2009年6月1日星期一

长江巴东网:中共巴东县纪委等严肃处理“邓玉娇案”中涉案人员

长江巴东网:中共巴东县纪委等严肃处理“邓玉娇案”中涉案人员
作者:石-灰 于 2009-06-01 00:47:35.0 发表
当前位置:长江巴东网->新闻中心->巴东新闻 http://www.cjbd.com.cn
发布时间:2009年5月31日 22:44

  本网讯(新华社武汉5月31日电)近日,中共巴东县纪委、县监察局对“邓玉娇案”中涉案人员黄德智、邓中佳作出严肃处理。

  黄德智,男,现年41岁,系巴东县野三关镇农业服务中心聘用员工。2009年2月至案发前借用在野三关镇项目招商领导小组办公室工作,并被任命为招商办副主任。

  邓中佳,男,现年45岁,系巴东县野三关镇财经所公共服务岗位聘用员工。2008年6月至案发前借用在野三关镇项目招商领导小组办公室工作,并被任命为招商办副主任。

  中共巴东县纪委、县监察局调查后认为:黄德智身为共产党员,接受服务对象吃请,已构成违反廉洁自律规定错误;进入营业性娱乐场所玩乐,并强迫要求女服务员陪其洗浴,在遭到拒绝后又对该女服务员实施拉扯推搡、言词侮辱等不法侵害,严重违纪,影响极坏。根据《中国共产党纪律处分条例》第一百五十九条之规定,经巴东县纪委常委会议研究决定,给予黄德智开除党籍处分。中共野三关镇党委于5月29日撤销黄德智的镇招商办副主任职务,同日,野三关镇农业服务中心与黄德智解除了农业技术服务岗位聘用合同,予以辞退。因黄德智的不法侵害行为违反《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》的有关规定,公安机关已对其予以治安拘留。

  邓中佳虽经查证无违法行为,但造成了不良的社会影响,中共野三关镇党委已于5月29日撤销邓中佳的镇招商办副主任职务,同日,野三关镇财经所与邓中佳解除了公共服务岗位聘用合同,予以辞退。

  此前,“梦幻娱乐城”已被依法查封,其相关责任人正在被依法查处之中。

(值班总编:许武才 责任编辑:涂启亮 校对:黄华)

法制日报周末版:公众应对司法表示尊重——京城知名刑辩律师解读邓玉娇案

出事后的邓玉娇在医院

法制网记者 陈虹伟 法制网实习生 王峰

  2009年5月10日,湖北偏远的恩施洲巴东县因一个倔强的女孩成为媒体和广大网民关注的焦点。22岁的女服务员邓玉娇因拒绝提供性服务与三位男子发生争执,最终用随身携带的水果刀致对方一死一伤。

  2009年5月18日,巴东县公安局通报了“5·10”案件情况。该份通报意在回应媒体和公众的关注,但强调并非公安机关的最终认定结论。根据此份通报,死者邓贵大及伤者黄德智,均为巴东县野三关镇公务人员,两人在该镇“雄风”宾馆梦幻城消费时,与女服务员邓玉娇发生口角。

  通报明确指出,黄德智曾要求邓玉娇提供“异性洗浴服务”。尔后,邓贵大还拿出一沓钱炫耀,并朝邓玉娇头、肩部搧击。

  然而,根据5月13日长江巴东网《巴东县野三关“5·10”案情初步查明》的报道,邓贵大将邓玉娇“摁在”休息室的沙发上。邓玉娇欲起身,再次被“摁住”。但根据此次巴东县公安局的通报,邓玉娇是被邓贵大两次“推坐”在沙发上。大家普遍认为这一细节,或将成为邓玉娇是否构成正当防卫以及防卫是否过当的关键认定因素之一。

  随后北京两位律师夏霖、夏楠接受邓玉娇母亲的委托前往巴东调查此案,并成功会见了邓玉娇。随后报出邓玉娇险遭强奸和办案机关遗漏物证的新闻。很快,政府公开辟谣,称邓玉娇被强奸“子虚无有”。

  随着案件的进程,案情更加扑朔迷离。5月26日记者前往北京市京都律师事务所采访了部分刑辩律师。

 要正确理解罪名与行为性质的关系

  中国律师协会刑事辩护委员会主任田文昌律师认为,此案嫌疑人邓玉娇无可争辩具有防卫权。田文昌律师的观点是根据2009年5月18日湖北省巴东县公安局在互联网上通报的邓玉娇涉嫌故意杀人案基本案情展开。

