[4] Second-instance verdict upheld in Lao Rongzhi case, death penalty review respects and protects human rights

Compiled from: Red Star News, The Beijing News
 
On the morning of November 30, the Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court publicly announced the second-instance verdict in the appeal case of Lao Rongzhi for intentional homicide, robbery, and kidnapping, ruling to reject Lao Rongzhi's appeal and uphold the death sentence.

 
 

Case review
In the courtroom on November 30, the presiding judge read out the criminal facts of four cases in Nanchang, Wenzhou, Changzhou, and Hefei. The presiding judge held that all of Lao Rongzhi's appeal grounds were unfounded.

The Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court held that in the joint crimes of intentional homicide, robbery, and kidnapping, Lao Rongzhi actively engaged in acts such as scouting, luring, binding, guarding, and threatening victims, as well as reconnaissance, withdrawing money, and purchasing tools for the crimes. She had a clear division of labor with Fa Ziying, cooperated with him, and constituted an accomplice, with strong independence and a significant role. The two committed multiple crimes across various locations over a period of four years, with no evidence showing that Lao Rongzhi was under Fa Ziying's mental control or coercion. Lao Rongzhi also played a major role in the joint crimes and should be legally identified as a principal offender.

The Jiangxi Provincial Higher People's Court held that the appellant Lao Rongzhi, in collusion with Fa Ziying, intentionally and unlawfully deprived others of their lives, constituting intentional homicide; with the purpose of illegal possession, she used violence and threats to seize others' property, constituting robbery; and she kidnapped others for the purpose of extorting property, constituting kidnapping. For the multiple crimes committed by Lao Rongzhi, she should be punished concurrently according to law. Lao Rongzhi, in collusion with Fa Ziying, intentionally killed five people; robbery caused one death and involved home invasion and a huge amount of stolen property; kidnapping caused one death. The circumstances of the crimes were particularly vile, the means were especially cruel, and the consequences and offenses were extremely serious. Moreover, her subjective malignancy was deep, and the social harm was great, so she should be severely punished according to law. The appeal grounds and defense opinions raised by Lao Rongzhi and her defense lawyer, such as that Lao Rongzhi did not constitute intentional homicide and was an accessory or coerced accomplice, were inconsistent with the facts ascertained in the second instance and lacked legal basis, and were therefore not adopted according to law. The facts determined in the first-instance judgment were clear, the evidence was reliable and sufficient, the conviction was accurate, and the sentencing was appropriate. The trial procedure was lawful. The appeal was rejected, and the original judgment was upheld. The death penalty ruling for Lao Rongzhi is submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval in accordance with the law.。

 
 

 
《 [1] The People's Republic of China Criminal Procedure Law
Article 247 [Death Penalty Review Procedure]
For first-instance cases in which an intermediate people's court imposes the death penalty, if the defendant does not appeal, the case shall be reviewed by the higher people's court and then submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval. If the higher people's court does not agree with the death penalty, it may either conduct a retrial or remand the case for a new trial. 
For first-instance cases in which a higher people's court imposes the death penalty and the defendant does not appeal, as well as second-instance cases in which the death penalty is imposed, both shall be submitted to the Supreme People's Court for approval.
 
 
Legal Aid Law of the People's Republic of China
[2] Article 25
If a criminal suspect or defendant in a criminal case falls under any of the following categories and has not appointed a defender, the people's court, people's procuratorate, or public security authority shall notify a legal aid institution to assign a lawyer to serve as the defender.
(1) Minors;
(2) Persons with visual, hearing, or speech disabilities;
(3) Adults who cannot fully recognize their own actions;
(4) Persons who may be sentenced to life imprisonment or death;
(5) Defendants in death penalty review cases applying for legal aid;
(6) Defendants in default judgment cases.
(7) Other persons as prescribed by laws and regulations.
For other criminal cases subject to ordinary procedures, if the defendant has not retained a defender, the people's court may notify a legal aid agency to assign a lawyer to serve as the defender.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
The death penalty review is a unique criminal trial system under China's Criminal Procedure Law and a concrete manifestation of the constitutional principle of "respecting and safeguarding human rights." It helps ensure the correctness of death penalty applications and implements the criminal policy of imposing the death penalty sparingly and cautiously. It is also a key procedure for unifying the standards and enforcement scales of the death penalty, preventing regional disparities in leniency or severity. The death penalty review is of utmost importance, marking a milestone in the history of China's rule of law. It holds significant and far-reaching implications for correctly implementing the law, accurately enforcing death penalty policies, respecting and safeguarding human rights, preventing wrongful convictions, and promoting legal civilization.
 
Although Lao Rongzhi remains dissatisfied with the second-instance verdict, her second brother has stated that they will continue to retain a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme People's Court. It is evident that since her arrest, Lao Rongzhi's actions have been aimed at exonerating herself and evading legal punishment. Ironically, she now cherishes her own life and has a strong will to survive, yet she forgets that when she and Fa Ziying committed their crimes, the lives of their victims were equally precious. Even when the families of those victims were torn apart by her heinous acts, did she ever consider their feelings?
 
Of course, from a legal perspective, the Lao Rongzhi case has not yet been finalized. However, based on the first-instance and second-instance trials, the facts of her crimes are very clear. Although Lao Rongzhi has denied and retracted her confessions, these tactics seem more like desperate struggles. If she truly committed heinous crimes, can a few words of sophistry really absolve her? Regardless of how the case develops, the law remains fair and just—both for Lao Rongzhi and for society as a whole.