Before reading this ruling, it is necessary to review this case. The girl fell to her death on September 5, 20 16, and was allegedly molested by the teacher involved. Since then, she has been diagnosed with depression and traumatic stress disorder, and attempted suicide four times. Unfortunately, on June 20, 20 18, the 19-year-old girl still committed suicide by jumping off a building in despair.
To some extent, there is not a coherent causal relationship between "being molested" and "jumping off a building to commit suicide". If removed, harassment will lead to depression and traumatic stress disorder, which will lead to suicide and jumping off a building. Therefore, the fact of "obscenity" and the result of "suicide by jumping off a building" can only constitute indirect reasons. This seems to be the main reason why legal principles cannot be "severely punished".
In fact, the father of the girl who committed suicide by jumping off a building also stressed that the fact of being "molested" was not linked to the result of "jumping off a building" during the prosecution. Therefore, as far as the case of "Gansu girl was killed by a teacher jumping off a building" is concerned, it can be said that it is a case of Gansu girl being killed by a teacher jumping off a building, which has nothing to do with falling off a building. However, "girls committed suicide by jumping off a building" played a role in promoting the investigation process to a certain extent.
However, when the public pays attention to this case, it looks at it from the overall perspective, which also leads to a sharp change in the public opinion picture from "being harassed" to "being killed". This is why we will hear the voice of "too light sentence" in public opinion when the case is pronounced. Because, as a public opinion issue, the main concern is justice, not cruel facts.
Therefore, in the deductive process from "Gansu girls were molested by teachers" to "Gansu girls were molested by teachers and fell to death". In essence, the dominant position is not the legal rational order, but the advancing moral justice. Because, no matter how it is defined in the legal rules, people hope that the heavier the sentence, the better. Because, in the secular basic logic, misconduct is downright bad, and downright bad is worth going to hell.
After all, this Gansu girl was only 19 years old when she committed suicide by jumping off a building, which means she was molested at 17 years old. The fact that she was harassed will only attract more attention after she committed suicide by jumping off a building. This shows that the whole society has not paid enough attention to and cracked down on non-rape sexual assault cases such as "sexual harassment" and "indecency".
In addition, from the sentencing of similar cases in recent years, we can also see the weakness of relevant legal rules. Therefore, this will lead to some influential "sexual assault cases", which often makes public opinion in an anxious state. In a sense, the law and the judge are neutral. Even if there is, it will try to "stand on the right side" as much as possible.
However, when the specific jurisprudence and realistic environment cannot support the mutation, "moral trial" and "media assistance" will become people's first choice. Therefore, many times, a controversial case, if sentenced, can only be solved through the reproduction of public opinion and the media, and can only be finally solved. From this point of view, the case of Gansu girls being killed by their teachers will still follow this path.
If the public can see that the sentence is too light, can't the judge see it? Of course not. As mentioned above, if the crime of jumping off a building and the crime of indecency are cut into pieces, whether this judgment is applicable to the punishment of compulsory indecency is another matter. Because legal procedures emphasize the coherent connection between things.
If, just because "that girl fell to her death", the teacher will be severely sentenced, which obviously does not conform to the basic logic of jurisprudence. Because, in fact, the time difference between being harassed and jumping off a building is nearly two years. If we want the client to take responsibility, we have to resort to harassment, depression and traumatic stress disorder.
As for the "sentencing problem", naturally we can only examine the consideration of indecent degree. However, because of the subsequent changes of "suicide jump", it is not considered as a "sentencing" issue. Therefore, the understanding of "too light sentence" needs to be more clearly developed, instead of grabbing the eyebrows and beards and finally falling into stew. Because, as a case discussion, in addition to releasing the feelings of justice, we should also consider the handling of common cases.
Of course, people want to see a harsher sentence for sexual assault, perhaps based on the moral weight of the victim's chastity. Especially the girl who fell to her death. She was molested at the age of 17. From a secular point of view, this family still belongs to the daughter of Huanghua. How can you be so insulting and commit suicide by jumping off a building?
Therefore, "severe punishment" is naturally the basic appeal of public opinion. Even if girls are not harassed by teachers, they may not suffer from "depression" and "traumatic stress disorder", which is a "huge causal relationship". Here, being a teacher does have some responsibilities. However, as far as the victim's self-redemption process is concerned, it often depends on the "small causal relationship", that is, the reverse redemption logic that "being harassed" does not necessarily lead to death.
Unfortunately, in the atmosphere of "great cause and effect", not only the aggressor but also the victim was killed. Because, in the result of sexual assault, in addition to physical injury, mental injury is also gradually developing. This spiritual repression mainly comes from severe criticism on the moral level. Therefore, in the struggle against sexual assault, a cognitive breakthrough in this field may be more urgent.
Because our "sexual cognition" and "sexual morality" are relatively conservative for women. In other words, as a woman, whether it is active or passive sexual behavior, as long as it does not meet the secular moral standards, it will be labeled as "reckless". Therefore, "the original crime of the victim" is still a huge moral dilemma.
To tell the truth, if the "girl who fell to her death" has a more thorough understanding of sexual harm, the sexual harassment she may suffer will only be a dark moment in her life, not a lifetime. Unfortunately, our "sexual harm" environment is more moral, which makes it difficult for young girls to break out of their shells.
Here, back to this relatively typical incident of "a girl in Gansu was molested by a teacher until she jumped to her death", we should not only reflect on the problem of "commutation and heavy sentence", but also reflect on the "sexual harm" of immoral cognition. Of course, we don't want to completely corrupt morality, but try to avoid falling into the "chastity trap" in the process of saving the victims' sexual pain.