张洪榜一案是一审法院判决的死刑案件,经过二审法院复核,对可疑情节一一查证落实。定性不准,处理当然不妥。一审法院认定被告装疯作邪,报复杀人。不对!被告杀人伤人属于精神病状。一审法院判处被告死刑,立即执行,剥夺政治权利终身。更是不对!我国刑法规定:精神病人在不能辨认或者不能控制自己行为的时候造成危害结果的,不负刑事责任。从一审判处死刑到二审改判不予追究刑事责任,前后如此悬殊,教训何在?关键在于一审法院对张洪榜作案前后的精神反常现象未作查证,轻率下判,险些铸成大错。当前,在人民法院对于杀人、强奸、抢劫、放火、投毒、爆炸等严重破坏社会秩序的重大刑事犯当中,少数罪大恶极,依法确实非杀不可的,判处死刑是必要的。但是,认定的事实要扎实,适用法律要慎重,切勿草率,严防错杀。办案要忠实于事实真相,忠实于法律制度,忠实于人民利益,是我们必须坚决遵守的原则。就这一案来说,二审法院发现了案情中许多疑点,督促一审法院进一步查清了案情,搞准了“杀人”真相,依法撤销原判,从而避免了一起错杀案件。这一关,把得好,做到了高度认真负责,坚持实事求是,严格依法办事。这种严谨的办案精神,是值得大家学习和继续发扬的! The case of Zhang Hongbang is a death penalty case decided by a court of first instance. After being reviewed by a court of second instance, the investigation of the suspicious circumstances is carried out one by one. Qualitative not allowed to handle the course is not appropriate. The court of first instance held that the defendant was faking madness and retaliation for murder. Wrong! The defendant killed the wounded is a mental illness. The court of first instance sentenced the defendant to death, executed immediately and deprived of political rights for life. Even more wrong! Our country criminal law stipulates: If a mentally ill person can cause harm to the result when he can not identify himself or can not control his own behavior, he shall not be criminally responsible. The key lies in the fact that the court of first instance did not verify the mental antecedents before and after committing the crimes committed by Zhang Hongbang and rudely ordered them to make serious mistakes. At present, among the major criminal prisoners who have committed serious crimes of social order such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, drug poisoning and explosions, the people’s court has found it necessary to impose the death sentence for a handful of crimes that are extremely sinful and unjustly practiced in accordance with the law. However, the facts found should be solid, applicable laws should be cautious, do not rush, prevent mistakes. Handling cases should be truthful to the truth, faithful to the legal system and faithful to the interests of the people are the principles that we must firmly abide by. In this case, the court of second instance found many doubtful points in the case, and urged the court of first instance to further ascertain the facts of the case, put an end to the truth of the “murder”, and cancel the original verdict in accordance with the law, thus avoiding a case of wrongful assassination. This level has been well handled and achieved a high degree of seriousness and responsibility. We must work in accordance with the facts and strictly observe the law. This rigorous handling of the case is worth learning and continue to carry forward!