The Analysis Of Li Changkui Intentional Homicide Rape Case

The Li Changkui case is a typical case of the conflict between the judiciary andpeople in recent years. In this paper, after the study of a lot of papers, we explore threecontroversial points in this case, and try to make a comprehensive analysis about theright and wrong in the procession in court, providing a reference for the future whensimilar cases need to be judged in court. This would help us avoid such phenomenonthat all people are against the trial results.The case will be discussed from three aspects in this article, which focuses onwhether the death penalty executed immediately should be sentenced, whether it islegal to start the retrial procedure and the interaction between justice and publicopinion reflected in this case. Firstly, this paper argues that under current legalenvironment, there is no reason for Li Changkui to be punished more lightly, and thedeath penalty executed immediately should be sentenced. Secondly, Although thedifference between the death penalty executed immediately and the death penaltysuspended is a difference between a hair’s breadth, the discretion of the choice of the iswithin the scope of court. The verdict of the second instance is based on an insufficientground, which decided the death penalty suspended, but the very verdict should berecognized and accepted as a decision by authority, and the court should be moreself-confident to repel all the odds, unless the judgment is indeed an error one,otherwise it cannot rashly start the retrial procedure, which in this case is correspondedto no existing laws. Thirdly, the interaction of justice and public opinion in this case isnot so good that the guidance by court of the public has led to sharp oppositionbetween them. In the light of this statement, this paper focuses great attention on therelationship between justice and the public, hoping to sort out the utilities and effectsof public opinion on judicial process, and insisting that justice in the face of publicopinion should be more confident and proactive, for the public opinion is sometimesmessy and irrational, while we believe that the public opinion will ultimately growreasonable and united. Thus, a strengthened system of guidance is of necessity andpublic opinions should be filtered and absorbed by courts, and in this way the justicecould obtain more public trust and the legal quality and belief be greatly improved.There are two main innovations in this paper. Firstly, we discuss and distinguishthree different kinds of thinks, which are "initiative" think,“inspired” think and “forced” think.And we make a conclusion that it is not legal for Yunnan HigherPeople’s Court to restart the process in the case, because it is forced to regard theoriginal process as a illegal one, which is not its real intention. Secondly, weemphasize that the judiciary should strengthen its confidence, although it shouldrespect and absorb the public opinions. As for the judiciary, as long as it does not makea blunder which has to be amended, it should insist on its understanding of the law andcan not easily compromise with the public opinion, because "the judge is onlyresponsible for law”.