After entering my favorite law department, the first extra-curricular law book recommended by my teacher was Rain at the West Window. He said, "This is a classic introduction to the spirit of law." When I first read it, I was respectful, but I didn't fully understand its taste. I mistakenly thought it was a textbook to introduce western legal system and legal knowledge, but the language was humorous. Reread today and you will become more transparent. The author's profound literary attainments and humorous language are condensed into a short and pithy story, and the legal charm behind it arouses legal people's thinking about China without trace through layers of pages. Sitting in the west window, immersed in the rain, never tired of reading, benefited a lot.
My faith has been strengthened by the rain, and everyone has the obligation to abide by the law, and no excuse can escape. Both law and theory come from social practice, and sometimes there is a certain lag. Different people, as social individuals, may have different positions on the same law. Some individuals may think that laws are incorrect and unfair. So, in this case, is it necessary to obey the law? The answer is given in Socrates' Prudence chapter. Socrates is a famous philosopher, and he likes dialectics, so he offended some sophists, who used the absurd laws of Athens to accuse him of imprisonment and was sentenced to death. Before he was executed, his students said that the law itself was unfair, and it was pedantic to abide by such laws, so he should be helped to escape from prison. Socrates said that it is unfair for citizens to obey any law, escape legal sanctions and die peacefully. The Death of Socrates tells us that laws are made to regulate social order. Although some laws are imperfect, if we use this as an excuse to evade the law, it will lead to social chaos and damage the interests of most people. Therefore, once the law is enacted through legal procedures, everyone has the obligation to abide by the law and cannot escape under any pretext.
Soaking in the rain makes my mind clearer. Procedure is not only a matter of means, but also determines the justice of entity, and both procedure and entity should be paid equal attention to. Any problem must have a solution or form, which is the procedure. Some people think that the procedure is only a matter of means, which is insignificant compared with the substantive issue. However, the rain at the west window tells us such a story. () There were two farmers in ancient Holland, A and B. They had the same great-grandfather. Because of a fruit forest dispute, at the first trial, because B took out a letter from his great-grandfather to give the fruit forest to his grandfather, the judge stopped asking A to reply and awarded the fruit forest to B. At the appeal hearing, the judge gave them an equal opportunity to debate and asked them to take out all the evidence and tell everything. As a result, A also produced a similar letter, so the judge divided the fruit forest equally between A and B.. This story tells us that different trial procedures may have different verdict. Only by fulfilling legal procedures can we better safeguard social fairness and justice.
Bathed in the rain and dew of the law, my passion is even stronger. Legal person should be a drop of water with the dream of rule of law, flowing into the long river of governing the country in an all-round way according to law. At present, China is in an important period of comprehensively deepening reform and comprehensively governing the country according to law. Against this background, I reread Rain at the West Window, including The Authority of Law, The Relationship between Government and Justice, The Rule of Law and the Rule of Man, and The Contract Relationship. A humorous passage full of the spirit of the rule of law makes me more rational and dialectical when I think about the rule of law in China. As a breakthrough in comprehensively deepening reform, the ongoing judicial system reform has entered a critical stage of comprehensive promotion and key breakthrough, which is an important step towards a country ruled by law. We are in the tide of reform, just like a drop of water in the long river of history, a drop of water is insignificant, but thousands of drops with the dream of rule of law are working hard in the direction of rule of law, and the goal of building a socialist country ruled by law is about to be realized. (Wu Yuqing)
Thoughts on Reading Rain under the West Window 2 Rain under the West Window is a collection of essays written by Professor Liu Xing in the column of Southern Weekend. Although this book is a serious legal subject, its style is relaxed and interesting. Most of the short articles in the book combine specific cases to discuss and study relevant legal issues in Europe and America. This is a good enlightenment book for the study of legal culture.
When I was in college, I had a very lofty ideal-to become an international business lawyer. I have always been interested in law-related books and TV plays, so I read this book with relish and took Liu Jiaoshou's views seriously.
Here, I mainly want to talk about the judges behind the law. Generally speaking, the law is interpreted and applied by judges, who can be called the mouthpiece of the law. Some westerners even think that the law is in charge of the judge. The 40th book "The Law in the Judge's Mouth" tells a case that a court in Maine and a court in Massachusetts encountered a similar case of will dispute-one of the testators was the wife of the legatee. According to American law at that time, the will must be proved by three witnesses. Maine court judge thinks that the wife can be a witness to prove the validity of the will, while Massachusetts court judge thinks that the wife and husband are a family, and the inheritance that the wife proves to her husband is for herself, so the will is invalid.
The fifty-ninth book Free Evaluation of Evidence reminds me of Bao Zheng, a famous minister in the Song Dynasty, who is impartial. His judgment style is quite similar to the free evaluation of evidence in many literary works based on him. Although the legal evidence is reliable, the law itself has its inherent defects, and the judge's judgment is only a good supplement. Therefore, the law is not only decided by legislators, but also given different interpretations by the judges behind the law according to the specific circumstances. Judging from many practical cases, moderate discretion can better realize the original intention of the law-maintaining justice. In western countries, judges will put aside legal provisions when necessary and apply a higher principle of "justice" to judge cases. In China, there are such brave judges, but after all, they are few.
