Almighty Coach

.

Nick Rees is a prosecutor, and he is the highest prosecutor in California. He has a 100% conviction rate so far.

In the Anglo-American judicial system, the prosecutor in criminal cases is equivalent to a domestic public prosecutor, responsible for conducting national public prosecutions in criminal cases. Although sometimes the prosecutor will be translated into a prosecutor when translating, but their responsibilities are very different from the domestic prosecutor.

For a prosecutor, the conviction rate is equivalent to the "performance" and "highlights" of their work. The level of conviction rate will also directly affect the future and future development of a prosecutor. Many politicians in the United States start their careers as prosecutors, and their high conviction rates when they become prosecutors in the future when they run for election will become bonus points.

In addition, the Anglo-American judicial system is biased to protect the defendant to a certain extent, and the conviction rate is also a way to protect the defendant's rights and interests. Because of the conviction rate indicator, the prosecutor will not easily prosecute the suspect without full conviction, so that the prosecutor will not prosecute the suspect with a "try" mentality. Cause a lot of public resources to be wasted.

The police are responsible for detecting the case. From the perspective of the police, in order to pursue the conclusion rate, the prosecutor may wish to sue the suspect quickly, so it is not ruled out that the police will close the case quickly and report the situation without collecting enough evidence. With the conviction rate, and the indiscriminate prosecution in case of insufficient evidence, that is a joke about the future of the prosecutor and his supervisor. The prosecutor will not prosecute the case with insufficient evidence, which also forces the police to go Collect enough evidence to prove the suspect's crime, so as to reduce the probability of the suspect being wronged.

Of course, this judicial system also has great flaws. Under this judicial system, the defendant's direct confession is also a successful conviction, and the prosecutor often hopes to convict in this quick and easy way for his conviction rate. Instead of a long and fierce confrontation with the defense lawyer in the court. Therefore, the prosecutor will reduce the sentence in exchange for the suspect's active confession, so that the prosecutor can not only ensure his conviction rate, but also save time and energy, and the suspect can also reduce the penalty, as to whether the suspect has received the due The penalty was put aside. There is a very famous movie with a similar plot.

The conviction rate is very important. Most prosecutors have a relatively high conviction rate, and this Nick-Rees prosecutor is definitely the best among them. The 100% conviction rate can almost explain that the suspect has reached his hand. You can't run away.

At this time, Prosecutor Rees was drinking coffee in the office of the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

He was really drinking coffee, not the kind of "invited" to the police station to "drink coffee" in the Hong Kong drama.

In front of Reese was a man with a serious head, this man was the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

"Nick, we have no choice but to find you this time. You are the prosecutor with the highest conviction rate in California. I believe you can successfully convict that guy!" The police chief said.

"I have read the relevant file and it may be far-fetched to sue him for murder. It is said that the injured person has accepted his compensation and is not going to pursue it. As for the assault police, he did Behavior, but considering that he was in a state of being kidnapped by others at the time, he can only use this method to call for help, which is also a justifiable excuse. "

Reese spread her hands and then said: "And there is a record in the file, he did not cause any physical injury to any police officer. He just left a few holes in the police car. The injured policemen were all with the kidnappers. It was caused during the shootout. If we just accuse him of damaging public property, I can convict him 100%. "

"What I want is not to damage the public property, I want to sue him for attacking the police!" The police chief continued indignantly: "He did not hurt our police officer, but if his bullet was slightly offset, the hole would not be Just stay in the police car! "

"How about letting him donate a sum of money to the police station? I heard that the coach is very rich." Ruisi said jokingly.

"Nick, you still don't understand my intention." The police chief continued with a solemn expression: "The purpose of his shooting at passers-by is to let passers-by report to the police, and the purpose of his shooting at police is to cause the police. Note that to rescue him, maybe he is not wrong, but I do n’t want this kind of behavior to be encouraged, and I do n’t want anyone else to learn his way. "

The police chief put on a stern expression: "It's understandable to hurt others in order to save one's life. It may be understood that any one person will make the same choice, but it does not mean that The behavior is just, he is going to save his life, the life of the innocent passerby does not need to be protected? The injured passerby did nothing wrong, he did n’t even do anything, just passed by. . Then he was shot. Although he did not die, should this innocent passerby be sacrificed? "

Reese opened his mouth slightly and didn't speak. The police chief's appearance of justice made it impossible for Reese to speak. Those who stood at the moral commanding point and said everything was wrong.

