Outrageous! A Henan kindergarten teacher poisoned children to retaliate against a colleague

Compiled from: The Beijing News, The Paper
 
On July 15, 2020, the trial of a kindergarten teacher in Jiaozuo, Henan Province, suspected of poisoning, opened at the Jiaozuo Intermediate People's Court. Wang Yun, the kindergarten teacher, was charged with the crime of spreading dangerous substances and intentional injury. After a three-and-a-half-hour hearing, the presiding judge announced a recess, with the verdict to be delivered at a later date.

 
 

Case Summary
1. Poisoned students' meal bowls in retaliation after a conflict with a colleague
On the morning of March 27, 2019, a suspected food poisoning incident involving children occurred at Mengmeng Kindergarten in Jiefang District, Jiaozuo City. According to a subsequent police report, the incident was caused by Wang Yun, a teacher at the kindergarten, who administered sodium nitrite. A total of 23 children were poisoned as a result.
 
During the trial, Wang Yun stated that on March 26, 2019, she had a conflict with Sun Mouzhen, a teacher of the middle class. After Sun Mouzhen complained to the kindergarten principal, Wang Yun became dissatisfied with Sun upon learning of it and decided to retaliate by putting sodium nitrite into the eight-treasure porridge for the middle class students. Wang Yun stated that after the conflict with Sun, she “grew angrier the more she thought about it” and wanted to make Sun “feel upset for a couple of days,” so she thought of poisoning, because “sometimes Sun would also taste that food.” She stated that she was “targeting Sun,” and the food in the poisoned basin was for the kindergarten middle class students, but she “did not consider the children at the time.” She stated that after the children showed symptoms, she was called to the second floor and even helped pat their backs and feed them water, and later followed the kindergarten operator to send four young children to the hospital.
 
In his final statement, Wang Yun wept in court, apologized, and pleaded guilty, saying he would never be able to forgive himself for the rest of his life. However, he argued in his defense, “I did not intentionally want to harm the children,” and “I did not think about what would happen to the children after eating it.”
 
On January 28, 2020, one of the poisoned children died, and the autopsy determined that the cause was sodium nitrite poisoning.
 
2. He had previously poisoned his husband due to life conflicts, causing minor injuries that led to hospitalization.
Furthermore, according to the prosecution's allegations, as early as February 19, 2017, Wang Yun put sodium nitrite purchased online into her husband Feng's water cup, causing him to be poisoned and hospitalized. A subsequent forensic assessment determined that Feng's injuries constituted minor injuries. Wang Yun confessed that after administering the poison, she went to work, and later received a phone call from her mother notifying her. She rushed to the hospital and saw her husband lying in the hospital bed, very weak. Wang Yun's mother's testimony stated that when she discovered him, Feng was unconscious in bed, with purple lips and foaming at the mouth. The prosecutor pointed out that at the time, the doctor diagnosed Feng with suspected sodium nitrite poisoning and recommended further testing, but the family did not agree.
 
Initially, Wang Yun confessed that she poisoned her husband due to marital discord. Her husband had a bad temper and often picked fights after drinking, so she wanted to teach him a lesson. She purchased sodium nitrite after coming across information about it online and “just bought some casually.” In later confessions and during the trial, Wang Yun stated instead that she bought sodium nitrite to cook meat for her father, as it could make the meat more tender. She also claimed that she used it once when she and her son ate a pork rib hot pot. During the trial, Wang Yun said that after that hot pot meal, she experienced dizziness and diarrhea.
 
The prosecutor pointed out in court that Wang Yun was recanting her testimony. Wang Yun purchased sodium nitrite on February 17, 2017, and poisoned her husband just two days later. The testimony of Wang Yun’s father also showed that sodium nitrite had never been used in the home. In addition, Wang Yun’s earlier statements indicated that she had inadvertently learned about the effects of sodium nitrite while searching online for “what to take with cephalosporins to cause poisoning”: a small dose can cause dizziness, vomiting, and diarrhea, while a larger dose can be fatal.
 
3. [1] The prosecuting authority recommended a heavier punishment for him.
[2] The prosecuting authority believed that Wang Yun's actions had violated relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and should be held criminally liable for the crime of endangering public safety with dangerous substances and the crime of intentional injury. The prosecuting authority emphasized that Wang Yun's crime was a malignant offense, with particularly despicable means, especially severe consequences, and extremely adverse social impact, and recommended severe punishment; Wang Yun committed multiple crimes and should be punished for all of them.
 
4. [3] Parents of the victimized children: Demanded severe criminal punishment and filed incidental civil lawsuits.
The parents of the child victims stated that Wang Yun pleaded guilty in court, expressed remorse, and read a letter of apology, "Wang Yun said she hoped to gain the parents' forgiveness." During the trial, the families of the child victims filed a criminal incidental civil lawsuit, demanding severe criminal punishment for Wang Yun and requiring the kindergarten to bear joint and several liability for compensation. In addition to medical expenses and nutrition fees, most parents also demanded that the defendants pay 50,000 yuan in emotional distress damages.
 
