【新唐人2013年05月08日讯】近期，中国大陆各地频频爆出冤假错案，其中包括：朱令铊中毒案、河南赵作海杀人案、浙江叔侄强奸案等。为此，最高法院常务副院长沈德咏喊出“宁可错放，也不可错判”口号。这是中共为社会稳定，放出的一个政治气球﹖
5月6号，沈德咏在《人民法院报》撰文说，一段时期以来，相继出现的刑事冤假错案给人民法院带来了前所未有的挑战，如不妥为应对，将严重制约刑事审判工作的发展。
他提出，防范冤假错案，要像防范洪水猛兽一样，宁可错放，也不可错判。他认为，错放一个真正的罪犯，天塌不下来，错判一个无辜的公民，特别是错杀了一个人，天就塌下来了。
大陆律师唐荆陵指出，在一个正常的法治国家，就应该秉承这种理念，如果证据不足，就应该不去随便杀一个人。
大陆律师唐荆陵：“他这种表态也许不能立即对各界司法，发生直接的、迅速的、实质性影响，但是理念可能会慢慢变化，尤其像最高法院本身掌握司法复核权的，它在涉及死刑的案件上，如果能贯彻这种理念，显然就能发生很大的效果。”
但是，北京宪政学者陈永苗认为，沈德咏的理念要想实践，那要等到政法委垮掉，司法独立之后。
北京宪政学者陈永苗：“公、检、法三家基本就在政法委的领导下，在党的领导下的，所以法院虽然有一种去政治化或者抵制政法委的领导，他不要让司法作为政治刀把子的这种倾向，但是，他还受党委的领导，所以他说这些话的时候，只能说他内心有这种倾向，但是效果还是不太大。”
网友“蓝天”质疑，能够真正做到依法办事，怎么能错呢？难道法律这个准绳有问题吗？“宁可错放，也不可错判”这种观点，无疑会成为官员徇私枉法的护身符，贯彻下去，后果很恐怖啊。
中国资深法学专家赵远明指出，中共的法律本来就是一纸空文，中共当局想打击谁，搞臭谁，完全是依照政治上的需要，根本不依靠法律。
中国资深法学专家赵远明：“现在法院院长说的话，但是真正落实到实际情况当中，真正冤假错案要平反的时候，他依然还是依据政治上的需要，这个历来也是中共邪党建政以来多次发生的，你看他们多次政治运动，然后多次又平反。”
沈德咏还指出，对公、检、法三机关而言，加强配合有利于形成工作的合力。但是，任何形式的联合办案都有可能埋下冤假错案的祸根，必须要坚决摒弃。
唐荆陵：“民间很多学者包括律师界的很多人早就指出这点了，因为中国存在很严重的权力办案情况，导致这种冤杀，党官意志杀人变得很常见，经常来说，一些所谓的‘必破’的案件，他就可能使用行刑逼供、栽赃陷害的方法把案子破掉了，实际上真正罪犯根本没抓住。”
赵远明指出，中共所有的公、检、法，都在政法委的领导之下，过去十几年当中，尤其是江泽民在位的时候，它把所有司法权都掌握在它们手里。
赵远明：“开始镇压法轮功以后，江泽民又成立了一个‘601办公室’，它既不属于党的机构，又不属于政府的机构，但是它拥有的权力却可以凌驾于所有政法系统之上， 在这种情况下，造成了很多冤假错案，而且最高人民检察院、最高人民法院，实际在当时是助纣为虐。”
赵远明分析，沈德咏的这番话，只是中共为所谓的社会稳定，放出的一个政治气球，就是说，要向习近平的“宪政梦”迈进，纠正过去的冤假错案。赵远明说，实际这是中共邪党历来耍的政治手段，真想要它依法办事，路还相当遥远。
采访编辑/李韵 后制/李勇
New Political Balloon for Stability of Chinese Communist Party Rule?
Recently, exposure of wrongful convictions
across China have continued to occur.