The police chief went on to say: "Besides, he fired at our police. Although he was trying to attract the attention of the police and could be regarded as calling the police in this way, I still think that this is a very bad method. As I said earlier, at such a long distance, his gun just hit our policeman as long as it is a little bit! If his behavior is forgiven, then others will follow his approach! That would cause us a lot of trouble. "

"En" Rui Si agreed, and then looked at the police chief with interest.

The police chief continued: "Imagine our police officer on duty on the road, and then there was a gunshot, someone in the distance fired a cold gun at the policeman, and afterwards we caught the man, but he said he did it just to Call the police, do n’t you think this is ridiculous? In case if the person ’s marksmanship is not accurate, causing casualties to our police officer, or someone intentionally shoots at our police officer, and later argues that it is for Call the police, does that also escape punishment? I do n’t want our police officers to be inexplicably let down when they are on duty! "

"I was almost fooled by the appearance of Ling Ran just now. I thought he was a sense of justice. It turned out that he was just worried that a similar situation would happen again, which would bring more trouble to the police or cause police accidents. Casualties. I think this is the real reason why he must sue the coach. He does n’t want to see someone imitate that coach ’s behavior. ”The smile on Reese ’s face flashed.

"Director, I understand what you mean. Your goal is not to put that coach in jail. You want to use this to convey an attitude, or to act as a deterrent to others, right?" Rees Asked.

"That's right, I don't want anyone to follow the coach's behavior." The police chief nodded.

"Well, although this case is very difficult, but I will do my best." Rui Si agreed to come down.

...

Nick Rice returned to his office.

"Nick, Mr. Terrell is waiting for you." The colleague said to Reese.

Terrell is the boss of Reis and the head of all prosecutors here.

"I'll pass right away." Reese nodded and walked towards Mr. Trell's office.

Reese knocked on the door and approached Terrell's office, and Terrell was indeed waiting for Rees.

"Rhys, just come back from the police station, what is the specific situation?" Terrell asked.

"I talked to the police chief. As you told me before, what he wants is not as simple as damaging public property. He wants us to sue the coach for intentionally injuring people and attacking the police. Murdered. "Rhys told her supervisor the intention of the police chief.

"It's a little troublesome." Terrell frowned suddenly. He said: "The penalty for deliberately hurting people and attacking the police is not light. Do you think that if we exchange in order to reduce the penalty, the coach Will you plead guilty? "

"I'm afraid it's difficult." Rui Si spread her hands, and then said: "If the other party is just an ordinary person, it's better to say, but that coach is a rich man, he has a chain of physical training center, there are many well-known athletes are in Training there, he can afford the best lawyer to help him fight the lawsuit. If he is just accused of destroying the public property, he will plead guilty, but he will not plead guilty unless he intentionally hurts or attacks the police. The lawsuit went to the end. "

"So, this lawsuit must go to court." Terrell said.

"Yes, and possibly many courts, I'm ready to fight a protracted war." Rees replied.

Terrell showed a satisfied expression: "You just have this consciousness. Actually, after reading the file in this case, I sympathized with the coach. He was the victim of the whole incident. But we and the Los Angeles Police Department There are so many years of good cooperation, so I ca n’t refuse them. Nick, you know, we and the police are mutually beneficial, and many times I ca n’t help myself. ”

"Mr. Terrell, I understand." Reese said empathically.

"Okay, I'll leave this matter to you. If there is anything I need to solve, you can come directly to me." Terrell said.

"There is indeed one thing, I want to report to you first." Reese lowered his voice, and then said: "In this case, conviction is difficult, so I plan to use the power of public opinion."

Terrell thought for a few seconds and then nodded: "I think it's okay, but be modest and don't make things too big. If things are too big, the trial process will be affected."

