This is a very typical case that exposes several deep-seated problems in the current judicial system's handling of rape cases, especially when involving special subjects such as minors and family members. As legal practitioners, we should not only see the extreme factors in individual cases (such as the psychological distortion of the accuser), but also analyze the institutional deficiencies in the judicial process in terms of evidence review, inner conviction, and power constraints. Based on the content of the document and practical experience, analyze from five dimensions:

1、 Evidence review: excessive reliance on verbal evidence, false rules for reinforcing objective evidence

Core Performance：
In this case, the police have conducted comprehensive evidence collection including DNA testing, on-site investigation, surveillance retrieval, and injury examination, and the results are all "zero physical evidence". And the father denies it from the beginning, the mother's witness testimony is clear, and family life records can prove a normal relationship. However, the first instance court still sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment based on "unilateral testimony+a small amount of indirect witness testimony", which actually undermines the provision of Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law that "if only the defendant confesses and there is no other evidence, the defendant cannot be found guilty and punished", and also violates the judicial principle of "heavy evidence, light testimony".

Practical Analysis：
In rape cases, due to the fact that the crime often occurs in a private space, the lack of objective evidence (such as DNA, injuries, surveillance) is the norm, which is an inherent difficulty of the case. But the law does not allow the standard of proof to be lowered as a result. The correct approach should be:

• The review of victim statements must be strictConsider the stability of the statement, the reasonableness of the details, the presence of contradictions, and the motive for false accusations.
• Indirect evidence must form a complete chainEven if there is no direct physical evidence, there needs to be mutual verification of behavior, trajectory, reason, collateral evidence, etc., to achieve the goal of "eliminating reasonable suspicion".
• This case is exactly the oppositeThe girl has a clear motive for revenge (stopped by her father due to early love), a history of mental illness (depression may lead to cognitive biases or exaggerated risks), and a path to seek help from her cousin (but her cousin is only her companion, not an independent witness), which should have made the evidence system unable to meet the standard for conviction.

follow-up questionDoes the judge have a preconceived notion in their inner conviction that 'the victim is a minor' is equivalent to 'the victim's statement is naturally credible'? This exposes the excessive expansion of "special protection" for sexual assault cases by some judges, which actually violates procedural justice.

2、 Lack of identification and prevention mechanism for "bizarre false accusations by victims"

Key Details：
At first, the girl only wanted to falsely accuse her father of "domestic violence", but because her father always restrained himself and did not leave any evidence, she turned to the online misconception that "sexual assault can be convicted by confession" and fabricated the fact of sexual assault. She originally thought that her father would only be "disciplined for one or two months" and completely did not understand the consequences of life imprisonment.

Practical issues：

• The review obligation of public security organsDuring the investigation stage, when facing a 16-year-old minor with a history of depression who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by her biological father for a long time, did the public security organs fully verify her mental state, family conflicts, and motive for reporting the case? Have you noticed her cousin who accompanied the report and her potential influence?
• The filtering function of the public prosecution authorityDespite the complete absence of physical evidence, the defendant's firm denial, and the mother's testimony, the prosecution still filed charges of rape and child molestation, indicating that the prosecution did not fully implement the "reinforcement rules for victim statements" when reviewing arrest and prosecution, and had a tendency to "lower the standard of conviction as long as the victim is identified".
• The intermediary judicial function of the courtWhy didn't the first instance judge request the prosecution to further supplement evidence? Why not retrieve the girl's mental health records, psychological counseling records, school performance, etc. according to her authority to assess the credibility of her statements? This exposes the habitual thinking of judges in sexual assault cases, who prioritize accusations over defense.

3、 Crisis of procedural justice: presumption of guilt vs. presumption of innocence

The most unsettling conclusion：
In the situation of zero physical evidence, zero surveillance, zero witnessing, zero injuries, and zero rationality (the "50" state), the court unexpectedly sentenced to life imprisonment, which is equivalent to a "presumption of guilt" in the judiciary. According to the principle of 'presumption of innocence', the only correct verdict in this case should be 'insufficient evidence and the alleged crime cannot be established', rather than 'unable to rule out reasonable suspicion, but the victim speaks and is sentenced'.
root cause：

• Criminal policy pressureCurrently, there is a "zero tolerance" attitude towards crimes of sexual assault against minors, and some judges may still convict when there is insufficient evidence in order to avoid being criticized for not protecting the victim.
• Distortion of assessment mechanismIn the performance evaluation of some courts, there is a reverse pressure of "investigating wrongful cases", which leads to judges being afraid to declare innocence easily and preferring to give heavier sentences before allowing the second instance to correct them.
• Legal Application Technical IssuesThe judge may have confused the difference between "high difficulty of proof" and "lowered standard of proof". The law requires that "the facts are clear, the evidence is reliable and sufficient", rather than "the victim says it's okay".

