Cao Zhuang commutation controversial publicity mechanism to be perfect aspack

Cao Zhuang commutation controversial publicity mechanism to improve the original title: Cao Zhuang commutation controversial publicity mechanism to be perfect in third eyes like Cao et al of the crime, it is all very concerned about the case, may have some full disclosure of information, to enhance the credibility of the judiciary. In February 2nd, Beijing City Intermediate People’s court ruled: Cao Wenzhuang, former director of the State Food and Drug Administration of drug registration department, minus one year imprisonment, this is the fourth time he commuted, 2007, Cao Wenzhuang bribery, was sentenced to death because of dereliction of duty, the penalty period was reduced to 14 years imprisonment of 3 april. Cao Wenzhuang’s commutation, in addition to receive praise and commendation, but also because he paid more than 115 yuan of crime income. Cao Wenzhuang repeatedly commuted, triggering public opinion questioned a piece. The public didn’t understand why he could commute frequently and did not understand. Why could he withdraw more than 1 million 150 thousand yuan of criminal income after 8 years of sentence? Generally speaking, this should be a one-time collection of the Treasury when the final judgment, then why did not capture? If this is true repentance, ultimately, actively accept the transformation, is worth the commutation encouragement, so why not before 8 years back? Does it not resist reform before? So why did he give him 3 sentences before? Is not playing tricks Cao Zhuang, reached the small run, add oil to commutation? This case is so much public attention, the problem of ill gotten gains after 8 years, is so obvious, hope the court can exercise the commutation of interpretation right, to clarify this problem, to avoid misunderstanding. Several commutation Cao Wenzhuang raised the question of public opinion, there is a misunderstanding of the components (such as in the modern prison system, for several commutation is quite common, and not for the crime of official, judicial organs have the ad hoc) need to actively promote judicial sunny place, this also shows that the advance publicity information commutation of corrupt officials, but also it is not very perfect. The current commutation information is through the "national court commutation, parole, temporary probation information network unified announcement, but there are two obvious problems, one is the publicity period is too short, only 5 days; the two is too little public information, public disclosure of criminals commutation case only name, original sin, sentence it’s easy to get lost in the ocean of information publicity. For example, in January 7th this year, the Cao Zhuang publicity publicity in its original commutation, even the positions are not disclosed, not the staff, it is difficult to pay attention to the particularity of the case. Now, the central injunctions for crimes commutation should be especially careful, the public is also of particular concern, then, can be more effective in public areas, the information disclosure, to keep public expectations of the right to know and right of supervision? Such crimes as CaO and Li are directly related to drug safety and public health. We all care very much about it. The information should be fully disclosed so that the public can discuss in advance and form a more transparent atmosphere for the commutation of officials. In recent years, we have seen the judicial system in judicial efforts, but still hope that the court can come up with "a higher level" attitude to avoid obvious publicity, but the public still think the high officials commutation is a 4

曹文庄减刑引争议公示机制待完善   原标题:曹文庄减刑引争议公示机制待完善   第三只眼   像曹文庄这样的职务犯罪,本来就是大家很关心的案件,不妨信息披露得充分一些,以提升司法公信力。   2月2日,北京市一中院作出裁定:国家食品药品监督管理局药品注册司原司长曹文庄,减去一年有期徒刑,这是他第4次获得减刑,2007年时,曹文庄因为受贿、玩忽职守罪被判处死缓,目前其刑期被减到有期徒刑14年3个月。曹文庄此次减刑,除了获得表扬嘉奖之外,还因为他缴纳了115万余元的犯罪所得。   曹文庄的多次减刑,引发舆论质疑声一片。公众不明白,他为何可以频繁减刑,也不明白,他为何能在判刑8年之后又退出了115万多元的犯罪所得?按理说,这是应该在终审判决时一次性收缴国库的,当时为什么没有收缴?如果这次退赃,算是确实悔罪、积极接受改造,值得用减刑鼓励,那么为什么之前8年一直不退?之前不退算不算抗拒改造?既然如此,为什么之前还给予他3次减刑?是不是曹文庄在玩弄一些小技巧,达到小步快跑、添油减刑的目的?   这起案件是如此受到公众关注,8年后退赃的问题,是如此明显,希望减刑法院能积极行使释明权,向公众澄清这个问题,避免误解。   曹文庄的多次减刑引发舆论质疑,这里面有误解的成分(比如在现代的服刑制度中,多次减刑的适用相当普遍,并不是为罪官特设),也有司法机关需要积极应对,提升司法阳光的地方,这也说明,贪官减刑的信息提前公示,还不是很完善。   目前的减刑信息是通过“全国法院减刑、假释、暂予监外执行信息网”统一公布的,但是存在两个明显的问题,一是公示期限太短,只有5天;二是公示信息太少,减刑立案的公示只披露罪犯姓名,原罪名、刑期,很容易被淹没在公示的信息海洋中。比如,今年1月7日公示的曹文庄减刑公示中,连其原职务都未披露,不是关注此案的人员,很难注意此案的特殊性。   既然,中央三令五申对于职务犯罪的减刑应该特别慎重,公众也是特别关注,那么,能不能在公示环节,做到更有效的信息披露,以服膺公众对知情权、监督权的期望呢?像曹文庄这样的职务犯罪,直接关涉药品安全、公众健康,本来大家就很关心,信息理当披露得充分一些,让公众提前议一议,形成更透明的高官减刑程序氛围。   这几年,我们看到了司法系统在司法公开方面的努力,但还是希望法院能拿出“更上一层楼”的态度,避免明明公示了,但公众还是认为高官减刑是一种“突然袭击”的误会。   □袁伊文(法律工作者) 责任编辑:黄睿 SN224相关的主题文章: