对一件案子,有不同的看法,这是正常的;但如果长期存在着完全对立的两种意见,那就不大好理解了。譬如,一家法院审理判处了一起家庭纠纷导致的案件,时隔一年,两种截然相反的意见仍然在对峙着,不断“打官司”。一种认为,这属犯罪,判刑正当;一种认为:这是冤案,理应平反。这两派意见,并非出自无关紧要的人之口,而是来自法庭、妇联、报纸、刊物、律师、记者、作家的声音。凡事总有个是非。在今天的社会主义法制下,同一件事,同一个人身上,怎么会出现罪犯是无辜的“统一”呢?原来,认为是犯罪的一方,强调“要保护妇女和儿童”;说是无辜的一方,则强调“要正确对待知识分子,保护人才”。这两种观点,在今天都是很时兴的,都能得到相当 It is normal to have a different opinion of a case, but if there are two opinions that are diametrically opposed to each other for a long time, it is not very well understood. For example, when a court adjudicates the case of a family dispute and is sentenced to one year, the two diametrically opposite opinions are still confronted with the constant “case lawsuit.” One thinks that this is a crime and a sentencing sentence is right. One thinks that this is an injustice and should be reversed. The opinions of these two parties do not come from the mouth of innocent people but from the voices of courts, women’s federations, newspapers, periodicals, lawyers, journalists and writers. There is always a right and wrong in everything. Under today’s socialist legal system, how can a criminal appear to be innocent “unification” on the same matter and on the same person? Originally, a party deemed guilty of an offense emphasized “protecting women and children” Is an innocent party, emphasizes that “we must treat intellectuals correctly and protect qualified personnel.” Both of these points of view are very fashionable today and can be quite equal