the trajectory of their lives is not bad. Once upon a time, they were also kind and law-abiding citizens. There was a beautiful yesterday, and flowers and applause accompanied their growth. The reason why they become criminals is that they pursue all kinds of wrong goals driven by greed and desire, make them lose their minds, ignore social norms, moral norms and national laws, and finally "pawn" their souls to money and interests, ruining their more colorful lives, harming themselves and their families.
after listening to these cases, my mood is hard to calm for a long time. I think, everyone wants to pursue more money, status, power and wisdom, and hopes that personal ability and success will be recognized by society. These are necessary conditions for others to respect and are beyond reproach. People always have higher desires after satisfying their lowest desires, and it is desire that arouses the motivation of people's constant struggle. Nevertheless, people must know how to use reason to adjust themselves, especially to suppress and restrain the greed that constantly surges in their subconscious. We should suppress and eliminate those ideas that violate social morality and people's daily ethics from the ideological level, and we should not let greed breed and spread and exercise illegal activities driven by greed. The satisfaction of desire must be achieved by legal means within the scope permitted by law, morality and conscience. Otherwise, even if your temporary desires are satisfied, life will make you lose more than you gain, and even make you fall into the abyss of perdition.
from this, I also think that if people want to learn to be content, it is difficult to have wild thoughts, and greedy thoughts naturally cannot occupy your mind. If you are rich now, you should know how to be content, cherish what you have and let go of all kinds of unnecessary desires. If you are not rich, what you have is not as good as others, you must still balance your mentality and take it calmly. You can't hate society and others because of this, and you can't take extreme measures to do things that harm the world. It should be understood that there will always be shortcomings in a person's life, and nine times out of ten things are unsatisfactory. Being rich is relative, and it is not the only goal of success in life. Maybe I am not rich, but I can still live happily. Maybe this is the real standard of success in life. The ancients said: being unjust and rich and expensive is like a cloud to me. Life is short, we should correctly grasp our precious life, take every step well, and never go astray, because we still have too many unfulfilled responsibilities and obligations.
--------
According to the requirements of law practice for law undergraduates in RTVU, in order to study law more deeply, we conducted a legal practice in the way of mock trial. Taking Zhang Li's medical accident case as an example, we made a specific court implementation plan, made good preparations before the trial, and made detailed division of labor and layout of the venue. The whole procedure in mock trial was legal and strict in law enforcement, which was a successful legal practice. Through practice, we have strengthened our basic ability to analyze and solve problems by using legal theory and legal knowledge, and raised our awareness of innovation ideologically. In the trial of this case, my identity is the recorder of the collegiate bench, and the cause of the death of the victim RoyceWong is the focus of this case. In the inversion of the burden of proof of medical accidents, Zhang Li, as the defendant, should bear the burden of proof for the fact that her behavior is scientific, timely and faultless. I will talk about my experience on this issue. First, in the inversion of the burden of proof, the opposing party should bear the burden of proof for the existence or non-existence of a certain cause. The elements of civil liability, especially tort liability, generally include damage facts, causality and fault, and the existence of these elements also constitutes the key to determine whether the plaintiff wins the case. However, in the case of inverted burden of proof, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof on the existence of these factors, but for the defendant to bear the burden of proof on the existence of certain facts. The inversion of the burden of proof not only refers to the phenomenon that the burden of proof is specifically allocated according to the provisions of the law, but also means that the reasons proved by the opposing party are strictly limited in law, that is, what the opposing party should disprove in the case of inversion of the burden of proof must be stipulated by law. Usually, the facts proved by the defendant are not clearly defined by the entity, and the background of the witness mainly includes two categories: one is to prove that he is not at fault; The second is to prove that there is no causal relationship. In some cases, the proof of these two facts is usually combined. For example, if the defendant proves that the damage was caused by a third person, it not only shows that the defendant is not at fault, but also shows that there is no causal relationship between the occurrence of the damage and the defendant's behavior. But in other cases, these two problems may also be separated from