  田文昌律师说,根据警方提供的情况,我们可以看到:第一,是被害人主动去找邓玉娇,邓玉娇不可能具有故意杀人和故意伤害的动机;第二,被害人要求邓玉娇提供“异性洗浴服务”,邓玉娇有权拒绝,退一步讲,假设邓玉娇提供所谓的色情服务,这种服务本身是违法的,邓玉娇也可以拒绝,这是邓玉娇的权利;第三,邓玉娇拒绝时被害人两次将邓玉娇“推坐在沙发上”,这表明被害人使用了暴力,是明显的性侵犯行为;第四,邓玉娇为了摆脱被害人的暴力侵害,为了防止性侵犯的后果的发生,才用刀刺被害人。整个过程展开来说就是“要求提供异性服务、遭拒绝、使用暴力、采取防卫”,那么,邓玉娇对正在进行的暴力性的不法侵害完全具有防卫权。

  5月11日,邓玉娇就因涉嫌故意杀人被公安机关刑事拘留。许多同情邓玉娇的人对“涉嫌故意杀人”不能理解。但田文昌律师解释,大家不必对此过于敏感,行使防卫权也可能构成故意杀人。关于本案,即使去掉有争议的情节部分,被害人连续两次阻止邓玉娇离开,邓玉娇在此情形下也具有防卫权。田文昌律师解释,正当防卫和防卫过当都不是独立的罪名,是行为的性质。

  另外,媒体此前的报道中还披露,邓玉娇长期随身携带治疗抑郁症药物,疑患抑郁症。这一细节也得了警方确认,巴东县公安局在通报中表示会将邓玉娇送往相关医疗机构检查鉴定。

  田文昌律师认为,抑郁症与邓玉娇是否有防卫权无关。邓玉娇是不是有防卫权,要看是否存在防卫的条件,而与其精神状态无关。如果公安机关利用技术手段认定邓玉娇是在精神异常的情况下采取了过激违法的行为,那么就有可能掩盖邓玉娇被侮辱情况下实施防卫行为的正当性。

公安机关应适时恰当开口

  杨照东律师认为,首先,根据巴东县公安局的通报,很显然邓玉娇案中的被害人具有一定的过错,而被害人的过错,足以减轻邓玉娇的责任,无论邓玉娇最终承担什么样的责任。

  其次,在邓玉娇案向社会公众披露后,公安机关的行为存在以下不当之处:

  (1)公安机关不应在侦查还未终结时,就对外公布本案不存在邓玉娇被强奸的事实,尤其是在社会舆论对本案如此密切关注和监督的情况下,过早排除被害人的强奸行为容易激发社会矛盾,引起社会公众的怀疑;

  (2)公安机关不应在案件尚未侦查终结时,过早地排除现场第三人(邓中佳)与本案无关,认定其没有违法行为;

  (3)公安机关从邓玉娇家提取证据时,只提取抑郁症的药物,却不提取邓玉娇在案发现场换下来的衣物,这样的取证至少在技术上存在问题。11天过后,邓玉娇的母亲到公安机关接受询问,回来后即清洗了这些衣物,第二天公安机关将衣物拿走,这样的做法很容易引发人们的怀疑。

  (4)公安机关对某些实体问题作了披露,但对人们质疑的问题,包括程序性的问题却不予回应,这同样容易引发质疑。我认为公安机关应该在适当的时候恰当地开口。

  杨照东律师认为,邓玉娇案件现已引起如此激烈的讨论,甚至有人撰文说:“邓玉娇案开启了全民法官的时代”,公安机关发表言论就应该更加慎重。在侦查阶段,只应该对程序问题积极面对公众,比如为什么遗漏证据等。

 侦查机关有独立的侦查权

  张振祖律师认为,根据媒体的报道,邓玉娇案发生后,巴东县政府迅速成立了“邓玉娇案”处置工作领导小组,随后政府的新闻发言人接受了媒体采访,高调公布了部分案件情节,且发通报称邓玉娇母亲张树梅已声明与受委托律师解除委托关系。地方政府的上述做法不妥,有越位之嫌。

  人民警察是国家治安行政力量和刑事司法力量,公安机关具有双重职能即治安行政管理职能和刑事司法职能。公安机关有权对刑事案件进行侦查,有权依法对公民的人身自由予以限制,这是其与其他政府职能部门最大的区别。

  为了保证司法活动的公平公正,独立行使司法权是我国的一项基本法治原则,相应地,公安机关对于刑事案件的侦查也应该是独立的,政府作为公安机关的上级部门应当对其给予支持,而不是越俎代疱,甚至代替公安机关行使部分职能。

  张振祖律师还说,就本案来讲,且不论公安机关在侦查阶段公布部分案件情节是否适当,案件的侦查、与媒体的沟通、核实律师是否具有授权以及接受民众的监督均应由案件的侦查机关来完成,而不是地方一级政府。

