Confessions are not sufficient for a lenient punishment

Confessions are not sufficient for a lenient punishment
A new development has emerged in the case of Guo Muniu, a teacher at Anhui University of Technology who killed a 19-year-old female student.

On March 22, the parents of murdered schoolgirl Han Han received a written verdict from the court. The Anhui Provincial High People’s Court upheld the death sentence imposed on Guo Muniu by the Wuhu Intermediate People’s Court of first instance for intentional homicide.

According to the verdict, the Anhui Provincial High People’s Court rejected Guo and his defenders’ claims that he was guilty of crimes of passion and mental illness, adding that Guo’s true confession constituted a confession but was not enough to get a lighter sentence.

Han-han’s mother, surnamed Xie, told China Newsweek that she was relieved by the verdict. “Justice has been done and my daughter has been given an answer.”

Confession is not sufficient for leniency

In February 2019, Han Han, a freshman at Anhui University of Technology, met Guo Muniu, a teacher born in 1985, in class.

They started a relationship in early April of that year, when Guo still had a family. On June 29 of the same year, Han Han was beaten by a cow named Guo, and the two sides broke up through mediation. But since then, Guo Niu continued to contact Han Han, hoping to compound, failed.

The Anhui Provincial High People’s Court found that Guo bought a dagger online in August 2019. At about 15:00 on the 19th of the next month, Guo Muniu came to the campus of Anhui University of Technology with a dagger to wait for Han Han to finish class. At 16:00, he followed Han Han to the small north gate of Anhui University of Technology. Han Han wanted to take a taxi to get rid of Guo’s entrenchment. Seeing Guo’s pursuit, she ran across the road. Guo chased the cow to the green belt of the road and stabbed Han Han dozens of times on her neck, chest and abdomen, back and buttocks, limbs and other parts. Police arrived at the scene will attempt suicide after the control of Guo Mouniu. At the time of the crime, Guo Mouniu had no mental illness and had the ability of complete criminal responsibility.

Guo was sentenced to death by the Wuhu Intermediate People’s Court in Anhui province for intentional homicide in the first instance.

Guo appealed that he committed the murder with passion rather than intent, and that if he remained at the scene after the crime and made a truthful confession, it should be regarded as a surrender. According to his statement, the reason he bought the dagger was to commit suicide. The defense appealed that the case was caused by an emotional dispute, that Guo had a history of mental illness, and that the sentence at the original trial was too harsh.

The procurator in court for the second instance when the defense pointed out that Guo Mouniu at the time of the crime work, life is normal, coherent thinking, consciousness is normal, not only because has been diagnosed as depression and identified as a legal mental illness.

The Anhui Provincial High People’s Court said Guo’s actions amounted to intentional homicide. As a college ideological and political teacher, he develops a lover relationship with the young adult students he teaches during his marriage, which not only violates the obligation of marriage loyalty, but also seriously violates the professional ethics of teachers.

During the period of two people, with cattle at the han han violence during the conflict, clear after break up still dwell on both sides, then openly killing han han, corrupt their moral quality, and low crime motive, subjective vicious deep, personal risk is big, bad social influence, serious attitude and penitence in court about the general, shall be punished in accordance with the law.

The court said that although Guo was able to confess the basic facts of the crime after his return, which constituted a confession, but according to the circumstances of the case, it was not enough to be given a lighter punishment.

The Anhui Provincial High People’s Court ruled against the appeal and upheld the original sentence.