East Capital University, Law School Building.
In a eting room on the third floor, the atmosphere was solemn and respectful.
Behind the long conference table sat three examiners side by side.
Two n and one woman, all around their forties.
One of them, a slightly plump man with black-rimd glasses, was the sa proctor from yesterday’s written exam.
The naplate in front of him read "Luo Yang, Law School Professor."
"Student Fang."
A middle-aged male examiner on the left was flipping through the materials in his hand, looked up at the young man opposite, and said in a serious tone:
"I want to ask a rather broad question. In recent years, so cases have erged in society where individuals, unable to protect their rights through legal avenues, resort to vigilante justice, using violence against violence to seek justice."
"Regarding this phenonon, if the law cannot effectively protect victims, do you think we should support such private redies?"
The young examinee sitting opposite was Fang Cheng.
Today, he was dressed in a proper suit, with a pure white shirt ironed without a single crease, and black trousers that made his legs appear even longer.
With gold-rimd glasses perched on his nose, his deanor appeared gentler and more refined.
Upon hearing the question, Fang Cheng smiled slightly and began speaking calmly and clearly:
"Esteed professors, this is a profound question involving legal ethics and value judgnts."
"From the perspective of a legal professional, the answer seems obvious; any form of private redy, apart from legitimate self-defense, should be strictly regulated because it undermines the foundation of the rule of law."
"However, we cannot ignore that the very posing of this question reflects a real-world predicant."
He spoke with composure, maintaining eye contact with the examiner who asked the question, in an earnest tone:
"Indeed, the law’s protection for the weak is inadequate. The imbalance in judicial resources, high litigation costs, and weak enforcent may lead to individuals’ demands for justice not being promptly satisfied."
"This systemic failure is the breeding ground for the idea of ’violence against violence.’"
"However..."
Fang Cheng shifted the focus of his argunt with clear logic, analyzing in depth:
"Acknowledging the real difficulties does not an endorsing such extre solutions."
"’Violence against violence’ may seem like a gratifying solution, but in reality, it’s combating one evil with an even greater one."
"It can trigger unpredictable chain reactions, tearing apart the social contract, and ultimately dragging society into a survival-of-the-fittest jungle, which would be a greater disaster for the weak."
The three examiners nodded in agreent.
At this mont, the previously silent female examiner on the right suddenly inquired:
"But Fang, have you considered that for those already driven to despair with nowhere to turn, these grand argunts are aningless?"
"When facing the ’survival of the fittest’ jungle law, if they don’t fight back, they might have no place to die."
"In such extre circumstances, how would you persuade them to abandon violence?"
Fang Cheng nodded slightly, as if he had anticipated this question.
"Professor, I believe we should not crudely shift the responsibility for error correction onto individuals in difficult circumstances."
"The root of social tragedies lies in systemic failures. Rather than discussing the nearly unsolvable moral dilemma of ’violent resistance,’ we should think about how to uproot the soil that breeds such dilemmas from an institutional perspective."
He adjusted his glasses, the gaze behind the lenses tranquil yet sharp:
"As legal professionals, we can promote more targeted legislation to close existing legal loopholes and also try to reduce the costs of defending rights for disadvantaged groups, such as expanding the coverage of legal aid."
"Moreover, we can establish more diverse social oversight and relief institutions to ensure that judicial fairness is visible and can be realized."
"Furthermore, the authority of the law stems from its coercive power, and this coercion is essentially a state-sanctioned form of ’violence.’"
"What we need is not to deconstruct this authority, but to continuously engage in critical improvents."
"However, ’the weapon of criticism’ can never replace ’criticism of weapons.’"
"As legal professionals, we should focus more on how to make the law, as an important tool of the state, sharper, more precise, and more efficient, better deterring all those who dare to harm society."
"So that it can truly be held by everyone in need of protection, instead of forcing people to take up private weapons in resistance!"
After this eloquent speech, the eting room fell into brief silence.
The three examiners exchanged glances and saw the appreciation for this young man in each other’s eyes.
Next, they posed several highly professional and equally challenging and sensitive questions.
Fang Cheng consistently maintained a calm and engaging tone, handling them with ease, with impeccable logic.
Finally, Luo Yang, sitting in the middle, smiled and spoke:
"Alright, today’s interview ends here. You may leave now and await further notice."
"Thank you, professors."
Fang Cheng stood up and bowed slightly.
Then he turned and walked towards the door, efficiently pulling the door open before gently closing it behind him.
In the waiting area, several candidates still waiting imdiately turned their gaze towards him.
Seeing Fang Cheng’s composed deanor, everyone showed a trace of envy and tension on their faces.
User Comments
0 comments from readers