In my opinion, as a justice judge, he should be the incarnation of a saint, just like Bao Qingtian in the movie. However, this is not the case in reality. In the recent judicial reform, the judge's lifelong responsibility system for handling cases was put forward, which set off a wave of resignation of judges. A resigned judge said that the reason for his resignation was that he didn't feel the sacredness of his work. This is worth pondering. Although the reform is going on and deepening, the direction and fundamentals should be the most important. If judges just copy the provisions mechanically and legislation just tinkers with them, will this legal system come to an end? Have you forgotten the most important moral and ethical standards and the original intention of justice? Law is the minimum standard and requirement. Justice and sacredness need the clarity of legislation, but the final realization must be supported by morality. To achieve justice is to let every citizen know the honor and disgrace and let every judge have dignity.
I remember when I first saw the book Rain at the West Window, I felt that it was only a thin 100 pages, not so thick, not as boring as the usual law books, but easy to understand. It tells us its legal significance through cases or legal phenomena, which makes me interested in it and willing to follow the footsteps of the author to discuss it one by one.
Several years later, when I read Rain at the West Window again, I felt more than before, but what hasn't changed is that reading it still has a feeling of spring breeze and comfort. The classic cases and detailed analysis in the book can best arouse my in-depth thinking about the law and are extremely enlightening.
For those who study law, the biggest helplessness is to encounter a single choice between law and morality. No matter which one you choose, it is a betrayal of the soul, whether it is conscience or justice. It is not easy for people who are too emotional to survive in the gap between morality and law. However, for most rational people, the value of studying law lies in seeking the balance between law and morality. After reading Socrates' warning, my first emotion was that I could not accept Socrates' choice. Is this prudence protecting the dignity and authority of the law? This reminds me of the "Miranda warning", knowing that there is substantive injustice in the law, but abandoning the individual justice of the law to safeguard the procedural justice of the law. Then as a legal person, we should look at the problem rationally and separate morality from law, otherwise we will be deeply immersed in emotion and reason.
"There is no clear stipulation that there is no crime in the law" is well explained in the story "The Defects of Law and Human Wisdom". The story tells the story of a young man named George who was sued for breaking into the Royal Airport to play. When everyone thought that there was no turning point in the prosecution of George, George's lawyer successfully exploited the loophole of the law on the grounds that "in the restricted area" and "near the restricted area" were different. The victory of this lawsuit makes people have to admit the loopholes and potential crisis brought by the defects of the law itself, which makes legislators more forward-looking and predictive.
Speaking of the rule of man and the rule of law, we can't help thinking of ancient China. In ancient China, the rule of man was dominant, supplemented by the rule of law. In ancient times, Confucianism became the mainstream of culture through the transformation of rulers in previous dynasties, and its concept of "benevolence" was deeply rooted in people's hearts, providing reasonable reasons for rulers to rule by man. The rule of law, however, is only invoked when local officials pronounce sentences, and has no effect on the decision-making of rulers. Rule by man not only refers to serving people with morality and influencing the country with morality, but also refers to giving specific guidance to people's behavior according to different situations. The rule of law not only refers to governing the country with laws that are not dominated by people's feelings, but also refers to guiding people's behavior with general rules. If the virtuous people who rely on the rule of man are no longer noble and govern the country with personal feelings and interests instead of moral influence, won't the country suffer? But the rule of man also has certain advantages, that is, it can give specific guidance to people's behavior according to different situations. Just like George's case in the book, when encountering unprecedented situations, it can be handled flexibly according to people's wisdom, unlike the rule of law. But the rule of man is uncertain. Isn't that how bad emperors died in past dynasties? The reason why the rule of law is used by modern countries is that the rule of law is more reliable than the rule of man, even though the rule of law has some shortcomings such as conservatism, rigidity and restriction.
For legal rights and natural rights, from the usual point of view, rights are the permission or recognition given by law to the subject of rights to act or not to act. So what right does the law have to give us? In the west, after the bourgeois revolution, natural human rights have been deeply rooted in people's hearts. Many westerners firmly believe that some of their rights are innate, and these rights are eternal whether they are recognized by national laws or not. The right of the state to make laws can only be an affirmation of people's primitive natural rights, not a gift. When their rights are violated, they will not hesitate to take up legal weapons to resist. They won't think it's a shameful thing. They will only think that if my rights are violated, I will naturally resist. This is my nature. But will natural rights that are not recognized by law be abused? I think the law is a game between one side and the other, and some people will abuse it. This is also very helpless.
When it comes to law, we feel mysterious, dignified and sublime. In fact, laws, like morality, habits, religion and discipline, regulate people's behavior. It is precisely because of these norms that our society will become orderly. It is because of the existence of the law that our rights are guaranteed as they should be. We should thank the law for everything it has brought us.
In a person's long life, there will always be opposing forces at work, good and evil, good and evil, true and false, beauty and ugliness, and the brilliance and ugliness of human nature are intertwined, affecting everyone. May we grow up healthily under the blue sky ruled by law and become useful people to society!