...

"Will you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself"

One such topic appeared in the media, and Li Dai's incident was directly regarded as a case in reality.

Soon, some media commentators published their views. This kind of problem easily attracted people's attention, and it triggered a lot of public discussion. Some media have engaged in online interactive voting, while others have simply taken a random interview on the street and asked some passers-by if they will harm an innocent person in order to protect themselves.

Among them, the so-called questionnaire survey does not have much practical significance. If this kind of question involves morality, if the questionnaire survey is only carried out, then the subject of the survey will definitely answer at the commanding heights of morality. Killing will not hurt an innocent person.

This is like someone going to the street to ask passers-by, if you have 10 billion, you are willing to donate 5 billion to those poor people, I believe many people will say yes, anyway, you do not have 10 billion, stand and speak Low back pain, who wouldn't brag

But if someone holds a donation box and wants passers-by to donate 100 yuan, then a few people will donate 100 yuan, and everyone can afford it, but if you do n’t talk about it, when the money is paid, who will continue to stay there? The commanding height of morality is not to mention 5 billion, 100 yuan is reluctant!

However, the momentum of public opinion is very detrimental to Li Dai. Everyone will affect each other, especially some issues involving morality. When most people start to look at others from the height of morality, then right and wrong and the truth It becomes unimportant.

...

"Will you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself"

One such topic appeared in the media, and Li Dai's incident was directly regarded as a case in reality.

Soon, some media commentators published their views. This kind of problem easily attracted people's attention, and it triggered a lot of public discussion. Some media have engaged in online interactive voting, and the voting results have no suspense. Up to 95% of the votes stated that they would not harm an innocent person in order to protect themselves, and the other half did not answer "will" But "don't know".

Some media simply went to the streets to conduct random interviews and the like, asking some ordinary citizens whether they would harm an innocent person in order to protect themselves.

"Sir, ask you a question, will you hurt an innocent person in order to protect yourself?" The female reporter held a microphone and walked to a passerby.

"Of course not! How can I do such an unethical thing? I would rather hurt myself than hurt an innocent person!" The passerby replied without hesitation, he looked at the camera, that just look It's like a superhero in a comic.

"Madam, ask you a question, will you hurt an innocent person in order to protect yourself?" The female reporter found another goal.

"No, absolutely not!" The woman shook her head immediately: "I have a moral bottom line, I will not put pain on others."

"Sir, ask you a question, will you hurt an innocent person to protect yourself?" The female reporter asked a middle-aged strong man this time.

"Why do you ask such strange questions?" The middle-aged strong man asked back.

"It was because of a recent kidnapping case in Los Angeles. The hostage loved him without being able to call the police. He shot a passing person and then the police, and was rescued." The female reporter said.

"Oh my god, since the hostage has a gun in his hand, why not kill the kidnappers and choose to shoot a passing person!" The middle-aged strong man showed an exaggerated expression, and then he said: "If it is me I would use a gun to hit the kidnapper ’s head instead of hurting an innocent passerby! "

This so-called questionnaire does not have much practical significance. If this kind of question involves morality, if the questionnaire is only a questionnaire, then the subject of the survey will definitely answer from the moral commanding point, and will give the most hypocritical answer. .

This is like someone going to the street to ask passers-by, if you have 10 billion ~ www.readwn.com ~ would you like to donate 5 billion to those poor people, I believe many people will say yes, anyway, you don't have 10 billion Yes, standing and talking without backache, who wo n’t brag

But if someone holds a donation box and wants passers-by to donate 100 yuan, then a few people will really donate 100 yuan, anyone can afford it, but when it comes time to pay, I am afraid many people have counseled

Have the ability to install 5 billion forcing, but can not afford to pay 100 yuan! This is not just ridiculous, it is also a cruel reality, but also a hypocrisy in human nature.

However, this kind of moral abduction is very detrimental to Li Dai. People will affect each other, especially some issues involving morality. Everyone will try to stand at the commanding heights of morality.

When most people begin to look at others from a moral height, right and wrong and the truth become unimportant, leaving only the kind of "seemingly just" criticism.

←