  目前,该案却是“行政职能”与“刑事侦查职能”同时启动。一个刑事案件,政府的深度介入,会对案件造成什么影响,张振祖律师表示担忧。

  王九川律师认为,当地县政府对这起案件的介入过深。案发后,当地公安局刑警立即赶到现场,展开刑事侦查活动,第二天邓玉娇即被刑事拘留,表明已正式立案,刑事程序已经被迅速启动。但案发同时,当地就启动行政应急程序,随后县政府高调介入案件,除领导指导以外,还设立政府新闻发言人,对外公布侦查工作进展情况,这些都是对刑事侦查活动的不当干涉。

  虽然公安机关为政府下设机构,但在行使刑事侦查权时,具有独立性,不应受到来自行政权力的干预。

  以政府发言人代替侦查机关发言人来通报案情、表达对争议事实的观点和对律师执业行为的看法,非常不可取,政府应该和刑事侦查活动保持距离,关于案件的侦破应由侦查机关主导,由该部门主动向公众公布进展情况。

 公众应对司法表示尊重

  柳波律师认为,通俗地说,民意是指民众根据自己的知识水平、日常生活经验及一定的价值观念从情感上得出的对某一事件的看法、态度。

  从宏观上说,民意是具体的、客观存在的,而且是可感知的。邓玉娇案的事实究竟如何,邓玉娇是否构成犯罪,以及构成何罪,应由法院来作出最终的决断,这是刑事诉讼法明确规定的。

  任何个人、机关均应充分尊重法院的司法独立性和权威性。在法院没有作出生效的判决之前,任何单位和个人对案件发表的意见、看法都只能是自己的推测和探讨,不是法律意义上的“尘埃落定”。

  谈到民意与审判的关系,柳波律师还说,随着现代大众传媒对信息的快速传播,抽象的、难以感知的民意会实实在在地影响案件的走向,影响审判。

  这个影响有两个方面:

  一方面,民意对于监督法院的公正审判,在一定程度上防止冤假错案的发生,有它的积极意义。

  另一方面,民意在被部分媒体炒作的诱导下会愈演愈烈,甚至会给审判机关造成“不杀不足以平民愤”或“民皆曰不可杀”的压力,进而可能导致不按事实而按民意定罪量刑的后果,造成刑及无辜,有罪不罚或罚不当罪。

  邓玉娇案件出现后,引起了广泛的关注,大范围的讨论和质疑。从人员上说,有普通民众、专家、学者,有政府官员,有司法人员;从形式说,有互联网发帖子的,有联名上书的,有激情抗议的。这些形形色色的不同版本和声音,究其根本原因,还是人们渴求了解事实真相,渴求案件按照自己理解的“公正”进行处理。

  柳波律师还担心,随着民众、媒体的广泛参与,这一事件演变出的不同版本和声音,使得事实真相越发扑朔迷离,法律探讨越来越激烈。他说,公众应该对司法表示尊重。

来源: 法制网——《法制日报周末》报

(责任编辑:郑剑峰)

June 4 a closed book for many bright young minds

  ——20 YEARS ON TIANANMEN CRACKDOWN

  Vivian Wu   May 31, 2009

  It was a rainy, early summer evening in Beijing, two weeks before June 4. More than 300 students, most in their twenties, packed a classroom at the China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL) to listen to a lecture by lawyer Zhang Sizhi, famous for his courageous defence of the nation's top dissidents.

  Titled "Humanitarian quality and legal spirit", the three-hour speech began with the 83-year-old lawyer talking about his experiences of 1989, when he became involved in defending Wang Juntao, Bao Tong and Gao Yu, all charged with sedition, counter-revolutionary propaganda and incitement after the bloody June 4 crackdown in Tiananmen Square.

  "I am here to tell you to be good legal practitioners. You need to have a sense of responsibility and some courage to face truth and history, even if they were covered up deliberately for political reasons," Mr Zhang told his audience.

  "I think you need to know these cases as legal students from the top legal school of this country, and you should know what has happened and what has changed China's legal and democratic path."

  Outside the classroom plain-clothes police officers were hovering, causing the lecture's organiser, a CUPL professor, more than a little concern. Inside the packed room students took notes tentatively and answered their idol with laughter, waving flowers and applause.

  "I know the Tiananmen Square incident and those big names Mr Zhang mentioned, but not that clearly," one student said. "After hearing this speech I will definitely try to find more information."

  However, open speeches on the June 4 incident on a Beijing campus, especially close to the anniversary, are a rarity. Not all students are interested in looking into this period of history. Over the past two decades, during the "sensitive period" from mid-May to mid-June, authorities have regularly heightened surveillance on dissidents and liberal intellectuals, and dispersed any attempted gatherings or public events touching on the crackdown.

