Are we born good or evil? A recent controversy in China again drew the public's attention to this age-old question. The sparks flew after a court ruling on a case in which a self-proclaimed Good Samaritan was blamed for injuring an old woman he said he had helped and was ordered to share the subsequent medical expenses.

According to Peng Yu, the 26-year-old defendant, at around 9 a.m. on November 20, 2006, while he was getting off a bus in Nanjing, capital city of Jiangsu Province, he saw Ms. Xu lying on the ground with her left collarbone fractured. Peng recalled that he helped Xu up and took her to the hospital. Soon afterwards, Xu's family arrived. However, when Xu heard that treatment would cost tens of thousands of yuan, she immediately blamed Peng for her injuries, claiming that he had knocked her down.

Xu's family insisted that as Peng had knocked down the 65-year-old, he must take responsibility for the consequences. Peng rejected the claim. Xu later sued the young man for 136,419.3 yuan, including medical expenses and compensation for emotional suffering.

On September 7, during the fourth hearing of the case, the Gulou District Court of Nanjing finally issued it's ruling: Peng was partially liable for the accident, and should pay Xu 45,876.36 yuan.

The court's reasoning was as follows: As the first passenger off the bus, it was most likely Peng had slammed into Xu, who was trying to board. According to "common sense," if Peng had not been the one who collided with Xu, it would be reasonable to assume that instead of sending the old woman to the hospital, and giving her 200 yuan, he would, instead, have caught the real culprit. As Peng's actions ran contrary to common sense, it was ruled that he should be held partially responsible for Xu's injury.

In the absence of sustainable facts or witnesses, the case became an instant source of Internet discussion, with netizens and bloggers protesting the ruling, most of them inclined to see Peng as innocent, and lamenting what impact the incident would have on members of the public who wish to help others in times of difficulty.

Uncommon sense

Guo Songmin (Qilu Evening News): According to the ruling, Peng did wrong by helping Ms. Xu and would have been better off leaving the scene as soon as possible. It's possible that this ruling will encourage people's indifference toward others and fewer people will want to give a hand to those in need of help. This is because when similar legal disputes occur in the future, judges might misunderstand well-intentioned behavior.

Judgments should be based on facts and the law. Since the court allowed the old lady to ask for compensation from Peng, there must be evidence to show Peng hit her and caused her injury. When the old lady was not able to offer strong evidence and had no witness to prove her version of events, the judge should not have casually arrived at such a ruling.

As this case is of an ordinary nature, the judge should have been especially cautious in making a judgment because of the potential impact on the judicial system and social morality.

Chen Jieren (Nanfang Daily): The ruling seems to imply that no one helps others without certain motives. It overlooks the fact that many people are still ready to help others in need. The ruling discourages people from helping, because it sends the message that those who practice good deeds could be suspected of having done something wrong.

Court rulings can and must be based on common sense, but the question is: what kind of common sense? In this case, the judge is mistaken in taking for granted that indifference prevails in society and he has overlooked the fact that fraternity among people does exist .

Generally speaking, if there are two behavior models that are opposite to each other (such as well-intended and ill-intended), the court should not choose one model as "common sense" to support its theory. The best choice in this circumstance is not to turn to either of the two models, as either one could result in an incorrect judgment.

According to the principle of civil action, the old lady who is the plaintiff should offer evidence, such as witnesses, testimonies and so on, which could fully prove that Peng hit her, or her prosecution must be turned down.

Cai Fanghua (Beijing Youth Daily): While dealing with Peng's case, the judge referred to "common sense," but the so-called common sense he mentioned is "indifference," which is rejected by mainstream values. In accordance with common sense, since he could not catch the real culprit, Peng should not have helped the old lady up, sent her to the hospital and helped to pay some medical expenses. How ridiculous this logic is!

In this case, the judge's misjudgment affected the authority of the ruling, which in turn damaged the dignity and credibility of the law.

The people's revolt against the anti-Peng ruling reminds us of a major issue: The judge's personal perspective toward the case in a civil lawsuit is still in question. If the judge is unqualified, there is a danger of judicial corruption because of complicated external factors and the lack of effective supervision during the process of civil judgment.

Wang Chao (Luzhong Morning News): According to "common sense," which the court turned to while dealing with Peng's case, if he did not hit the old lady, Peng was not supposed to help her up, nor should he have sent her to hospital or paid for her medical expenses. It seems that the judge does not think there are still good people in today's society.

The recognition of "presumption of innocence" is regarded as a big step forward for China's legal system. In accordance with this principle, if there is insufficient evidence, there is no conviction. However, in Peng's case, the judge convicted the defendant on the basis of common sense. If it was a criminal case, the defendant might have been wrongly executed.

As for modern law: It must try not to wrong good people even if it sometimes may miss the bad ones. Peng's case is a typical one and thus the anti-Peng ruling could have a negative impact on society.

The truth is enough

Cheng Jishan (www.xinhuanet.com): It's interesting to find that those who criticize the judge for randomly ruling against Peng also lack strong evidence to prove that Peng did not hit the old lady. They also refer to their own "common sense," which seems more acceptable than the "common sense" the judge used. This might be the reason why the public is so indignant about the ruling.

Since it's now impossible to tell the truth, we cannot exclude the possibility that the defendant protested simply in order to escape punishment. If the old lady was really hit by Peng and the defendant was exempted from accountability due to lack of evidence, would this have been fair to the prosecutor? People argue that the ruling would discourage the public from acting boldly in emergency situations, a suggestion that may help to shield the defendant from either legal or moral responsibility.

A judicial decision's function in providing behavioral examples is limited: Not every case can play this role. There are complicated reasons for the deterioration of social morality and the improvement of moral standards depends on the whole of society's efforts, not on the ruling in an individual case.

Liu Jinping (www.china.com.cn): It's impractical to require everyone to act in line with high moral standards. As far as laws are concerned, there is no difference between good or evil people and everyone represents their own interests, trying to benefit and avoid harm. The professional code demands judges treat every case fairly without any individual emotion.

The fundamental reason why the public supports Peng is that there is conflict between the law and morality here. While the possibility that Peng did a good deed cannot be excluded, the court's decision denies this possibility. That's why the public is greatly upset and even angered.

However, it's unfair to have a court shoulder the responsibility of restoring the already deteriorating moral standards of society. Provided that judges perform their duty in accordance with the law, their rulings, whether they conform to or violate "common sense," should be respected and thoroughly implemented. This is of vital importance to independent judiciary that we all value very much.

Xu Aimin (www.dffy.com): While they feel the anti-Peng ruling is unfair, accusing the judge of using "common sense," netizens have made the same mistake, because they have also taken it for granted that Peng did a good deed. In accordance with their logic, anyone who hits another person can be excluded from responsibility as long as they take that person to the hospital. Those who doubt this good deed can be viewed as "thinking like a commoner to judge the intentions of a gentleman." Moreover, in the case of Peng, it's quite ridiculous that he did not use helping the old woman as his defense from the beginning, but later remembered his actions and claimed that he was wronged by the court's decision.

Even if he did hit the woman, from a legal perspective Peng did nothing wrong, because it was not his intention or will to hit the old lady. Of course, the plaintiff did nothing wrong either, because she did not plan to collide with Peng. The judge handled the case well by demanding the two parties share responsibility.

The media and many netizens are worried that the ruling will have a negative impact on social morality, discouraging others from practicing good needs. However, if one can avert due liabilities by claiming to have done a good deed, this will cause more harm. More people will try to defend themselves in similar circumstances, if there is no witness, by claiming to have offered help.