Many people pondered over the name of the robber law, while Fang Yun continued to speak.
"So, it is very simple to judge whether a law is a just law or a robber's law. If a law tends to protect victims and citizens who may be harmed, it must be a just law. If a law tends to protect murderers, it must be a robber's law."
"I will use an example to illustrate why some laws are robber laws rather than just laws."
"If someone commits fraud, for example, he says he is going to do a big business, asks relatives and friends to lend him money, and then pays them back double. But in fact, he keeps the money for himself, spends it lavishly, and then deceives relatives and friends by saying that he lost money in business."
"We all know that in the past, the maximum penalty for fraudsters in various countries was the death penalty. However, some countries now believe that all fraud crimes should not be subject to the death penalty because they do not directly kill people. However, the fraudsters' story is not over. The people who were deceived have no money, and some even borrowed money from others to give to the fraudsters. These people find it difficult to live as usual. As a result, some of them committed suicide, and even a whole family took arsenic to commit suicide, killing dozens of people."
"According to the current laws of some countries, this fraudster could be exiled for a maximum of 20 years. But in fact, the harm this criminal has caused to society is far greater than that of ordinary death row prisoners. They have indirectly killed too many people. Any group with a sense of justice would think that such people deserve to die. However, if a country believes that such criminals are not guilty of death no matter how many people they have indirectly killed, it means that the laws of this country have not given the maximum protection to the victims, and have also given up the maximum protection to citizens who may be harmed in the future. It is protecting the murderer and is a robber law."
"So, what is the maximum protection for the people? It's very simple, eliminating the direct factor that endangers the people, that is, the existence of the murderer. Therefore, the existence of the death penalty is to protect the good people to the maximum extent."
"Some legal scholars like to say that once a criminal realizes that he has committed a capital crime, he will give up on himself and become even more vicious, because he will die anyway. If this logic is valid, then there will inevitably be another type of criminal who would not commit crimes because of the death penalty, but now that they find that they will not die no matter how serious their crimes are without the death penalty, they will simply act recklessly and become even more vicious."
"In fact, the truly brutal criminals are not afraid of any threats and will commit heinous crimes regardless of whether there is a death penalty or not. The less brutal criminals often give up committing crimes because they are afraid of death. So, are the more brutal criminals who give up on themselves and increase destruction and killing, or are the more brutal criminals who reduce destruction and do not kill because they are afraid of the death penalty? We don't have exact data, and I don't know the results. I can't say like some legalists that the death penalty not only fails to deter criminals, but makes them worse."
"There is a lot of evidence that after a region abolishes the death penalty, serious crimes will increase dramatically, so much so that some regions have to reinstate the death penalty after abolishing it. Moreover, in different regions with similar levels of wealth, the serious crime rate in regions with the death penalty is often lower than that in regions without the death penalty. Of course, there are a few regions with different statistical results, but they can only be reduced to individual cases and have no meaning."
"Some people also believe that everyone's life is equal, that it is wrong for a murderer to kill someone, and that we have no right to deprive the murderer of his life. If we do, we are also the murderer. This view makes sense at first glance."
"We must understand that a person has more than just one life. He has many other things in him, his emotions, his concerns, his experiences, his abilities, his contributions, etc. He also carries the hopes of others. He carries the love of his parents, the affection of his relatives, the affection of his husband, wife or children, the friendship of his friends, and the mission of his country and ethnic group. A person is an infinite collection."
"So, the murderer killed the victim, not only erasing the victim's personal existence, but also erasing the feelings of his relatives and friends who had placed their hopes on him. Do his relatives and friends have the right to punish him? I think they do. The murderer wiped out a member of the country and ethnic group. Do the forces representing the country have the right to punish him? I also think they do."
"Some people also say that the death penalty will lead to the wrongful killing of innocent people because of wrongful convictions. So, if there is no death penalty, will there be no wrongful convictions? According to this logic, since there may be wrongful convictions, we can simply give up justice and not arrest all criminals to ensure that there will be no wrongful convictions. This is a typical case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which even children can understand. We know that we may choke to death while eating, so what we should do is to avoid choking to death, not to avoid eating!"
"There are all kinds of opinions, but none of them can avoid the same problem. Law enforcers can do their best to ensure that death row inmates do deserve to die. But how can those who oppose the death penalty guarantee that more innocent people will not be killed? They can't do it. They can only talk big because it's not them who are dying."
"A small number of legalists want to abolish the death penalty for another purpose. It is the same method used by the bandit tribe I mentioned before. That is, in order to gain greater power, legalists must establish a new legalist standard, and only legalists can understand, interpret and apply this standard. Only in this way can legalists control the law. Imagine if everyone can influence the law and apply the law, what will happen to the status of legalists? Therefore, legalists must monopolize everything related to the law, deny the original moral standards, and rebuild legal standards that are beneficial to themselves. This is what they must do."
"This also explains why the Fa family ignores the universal moral standards of the human race and instead creates or borrows various new theories and new standards, and then makes laws based on the new standards. In Jing Country, this kind of thing is not allowed to happen!"
Fang Yong scanned the venue with a cold gaze.
Many members of the Fa family feel guilty because what Fang Yun said is correct. In order to protect their own interests, the Fa family continues to influence the law. In fact, they are another form of bandit group.
Fang Yun said: "Then, will the kind tribe have bandit laws? My answer is yes. Some people may wonder, isn't it said that the descendants of the kind tribe don't have bandit blood? Yes, some people don't have bandit blood, but some people, like the bandit tribe, clearly realize in their hearts that they are far more likely to commit crimes than ordinary citizens. This is very consistent with the instincts of the descendants of bandits."
"Let's take an example. Would a farmer who only knows how to farm think that he is more likely to commit a crime than others? No. Because his desire may be great, but his power is small. Even if he wants to do something bad, he can't do it."