  The Tiananmen protests and June 4 have become taboo topics in all college campuses across the nation.

  Many teachers, academics and some liberal-minded officials were removed from their positions for supporting and protecting the student protesters, including former CUPL president Jiang Ping, a renowned legal professor who was investigated by the authorities.

  Students were ordered to confess their involvement in the movement, and many were penalised and forever lost their chances of gaining a good career.

  As Chinese history textbooks barely touch on the June 4 incident and open discussion is censored in the media, people do not generally broach the topic.

  A dozen students from five top universities in Beijing were approached by the Sunday Morning Post, all of whom, offered anonymity, said they knew about the June 4 incident and were well aware of the official version.

  They believed June 4 was a "central government crackdown on movements started by students". But none said they knew about the crackdown's historical background - the development of the two-month movement and its impact on China's political philosophy and society.

  "In our high school textbook June 4 is mentioned in one sentence, saying it was political turmoil in which the students' passion was manipulated by a small number of evil people, and it developed into a riot that was successfully eased by the central authorities' prompt action," said Mr Cai, 21, a fourth-year student at the Peking University Law School. "This issue has never been mentioned in any tests, and as our only goal is to pass the college entrance exam we don't pay attention to checking out this part of history or get into any study of it."

  A student from the University of International Business and Economics said he had some knowledge of the incident, in which "students demonstrated to express their dissatisfaction, the government tried to control it and had to shoot in the end when the situation got out of control".

  "But I don't know why such things happened when China had just started its reform and opening-up policy in the 1980s, and it's something too far away from present-day life," he said.

  Another fourth-year student said: "Employment is the top priority of this society, and as a student hunting for a job and a decent life, I need to be more realistic and care about more current issues."

  Many young people said they knew June 4 was the hottest topic in the western media when talking about China and its government since 1989, and they knew it was the "No1 wound that the Chinese government is unwilling to open". But they also talk about the western media's "twisted and biased description" and a failure to present the truth about the incident when too many aspects remained enmeshed in controversy.

  "I want to know about what happened and have tried to download documentaries from the internet ... and I have read many articles by student leaders and democratic rightists on overseas-Chinese websites since entering college," Mr Cai said.

  "However, their opinions are highly subjective and partial, full of attacks against China ... I still don't know what really happened and I cannot be convinced by either Chinese propaganda or the western stereotyped media."

  Participants and witnesses to the crackdown, political analysts and liberal academics mourn Chinese youth's lack of interest in this part of history. Many have criticised the government's "lame reform", which stresses only the economy, for significantly shaping students' apathy towards politics in the past 20 years.

  A professor at a southern Chinese university said that the new generation of students who had no first-hand knowledge of the Tiananmen crackdown had quite different views on the tragedy.

  She said the brutal suppression of debate on political issues in the past 20 years had made it impossible for ordinary people to discuss their government.

  If people were to keep fighting against the government - as had Liu Xiaobo , the organiser of the well-known pro-democracy guideline Charter 08 - they would be watched and harassed by the police, she said. People were weary of political pressure and preferred to focus their energy on making money.

  Mia Li, a master's degree student in journalism at Beijing Foreign Studies University, disagrees. She is passionate about discussing June 4 with her friends. "It's too simple and hasty to conclude that we, the younger Chinese generation, don't care about politics or democracy," she said.

  Speaking fluent English with an American accent, the 25-year-old added: "As a Chinese I hope to help this country become better, but how do you realise that? I think democracy and freedom of speech are the most important [concepts]. I want to know what has happened in this country, and June 4 is an inevitable topic.

  "The more they want to stop us from knowing, the more eager I am to find out. Considering internet technology and China's opening up, we have enough access to the facts ... as long as we want to find them. I hope this country can become multi-partisan, with full democracy and freedom of speech. And personally I just want to lead a free life in this country."

  Sitting besides Mr Zhang in the CUPL lecture hall was Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang . He was a graduate student at CUPL in 1989 and, as one of the top student activists in the protest, went on a seven-day hunger strike in Tiananmen Square and remained there until the last minute when the troops arrived on June 3.

  Now a human rights lawyer, Mr Pu was asked by a student how to erase the inner fear when facing political suppression and censorship on politically sensitive issues.

  "Fear lies only in your heart and if you ignore it, it will disappear," he said.

  Overwhelmed by the students' passion, Mr Pu said he always believed "the truth of history can never be erased as long as there are people who care about a nation's political future and pursuit of democracy".

  "All we can do is write down the history we witness, enlighten the public - especially the youth - with facts, and try our best to create a chance for open discussion and an examination of this historic tragedy," he said. "The day will come when this sensitive issue stops being a taboo in this country. Times have changed and hope lies in our youth. I never doubt that."