Today, five professors from Xi’an jointly called for the commutation of Yao Jiaxin’s death sentence. Since the publication of their statement, netizens’ comments have been in an uproar. I understand the professors’ perspective, but I can only say that they might be more suited to living in the United States rather than advocating for the abolition of the death penalty in China.

China does not have the soil for abolishing the death penalty. After all, for thousands of years, the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” has been considered a natural law, and it remains one of the fundamental principles of Chinese criminal law.

However, when compared, it’s true that the West has some bizarre cases that make people unconsciously draw comparisons, as if the moon is always rounder and more sophisticated abroad. For example, the infamous O.J. Simpson murder case.

Seventeen years ago, across the ocean in the United States, a horrifying case occurred. A woman named Nicole was brutally murdered, her neck slashed with a 15-inch blade, exposing her spine. Her boyfriend, Ron Goldman, was stabbed over 20 times and died a gruesome death. Forensic evidence showed that Goldman had struggled, resisted, and even begged for mercy, but the killer showed no compassion, continuing to strike him mercilessly. The brutality of the crime would easily qualify as “extremely severe” under Chinese criminal law.

Countless pieces of evidence pointed to Nicole’s ex-husband—O.J. Simpson! The case caused an unprecedented uproar in the U.S., not only because Simpson was a household name in sports, film, and advertising, but also because the three major TV networks—ABC, CBS, and CNN—interrupted all programming to focus on the police pursuit of Simpson.

Nearly all Americans believed Simpson was the murderer and should be executed.

But in a dramatic twist, this seemingly open-and-shut case fell apart because the police failed to wear gloves when collecting the “murder weapon” as evidence, violating proper procedure. This led to a series of legal issues regarding the admissibility of evidence, ultimately resulting in Simpson being acquitted.

Americans are easily swayed; such a reason could actually become the basis for acquittal. Afterward, most Americans sided with the court, believing that the acquittal was necessary.

I don’t intend to evaluate the merits of this system, because in China, we often want to “have our cake and eat it too”—we want to handle cases flawlessly according to the law while also severely punishing criminals. It’s as if no mistakes could ever occur in the process of punishing criminals. But is this not another form of overconfidence?

Due to a general utilitarian mindset, it seems that not many people care about these details. As long as “the murderer is executed,” that’s enough—never mind the process of the trial. In China, even if the evidence against Simpson were not as overwhelming, as long as everyone believed the case was airtight, Simpson would have been long dead.

China is a country where crime is not tolerated. Once someone becomes a suspect, even before a court verdict, they are already condemned by public opinion, with no chance of redemption. Many wrongful convictions arise this way, as the accused are presumed guilty from the moment they are detained, under the gaze of countless “presumed guilty” eyes.

But many of us don’t care about this. They believe that as long as they themselves are not criminals, they are superior, and all other criminals are beneath them, deserving of contempt and scorn. This disdain extends even to lawyers and legal scholars who speak on behalf of these criminals.

They fail to realize that if one day they or their descendants face injustice, who will speak up for them?

Of course, Yao Jiaxin’s case has little to do with this. His death sentence is well-deserved, and there is no evidence to suggest any issues with the police’s evidence collection. It’s just that such possibilities exist in reality.