Foul Points? Re-examining Doubts in the Death Penalty Case of Lu Cheng

The judiciary derives its authority to convict individuals from its premise on fair and objective procedural justice to safeguard determinations of substantive justice. Regrettably, in the death penalty case of Lu Cheng, the judiciary once again sentenced a person to death through foul play. Based on the evidence in this case, there was insufficient proof to establish that Lu Cheng was the perpetrator, and the police once again resorted to unlawful interrogation methods, using inducement and coercion to force a confession from Lu. Therefore, to rebuild judicial credibility and track down the true culprit, we make the following two appeals:

1. Without conclusive evidence, the execution of Lu Cheng's death penalty must not be carried out rashly. The judiciary should grant him another opportunity for a fair trial.
2. The scientific physical evidence that appeared in this case—fingerprints and hair—should be further investigated to determine whom they belong to, so as to prevent the prosecutors and police from stubbornly investigating toward Lu Cheng's guilt while overlooking the potential true culprit of this case.