each other. For example, if the defendant proves that the damage is caused by force majeure, it should be able to show that he is not subjectively at fault, so he should be exempted from responsibility. Two, in the case of inverted burden of proof, the defendant shall bear the responsibility to prove the existence or non-existence of a certain fact. If it cannot be proved, it shall bear the consequences of losing the case. On the surface, the inversion of the burden of proof is the inversion of the burden of providing evidence. In fact, it is the inversion of the responsibility to prove the existence or non-existence of a certain fact, and it is a question of how to allocate the burden of proof among the parties. However, the inversion of the burden of proof is not only the distribution of the burden of proof, but more importantly, the distribution of this burden of proof often directly affects the outcome of the lawsuit, that is, "where the burden of proof is distributed, it is where the case is won." Because once the burden of proof is reversed, the party whose burden of proof is reversed bears a heavier burden of proof. If it can't prove the legal cause, it is presumed that the claim of the party who made the claim is established, which will affect the outcome of the lawsuit as a whole. The assumption of the consequences of losing the case shows that the inversion of the burden of proof is essentially a distribution of the burden of proof, and the burden of proof is a result responsibility, which solves the problem of bearing the risk of losing the case when the facts of the case are unknown. In substantive law, it is also quite difficult for the defendant to prove this. For example, in the case of high-risk liability, the defendant must prove that the danger was caused by the plaintiff's intention in order to be exempted from liability. If the defendant cannot prove this, he may lose the case. In this way, the inversion of burden of proof is usually associated with strict responsibility, which further shows the difference between inversion of burden of proof and transformation of burden of proof. The conversion of burden of proof is not necessarily related to the problem of strict liability. Any type of case may have the phenomenon of conversion of burden of proof in litigation, which does not involve abstract substantive law norms, but only the parties interact with each other in the specific litigation process. Three, in the case of inversion of the burden of proof, the plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit should also bear the burden of proof for the existence of some facts. When the burden of proof is reversed, does it mean that the plaintiff should not bear any burden of proof, but the defendant should prove everything? In my opinion, even if the inversion of burden of proof should be applied according to the provisions of substantive law, the plaintiff should bear the responsibility of proving the existence or non-existence of certain facts. In the case of strict liability, the defendant should prove the fault, causality, etc. according to the law, thus exempting the victim from the burden of proof of this fact, and transferring the responsibility to the perpetrator, who will bear the risk of losing the case when he fails to prove it. However, other essential facts, such as the offender and the fact of damage, should also apply the general rule of "who advocates who gives evidence" to allocate the burden of proof, and the proponent of the fact should bear the burden of proof. For example, in the responsibility of highly dangerous operations, at least the plaintiff must prove that the danger is caused by the defendant's behavior and not by the third party, otherwise it can't even be clear about the defendant side of the litigation subject. How to sue? Who are you suing? For another example, in the inversion of the burden of proof of medical malpractice, the hospital, as the defendant, should bear the burden of proof for the fact that its behavior is scientific, timely and without fault, while the patient should bear the burden of proof for the fact that the defendant's behavior is harmful, and the fact that the harmful consequence is related to the defendant's behavior. In the case of inverted burden of proof, the plaintiff also bears the burden of proof of some facts because: from the perspective of substantive law, anyone claiming rights should present evidence to prove the existence of their rights; From the point of view of evidence law, the party who advocates should also provide corresponding evidence. Even if the law embarks from a specific purpose, in order to strengthen the protection of some specific parties who encounter obstacles in giving evidence, the burden of proof is reversed, and only the specific matters of proof are reversed to the defendant. This does not mean that all the matters of proof and even explanations in litigation are handed over to the defendant. In nature, the inversion of the burden of proof is essentially based on the legal provisions. The plaintiff proves the existence of fact A, but the defendant should bear the proof of the existence or non-existence of fact B. If the defendant cannot prove it, the plaintiff's factual claim is presumed to be established. Through practice, I have a further understanding and understanding of the law.