4、 Serious deviation from the principle of proportionality between sentencing and crime

Sentencing paradox：
My father was sentenced to life imprisonment - one of the highest punishments for rape (with serious circumstances). In this case, even if the charges are assumed to be true, the sentencing must be based on facts determined by evidence (such as frequency, means, consequences, etc.), but the charges themselves are full of contradictions. Imposing heavy sentences when the evidence is extremely weak is a typical "sentencing based on intuition", which violates Article 5 of the Criminal Law, which states that "the severity of the punishment should be commensurate with the crime committed and the criminal responsibility borne by the offender".
Practical Warning：
When sentencing sexual assault cases, the court must distinguish between "insufficient evidence" and "mitigating circumstances". The first instance of this case clearly equated "victim statement" with "all facts" and calculated the sentence based on this, which is a fatal logical error. After the second instance confession is overturned, if it is proven to be a false accusation, the original judgment shall be deemed as an "error in factual determination", and a retrial procedure shall be initiated to rectify the situation.

5、 Loopholes in the system of judicial accountability

Netizens ask questionsDo first instance judges need to take responsibility?

Legal Analysis：
According to the Judges Law and related wrongful conviction accountability system, if a judge intentionally violates the law or incorrectly determines facts leading to a wrongful conviction, they shall bear legal responsibility. But in practice, it is very difficult to determine "intent" or "gross negligence". The first instance judge in this case may argue that:

1. I have formed inner conviction based on the victim's statement and witness testimony;
2. Sexual assault cases are inherently difficult to collect objective physical evidence;
3. At that time, the girl had not retracted her confession and could not foresee any subsequent changes.

But the problem is:Judges have an obligation to review reasonable doubts about evidenceThere are numerous doubts in this case (the daughter had a motive for revenge, the father consistently denied it, the mother testified, and there was no objective physical evidence), and any rational judge should consider the evidence insufficient. If the first instance judge turns a blind eye to these doubts, it at least constitutes "gross negligence" and should be held accountable in accordance with the law.

Suggestions：

• It is necessary to initiate an investigation into wrongful convictions and determine whether there were any biased opinions or violations of the rules of evidence in the first instance.
• At the same time, the obligation of judges to review victim statements in sexual assault cases should be included as a training focus to prevent similar incidents from happening again.

Conclusion and Inspiration

This case is a rare but highly impactful 'textbook style wrongful case', which reveals the three most dangerous tendencies of current judicial authorities in handling rape cases:

1. Blind trust in the victim's statement——Neglecting its fragility as verbal evidence, ignoring factors such as psychological state, motivation, and contradictions;
2. The virtualization of evidence reinforcement rules——When there is a lack of objective evidence, one dare not insist on 'presumption of innocence';
3. The erosion of legal standards by policy orientation——Under the guise of "protecting minors", there is a presumption of guilt.

From the perspective of legal practice, we must strongly call for:

• Deepen the reform of the criminal procedure system centered on trialEnsure that the principle of evidence-based adjudication is implemented.
• Establish a specialized review mechanism for rape cases, especially those involving minorsThis includes introducing psychological experts to evaluate the credibility of the victim's statements and strictly identifying the possibility of false accusations.
• Improve the system of investigating wrongful casesWe will firmly hold accountable those who make wrongful judgments due to serious violations of the rules of evidence.

The law must return to rationality - both punishing crimes and protecting human rights should be given equal importance, and the bottom line cannot be broken just because of the sensitive nature of the case. If the judicial authorities themselves cannot uphold the 'evidence judgment', then every 'protection' may turn into another destruction.

Lawyer Shen Jinlong

July 20, 2026