生命不能 Take Two

事件發生在台灣。一位女童被兇手擄進廁所姦殺,之後棄屍他處。

是夜,年輕士兵江國慶使用同一間廁所,並在裡頭自慰。他自慰的精液,噴到垃圾桶內的一張衛生紙上。

正好,這張衛生紙,之前染上女童的血液。

一張衛生紙上,有死者的血液,以及嫌犯的精液;控方找到江國慶,證實是他的精液。

嚴刑逼供之下,江國慶承認是他姦殺了女童。

很快的,他就被帶上刑場鎗斃。

死前,他一直痛述被冤枉,說自己沒有姦殺女童。

他的生命被剝奪了,而且烙上“姦殺兇手”的印記,即使被鎗決了,還是被人辱罵,家人在社會上也抬不起頭。

15年後,當局逮到真正的兇手許榮洲;他坦誠犯下47宗性侵案件,包括在廁所姦殺那位女童。

對於江國慶因他而冤死,他覺得“不好意思”。

然而,一個無辜的生命,因為辦案人員的疏忽,檢控官員的偏執,以及司法審判的倉促,而遭到不公的剝奪。

這是永遠無法彌補的遺憾,江國慶不能復生,生命不能take two。

這宗離奇的案件,挑戰了人們的想像空間,同時,也挑戰泛道德的界線。

同樣的事件,也有可能發生在其它社會。執法單位過於輕率,有時為了交差,或是過於迎合社會的期望,往往採取不符合常理的偵訊方式,只求草草結案,結果就可能造成冤案。

發生在雪州首邦市的古甘案件,足以為鑑。

辦案應嚴守正當法律程序,不能讓感覺和情緒主使,才能做到公正。

江國慶案也引發對死刑的思考。

如果沒有死刑,或者死刑只有在必要是才實行,那麼,江國慶可能被監禁15年之後,可以洗刷冤屈,獲得清白,重新回到社會,回到家庭。

但是,在貫徹死刑的社會,他沒有這個機會。

這讓人想到還在新加坡監獄裡的楊偉光,他的命運,還是未定之中。

給他一個機會,換回生命的延續和重生,是最大的恩典,尤其新年即將來臨,更有莫大的意義。

星洲日報/馬荷加尼‧作者:鄭丁賢‧《星洲日報》副總編輯‧2011.01.31

Innocent life lost due to miscarriage of justice

By TAY TIAN YAN,Translated by Adeline Lee,Original post : MySinchew 2011-01-31

A girl was abducted, raped and killed in a toilet by the murderer who then discarded her corpse elsewhere. This most hideous and gruesome crime occurred in Taiwan.

That same night, a young soldier by the name of Jiang Guo-qing used the same toilet, and masturbated himself. His semen sprayed onto a piece of toilet paper in the rubbish bin.

This piece of toilet paper was stained with the girl’s blood.

On the same piece of toilet paper, there was the blood of the victim, and the suspect’s semen. The prosecution examined and confirmed that the semen was that of Jiang Guo-qing.

Under torture, Jiang Guo-qing admitted that he had raped and killed the girl.

Very soon, he was brought to the execution ground and shot.

Before his death, he had repeatedly claimed that he was wronged and that he did not rape and murder the girl.

He was deprived of his life, and branded a rapist and a murderer. Even after his execution, he was still hated and reviled. His family was also looked down upon by the community.

Fifteen years later, the authorities caught the real killer Xu Rong-zhou; who admitted that he had committed 47 cases of sexual assault, including that of the girl who was raped and murdered in the toilet.

Xu Rong-zhou expressed regrets to the family of Jiang Guo-qing who died an unjust death because of him.

However, an innocent life had been unjustly deprived, because of the negligence of the investigators, the prejudice of the prosecution officials, and the haste of the justice system.

This will always be an irreparable regret, as Jiang Guo-qing cannot come back to life.

This bizarre case has challenged people’s imagination and also challenged the non-specific boundaries of morality.

Similar incidents may also occur in other societies. When law enforcement agencies act rashly, sometimes in order to fulfil the assignment, or to meet the expectations of the society, they often use unreasonable interrogation methods, and act only to hastily close the case. The result may be a grave injustice.

The Kugan Ananthan case in Selangor should give enough warning.

Law enforcement officials should strictly observe due process when handling cases, and cannot let their feelings and emotions dictate their actions, so that they can be fair and objective.

Jiang Guo-qing’s case has also led to a review, reevaluation and reconsideration of the death penalty.

If there had been no death penalty, or the death penalty was imposed only when absolutely necessary, then Jiang Guo-qing could have been imprisoned for 15 years, got his grievance cleared, his innocence reinstated, and would then be able to return to society.

However, in a society that implements the death penalty, he did not have this opportunity.

This reminds us of Yong Vui Kong who is imprisoned in Singapore, with his fate still undecided.

If he is given a chance and spared the gallows, it would be a very joyous Chinese New Year for his family, friends, and many Malaysians who are appealing for mercy and clemency for him.

===============================

欲知更多江國慶冤死案
http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS2/6125574.shtml
http://tw.nextmedia.com/applenews/article/art_id/33148896/IssueID/20110129

About givelife2ndchance

Give Life 2nd Chance is a movement dedicated to work on abolish death penalty in Malaysia.
This entry was posted in Features / Articles and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to 生命不能 Take Two

  1. L says:

    I’m sorry, but I am less sympathetic towards Yong Vui Kong’s case, and I find it distasteful and disrespectful that you would try and link the Taiwanese case with the Singapore case, as they are completely two different types of scenarios. Yong Vui Kong was a willing drug trafficker contributing to the ruination of countless lives. How does that make him a good Buddhist? He knew the inherent dangers and risks, and your ignorance of the law in other countries doesn’t excuse you from them. And let’s think further – death sentence or life imprisonment, what is a decrepit life behind bars in hellish conditions compared to a quick death?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s