杭州保姆纵火案二审宣判：驳回上诉 维持原判

society/201806/00440078.htm

不是利益集团

“维持原判”要以原审判处无懈可击为前提，既要符合法律条文，法治精神，又要和情理、习俗相符，否则，就演化成了官官相护和利益集团。

一审给出的死刑判处似有凭空和扭曲。按照 Mainland 的《婚姻法》《计划生育法》等文字表叙，一个普通家庭里是不可能出现3个未成年子女的，如果“4人死亡”没有造假，并且不包括“收养弃婴”，那么火灾发生之前，一定有违法违纪在先了……

司法解释里的消防救助是有所偏颇的，消防栓锈死是物业管理，物业维护者的责任，至少不可能是被告人的责任；设置临时水路从楼下向第18层楼供水，是建筑物存在严重缺失，没有建设水利存贮，消防队没有派出高层灭火设备、没有专用直升飞机参加灭火（如果杭州高层建筑超过30幢），应该依法的是：追究领导责任……，这些也都和普通保姆没有关联。

……

 Interest Groups No

"Maintaining the original judgment" should be based on the unassailable position of original sentenced. Not only in accordance to the provisions of the law, and the spirit of the rule of law, it is also in conformity to reason and custom. Otherwise, it evolved into a bureaucrat and an interest group.

The death penalty given by the first instance seems that is empty and distorted. According to Mainland's <marriage law> and <family planning law>, it is impossible for an ordinary family there are 3 underage children, if "4 people die", there is no counterfeiting, and it does not include "adopt abandoned baby", then before the conflagration, there must be the breach of law and discipline first.

Fire rescue in judicial interpretation is biased. The fire hydrant rust to loss control. that is responsibility of property management and maintainers. at least it is not responsibility of that accused; Set the temporary water is provided from ground press to 18th storey building, that there is the serious flaw in building, and not build any water storage.

The fire brigade did not dispatch high-rise fire extinguishing equipment; no dedicated helicopters are involved in the fire;… if there are more than 30 high-rise buildings in city of Hangzhou, it should be held responsible for " the duty of leadership" ..., all of which are unrelated from nanny.

In the news report and the judicial document, many mentions Mo-HuanJing because involves the gambling, has dabbled in the arson crime ..., you do not think the "Civil servants' wages quadrupled" also were the gambling?

Forge iron first hard yourself, educate others should educate yourselt first .

If it is correct to "reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment", Same crime, fire book, kead to fire curtains, same loss, 4 people died ,property loss, and environmental damage, the probability should be >50%.  This is the rule and law， others all are "accidental" and could not are "inevitable"...

Tsaokuohua=曹国华=320602520830201