Case Study

Case Study: Yao Jiaxin's murdering case

Huang Yi 1051240003

【Details of Case】

Yao, 21, a junior student at the Xi'an Conservatory of Music, was driving a Chevrolet Cruze when he ran into Zhang Miao while she was riding a bicycle home at 10:30 pm on Oct 20, 2010. Fearing that Zhang would remember his license plate number and report him to the police, Yao stabbed her eight times to death with a knife. After the stabbing, Yao drove away from the scene and, in his hurry, injured two passersby about 1 km from the murder scene. On Oct 23, Yao, in the company of his parents, gave himself in to the police and confessed to the killing.

【Legal Analysis】

After the traffic accident, Yao stabbed the victim's chest, stomach and back several times until she died. His motive had indicated that he has the intention of murdering in subjectivity and he actually convicted the murdering in objectivity. According to the Criminal Law of the people's republic of China, Article 232, Yao's behavior could recognized as offence of intentional homicide.

Yao's lawyer argued that Yao committed the killing \the heat of passion\and pleaded for leniency, saying \\with full of indignation which caused by the improper act of the victim. It is just a term of criminal investigation to describe the criminal procedure. During the court defence, it can not become an exemption for the crime. Moreover, there's no definition for \heat of passion\which demonstrated the criminal minds and criminal intent of the suspected offender. Furthermore, the victim Zhang did not perform any improper act during the whole incidence. So, in fact, the behavior of Yao can not regard as the killing \passion\

The next question is that whether the motive of Yao could be regarded as an act of delivering himself to the police or not. Yao was surrendered himself to the police in the company of his parents four days after the incident when he was not be controlled by the police. He also confessed to the killing. According to the Criminal Law of the people's republic of China, Article 67, he could have leniency. But this is according to the discretions of the judge. During the first trial, it is proper for judge to make the judgement that \she died. The motive was extremely despicable, the measures extremely cruel and the consequences extremely serious. Although Yao has no criminal record and surrendered himself to the police (four days after the incident), the court has still

1

decided to deny him leniency.\

【Comment】

From the view of a legal person, I think Yao's case is a simple one. It was a crime with clear facts and sufficient proofs. The case has aroused widespread public outcry, just because it is an incidents of reckless behavior by the country's wealthy younger generation.

What I want to say is that when we concerned about this incident, had we already hold an opinion in our heart which is preconceived and lead to the judgement or not? I believe that all of us know that \ Now the problem is that if you want to lift the veil of the truth and fairness, you should remain objective and avoid yourself falling into the situation of being blind and deaf as far as possible.

Now many people have cars, but is somebody a \nd affluent generation\has a car? Once an event is connected with \nd affluent generation\nd official generation\, it will cause everyone's general hostility and accusation. Of course, as a private citizen, we have such feeling is understandable. But legally speaking, what we need is a rational analysis and fair treatment. Until the facts and evidences in the case have been clear, no one is innocent.

Meanwhile, as a lawyer for Yao, it was his responsibilities to defend for him and to mitigate the punishment. It is an indispensable part of the trial. If his actions did not exceed the limits of the law, we could give no cause for putting too much criticism on what he had said or did. Altough this is inevitably not accord with our opinions, it is not the reason to condemn or abuse the lawyer. On one side we do great efforts to seek the protection of law and the construction of a legal state, but on the other side we interfere the necessary legal procedures by our indignation. I think it is quite contradictory.

People' compassion for the weak is the kind of human nature. When faced with Yao who appears to be the advantaged and the vulnerable victim, most people will stand by the latter side consciously. On the other hand, the public's suspicion for the justice of the court impled the government, media and the experts are lack of citizens' credibility. Because of the negative news and lies exposed and the personal experience in one's living, today, the official report has already gone into the situation that it has no credibility in many people's eyes. What results in such an awkward situation ? Who should pay for these? How to rebuild the expression of the government in every one's heart? I believe such a heavy social problem is worthy thinking over.

In fact, suspicion is not a bad thing. There's an old saying goes \good man is seldom uneasy, an ill one never easy\

2

you have did, you will not be tangled by the challenge of the outside world. Our government should be fair and opening when dealing with every thing and be willing to accept the supervision of the public by telling the truth. I think, just in this way, our government can find the lost trust of the public.

Let us come back to the case. I'm afraid that there will not cause too much controversy if a similar case occurred in the United States. The full understanding of law has been deeply rooted in every American's heart. They will accept what the lawyer did on the court even if they didn't agree to the opinions of the lawyer. The jury also has a high degree of trust by the public and every American think that the judge will make a fair decision. It is more easy for them to accept the experts' psychological analysis of crime even if it sounds like a defence for the criminal. These can not be separated from the idea of human rights which the public held firmly.

At last, ended with a case happened in United States. After the shooting incident in Virginia, there placed 33 stones in the shape of a semi-circular at the playground of Virginia Tech University to mourn for the victims, which also includes the murderer. People think although the murder committed a brutal crime, the society and the University also had failed in providing him with a proper treatment and consultation for his mental disease. People regretted for it and they want to comfort his family in this way. On the mourning ceremony of Virginia Tech University, the knell tolled for 33 times for the 32 victims and the murderer. The balloons flying into the sky were 33. The students were hugging each other and crying until these balloons had gone to see. One of the students said: \incident was 33. We should mourn for the death of every person.\

What is kindness? What is fairness? We should think it over rather than continue to clamor.

3

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/xssv.html