CHAPTER 661: CHAPTER 359

East Capital University, Law School Building.

In a meeting room on the third floor, the atmosphere was solemn and respectful.

Behind the long conference table sat three examiners side by side.

Two men and one woman, all around their forties.

One of them, a slightly plump man with black-rimmed glasses, was the same proctor from yesterday’s written exam.

The nameplate in front of him read "Luo Yang, Law School Professor."

"Student Fang."

A middle-aged male examiner on the left was flipping through the materials in his hand, looked up at the young man opposite, and said in a serious tone:

"I want to ask a rather broad question. In recent years, some cases have emerged in society where individuals, unable to protect their rights through legal avenues, resort to vigilante justice, using violence against violence to seek justice."

"Regarding this phenomenon, if the law cannot effectively protect victims, do you think we should support such private remedies?"

The young examinee sitting opposite was Fang Cheng.

Today, he was dressed in a proper suit, with a pure white shirt ironed without a single crease, and black trousers that made his legs appear even longer.

With gold-rimmed glasses perched on his nose, his demeanor appeared gentler and more refined.

Upon hearing the question, Fang Cheng smiled slightly and began speaking calmly and clearly:

"Esteemed professors, this is a profound question involving legal ethics and value judgments."

"From the perspective of a legal professional, the answer seems obvious; any form of private remedy, apart from legitimate self-defense, should be strictly regulated because it undermines the foundation of the rule of law."

"However, we cannot ignore that the very posing of this question reflects a real-world predicament."

He spoke with composure, maintaining eye contact with the examiner who asked the question, in an earnest tone:

"Indeed, the law’s protection for the weak is inadequate. The imbalance in judicial resources, high litigation costs, and weak enforcement may lead to individuals’ demands for justice not being promptly satisfied."

"This systemic failure is the breeding ground for the idea of ’violence against violence.’"

"However..."

Fang Cheng shifted the focus of his argument with clear logic, analyzing in depth:

"Acknowledging the real difficulties does not mean endorsing such extreme solutions."

"’Violence against violence’ may seem like a gratifying solution, but in reality, it’s combating one evil with an even greater one."

"It can trigger unpredictable chain reactions, tearing apart the social contract, and ultimately dragging society into a survival-of-the-fittest jungle, which would be a greater disaster for the weak."

The three examiners nodded in agreement.

At this moment, the previously silent female examiner on the right suddenly inquired:

"But Fang, have you considered that for those already driven to despair with nowhere to turn, these grand arguments are meaningless?"

"When facing the ’survival of the fittest’ jungle law, if they don’t fight back, they might have no place to die."

"In such extreme circumstances, how would you persuade them to abandon violence?"

Fang Cheng nodded slightly, as if he had anticipated this question.

"Professor, I believe we should not crudely shift the responsibility for error correction onto individuals in difficult circumstances."

"The root of social tragedies lies in systemic failures. Rather than discussing the nearly unsolvable moral dilemma of ’violent resistance,’ we should think about how to uproot the soil that breeds such dilemmas from an institutional perspective."

He adjusted his glasses, the gaze behind the lenses tranquil yet sharp:

"As legal professionals, we can promote more targeted legislation to close existing legal loopholes and also try to reduce the costs of defending rights for disadvantaged groups, such as expanding the coverage of legal aid."

"Moreover, we can establish more diverse social oversight and relief institutions to ensure that judicial fairness is visible and can be realized."

"Furthermore, the authority of the law stems from its coercive power, and this coercion is essentially a state-sanctioned form of ’violence.’"

"What we need is not to deconstruct this authority, but to continuously engage in critical improvements."

"However, ’the weapon of criticism’ can never replace ’criticism of weapons.’"

"As legal professionals, we should focus more on how to make the law, as an important tool of the state, sharper, more precise, and more efficient, better deterring all those who dare to harm society."

"So that it can truly be held by everyone in need of protection, instead of forcing people to take up private weapons in resistance!"

After this eloquent speech, the meeting room fell into brief silence.

The three examiners exchanged glances and saw the appreciation for this young man in each other’s eyes.

Next, they posed several highly professional and equally challenging and sensitive questions.

Fang Cheng consistently maintained a calm and engaging tone, handling them with ease, with impeccable logic.

Finally, Luo Yang, sitting in the middle, smiled and spoke:

"Alright, today’s interview ends here. You may leave now and await further notice."

"Thank you, professors."

Fang Cheng stood up and bowed slightly.

Then he turned and walked towards the door, efficiently pulling the door open before gently closing it behind him.

In the waiting area, several candidates still waiting immediately turned their gaze towards him.

Seeing Fang Cheng’s composed demeanor, everyone showed a trace of envy and tension on their faces.