These included Zhu Ling’s Thallium poisoning case,
Zhao Zuohai’s murder case, as well as the rape case
that victimized a Zhejiang citizen and his nephew.
Shen Deyong, executive Vice President of
the Supreme People’s Court, recently proposed:
“It would rather wrongly allow real criminals to
escape unpunished than wrongly charge the cases.”
Is this a political balloon that the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) released to encourage political stability?
On May 6, the People’s Court Daily published
an article authored by Shen Deyong.
Shen said that for a period of time, continuous wrongful
convictions have brought unprecedented challenges.
He alleged that if not properly dealt with, it will
severely hamper the development of criminal justice.
Shen Deyong stated that it would rather mistakenly allow
real criminals to escape unpunished than wrongfully convict.
Shen argued that Heavens wouldn’t fall if real
criminals were wrongly allowed to go unpunished.
While it would be a big deal for a wrongful conviction,
especially a wrongful execution of an innocent citizen.
Tang Jingling, a Chinese lawyer, commented that this
idea is a legal tenet in any country under rule of law.
Without sufficient evidence of guilt,
it shouldn’t hand down a death penalty.
Tang Jingling: “His statement may not produce
instant and real changes in the judiciary.
But it may help change the notions
of the judiciary sector as time passes.
In particular, those in the Supreme Court who
take charge of reviewing death penalty cases.
By observing this principle, it will
generate great changes in reality.”
A Beijing constitutional scholar Chen Yongmiao,
believes that Shen Deyong’s idea won’t come true.
That is, unless China has an independent judiciary.
That will be possible after the Politics and
Legislative Affairs Committee (PLAC) collapses.
Chen Yongmiao: “The police, the procuratorate and courts
are now under the leadership of the PLAC and the CCP.
The courts are in fact willing to resist the PLAC’s
control, but still haven’t yet broken free of it.
So, his remarks only indicate that he has
such a willingness, but it produces little effect.”
A netizen questioned, “How could it give rise to
injustice, if really acting in accordance with the law?
Is there something wrong with the law itself?
The view that it prefers to falsely allow real criminals
to escape unpunished than give wrongful charges
will undoubtedly become a talisman for the officials,
who will bend the law for their selfish gains.
Carrying out this idea will lead to a dreadful aftermath.”
Zhao Yuanming , an expert in Chinese law,
indicates that CCP laws are all empty words.
He says that the CCP authorities have always been
driven by the political needs, in order to strike down on,
or defame a person, instead of having real legal basis.
Zhao Yuanming: “In reality, when redressing the
injustices, the court president will still serve political needs.
This has occurred repeatedly since the CCP came to power.
This is proof, with continuous political movements,
and repeated redressing unjust cases after that.”
Shen Deyong claimed that reinforcing cooperation among
police, procuratorate and courts helps form joint work forces.
But the joint dealing with a case may give rise to a wrongful
conviction, he said, which must be firmly abandoned.
Tang Jingling: “Many scholars, including
lawyers, have pointed it out long ago.
In China, the authorities have severely interfered with
judiciary justice, resulting in wrongful death penalties.
It’s commonly seen in those “must-be-cracked”
cases, commanded by the Party officials.
They often use frame-ups and tortures to
extract forced confessions to “solve” cases.
But the real criminals are still at large.”
Zhao Yuanming says that in the past decade,
especially during the tenure of Jiang Zemin,
the PLAC was the actual judicial czar in China.
Zhao Yuanming: “After Jiang Zemin openly cracked
down on Falun Gong, he set up the ‘6-10 Office’.
It is neither a Party organ nor a state agency,
but it overrides all the judicial departments.
It has created numerous wrongful convictions.
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the
Supreme People’s Court actually aided it to do evil.”
Zhao Yuanming views Shen Deyong’s remarks
as a political balloon, to serve political stability.
He interprets Shen’s statement.
It tells that China is now starting to move towards the
“Dream of Constitutionalism”, correcting past unjust cases.
This is an old CCP political trick, he says, whilst
China’s road is nowhere near the real rule by law.