Previously, Ms. Zhang, the mother of the deceased child, stated that the civil compensation lawsuit filed by her family would not be heard this time and would be scheduled for a separate hearing later. Since the incident, they have not received any apology from the defendant Wang Yun, her family members, or the kindergarten. The over one million yuan in medical expenses for rescuing the child was advanced by the local government on behalf of the defendant Wang Yun and the kindergarten.
 
5. [6] The court rejected Wang Yun's application for a judicial psychiatric evaluation.
The judge introduced that during the pretrial conference on July 10, Wang Yun's defense counsel argued that Wang Yun was withdrawn and inarticulate, and applied for a forensic psychiatric evaluation of Wang Yun. In response, the prosecution noted that Wang Yun's speech was normal, his emotional responses showed no abnormalities, he had a sense of self-protection out of fear of punishment, neither his family members nor he himself had any history of mental illness, and he had full legal responsibility capacity at the time of the offense, so there was no need for a forensic psychiatric evaluation. Ultimately, the court rejected the application for a forensic psychiatric evaluation of Wang Yun.

 

 
Relevant legal provisions
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China" 
Article 115: Crimes of arson, breaching dikes, causing explosions, disseminating dangerous substances, and endangering public security by dangerous means
Whoever commits arson, breaches dikes, causes explosions, disseminates toxic, radioactive, or infectious disease pathogens, or uses other dangerous means to cause serious injury or death, or cause major losses to public or private property, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death. Whoever negligently commits the crime in the preceding paragraph shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; if the circumstances are minor, to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention.
 
Article 232: Crime of intentional homicide
Whoever intentionally commits homicide shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years; if the circumstances are relatively minor, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
 
 
The distinction between the crime of disseminating dangerous substances and the crime of intentional homicide
1. [1] Differences in the subjective aspect.
[2] The intent in the crime of endangering public safety by releasing hazardous substances refers to the perpetrator's psychological state of knowing that their act of poisoning will cause damage to public safety, and hoping for or allowing such a result to occur; the intent in the crime of intentional homicide refers to the perpetrator's psychological state of knowing that their act will cause the death of another person, and hoping for or allowing such a result to occur. The difference in the cognitive factor is whether the perpetrator recognizes that their act will cause damage to public safety or the end of another person's life; in the volitional factor, both the crime of releasing hazardous substances and the crime of homicide can manifest as hoping for or allowing, with the difference lying in the specific result hoped for or allowed: one is damage to public safety, the other is the end of another person's life.
 
2. [3] Differences in the object.
[4] The object violated by the crime of releasing hazardous substances is public safety, i.e., the safety of life and property of the majority, including specific majorities and unspecified majorities; the object violated by the crime of intentional homicide is the right to life of others. Public safety and the right to life are closely connected, leading to an overlap between the objects of the crime of releasing hazardous substances and the crime of homicide. It is precisely this issue that causes confusion in judicial practice when characterizing acts of killing by releasing hazardous substances. The objects of the various crimes and specific offenses stipulated in the specific provisions of China's Criminal Law are not absolutely juxtaposed or parallel; overlaps exist, and an overlap in objects does not necessarily mean an overlap in crimes. Conviction should adhere to the principle of unifying the subjective and objective aspects.
 
3. [5] Differences in the objective aspect between the crime of releasing hazardous substances and the crime of intentional homicide.
[6] In terms of the method of action, the crime of releasing hazardous substances is limited to releasing hazardous substances, which is merely one method of committing homicide. Regarding the result of the act, this refers only to cases of killing by releasing hazardous substances; if the lives of specific individuals or a small number of people are harmed, it constitutes homicide. If the lives of the majority are harmed, this involves public safety and may constitute the crime of releasing hazardous substances. In cases of imaginative concurrence between homicide and negligent poisoning, the punishment should follow the principle of choosing the heavier crime, and the crime of intentional homicide should be determined.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
As a kindergarten teacher, to disregard the lives and health of the children because of friction with colleagues not only reflects an obsessive personality and psychology but also shows a lack of respect for life and a weak awareness of the law. The teacher whom the children trusted became the perpetrator of poisoning, and the loving wife by her husband’s side became a hidden assailant…… These problems might seem avoidable if one simply “takes a step back.” But who can guarantee that such a teacher, spouse, or friend will not appear in their own life?
 
From the bus driver who drove into a lake to the kindergarten teacher who poisoned children, such incidents frequently occur in society, yet it is always innocent third parties who suffer. Events that retaliate against society, others, and breach the bottom line of conscience happen one after another. How much can we really do?