Analysis On The Rape Cases Of Li Et

Li and other four persons’ rape case in2013caused a sensation throughout the nationand succeed to be selected as one of the top ten criminal cases of the year by mediaevaluation. Three controversial points in the case were selected in this paper on the basis ofbrief retrospection of basic facts and judicial decision, as well as each party’s reflection in thecase. The controversial points include: first, whether investigation organs are allowed todisclose the facts of case during investigation; second, whether lawyers’ out-of-courtstatements should be kept under restrictions; third, whether the media’s news freedom shouldbe governed and regulated. In-depth analysis and discussion were implemented centered onthe protection of privacy right as well as other legitimate rights and interests of juvenilesuspects. The rape case of Li and other related persons was evaluated in line with laws andregulations of our country as well as relevant practices, and some original thoughts by theauthor were also proposed accordingly.Behaviors and performances of investigation organs, lawyers, and media in this casewere analyzed and made legal review of against the specific situation of our country, based onwhich the author’s own opinion was also put forward: Case fact disclosure by investigationorgans at investigation stage could meet the requirements of public right to know, but it wouldalso be contradictory with the protection of the privacy right of juveniles. Therefore,investigation organs must maintain prudence and constraint at information disclosure ofcriminal cases concerning juvenile suspects. Lawyers should have ought-to-be and realityroles, between which conflicts would exist. Lawyers’ out-of-court statements might violatethe privacy right of juveniles and affect impartial judgment given to the defendants, but itmight also facilitate fairness of the judgment and promote lawyers’ commercial values. Thus,lawyers should restrict their out-of-court statements from the perspective of protecting thelegal rights and interests of juveniles. At last, news freedom represented by media andimpartial judgment are two basic values of democratic society, but news freedom of mediashould give way to juvenile defendants’ right to receive impartial trial. Meanwhile, media’spursuit of unconventional news, improper reports and distorted coverage might cause"pressure from public opinion", reveal the privacy of juveniles or affect public judicial trial.For the reasons stated in the preamble, media should show self-restraint in the course ofreporting...