to extract confessions have been exposed by the media in the past few years. Moreover, what I am talking about here, “several cases of case handlers suspected of torture to extract confessions have been exposed by the media” only refers to cases of suspected torture to extract confessions that have been formally filed and entered judicial proceedings.
As for the cases of suspects being accused of torture to extract confessions by their families reported by the media, I haven’t mentioned them here. Such cases can be retrieved online at any time if you wish.
The real cases in reality are right in front of us.
But those scholars who do not engage in practical work, and the classmates and friends who only care about their own affairs, still have the first reaction of “How could there still be torture to extract confessions now? There’s a lifelong responsibility system now, who would take this risk for a case?” when they hear lawyers talk about torture to extract confessions.
Too many people lack the most basic information retrieval ability and always live in a self-proclaimed “I am on the front lines, I am more professional than you, I understand practice better than you” kind of delusional confidence.
Moreover, if you have time to study some history, you will also find that the responsibility system will not prevent the occurrence of wrong cases. Because listening to the leader’s words and making a mistake, “being held accountable” is only a possibility in the future. But not listening to the leader’s words, “being given the cold shoulder” is the current reality. Weighing the two harms, it is obviously the way to survive not to offend the leader at the moment. More importantly, the premise of accountability is to first identify a wrong case. In other words, as long as there is no wrong case, there will naturally be no accountability. And as long as the leader has not fallen, it is difficult to identify a wrong case.
The logic is so simple. But those scholars who do not engage in practical work, and the classmates and friends who only care about their own affairs, they also can’t think of it. I have written about this problem in “Why Accountability is Ineffective“, you can take a look if you are interested. I won’t repeat it today.
道理就这么简单。但是那些不接触实务的学者们，和只顾着自己手头那点事儿的同学和朋友，他们也想不到。这个问题，我写过《追责何以无效》，有兴趣的可以看看。今天不重复了。
Discover more from 自由档案馆
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.