 Chen Shifu advocated for Sun Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People in his big character posters. |
In April 2002, a “big character poster” (dazibao) appeared on a bulletin board reserved for official public notices outside the government building in Zhaoshi Town, Longshan County, in western Hunan Province. Entitled “Letter of Protest,” the poster was written with a calligraphy brush on red paper and called on residents to oppose local government policies related to property demolition and eviction. Over the course of the next several months, other posters appeared and their rhetoric grew more radical.
After an August poster called on people to overthrow the Communist Party and re-establish rule by the Nationalist Party (Guomindang), local police launched a special investigation to find the author of the posters. Two weeks later they found their man, a 45-year-old coffin seller named Chen Shifu, and charged him with inciting subversion.
In the age of blogs and Weibo, it’s perhaps easy to underestimate the significance of a few sheets of paper posted in a public place. Big character posters, large-print manifestos posted strategically to attract the attention of passers-by, have a long history in China, but they became an established means of expressing challenges to authority during the Cultural Revolution (1966‒1976). In fact, for a while the right to express criticisms in this manner became deeply connected to the idea of free speech. A right to post big character posters was enshrined in the 1975 constitution as one of the “four big rights,” which were extolled as “new forms of carrying on socialist revolution created by the masses of the people.” This right was retained in the first post-Cultural Revolution constitution in 1978, but in the wake of the 1979 Democracy Wall movement, the newly consolidated party leadership under Deng Xiaoping decided that big character posters were a threat to the “normal” exercise of the people’s democratic rights, and the right was removed from the 1980 constitution.
Putting up “counterrevolutionary posters”—together with counterrevolutionary leaflets and letters—was classified as a crime of “counterrevolutionary propaganda and incitement” in the criminal law that took effect in 1980. Hundreds if not thousands of people were sentenced to prison for “the three types of cases” during the 1980s and 1990s before the crime of counterrevolution was removed from the criminal law in 1997.[*] After 1997 those detained for putting up posters, distributing leaflets, or sending letters calling for the overthrow of the Communist Party were charged with “inciting subversion.”
The political motivations behind the charge of inciting subversion are expressed clearly in the statement to the court (translated below) presented by Yang Qinghua, who served as public prosecutor in the trial of Chen Shifu. In his attempt to justify the charges against Chen, Yang takes us step by step through the alchemy by which nation, government, and ruling party are fused in China’s political culture, making any challenge to the Communist Party’s “core leadership” role a threat to state security. The prosecutor’s statement is suffused with political language, with which he makes clear that the law he enforces in this case is not so much state law as it is party law. His ultimate analysis of the roots of Chen’s crimes places blame on the defendant’s failure to adhere to the core political faiths that the party has gone to great lengths to instill in its citizens: that the 1949 revolution marked a distinct break between “old” and “new” Chinas, a sharp boundary between the poverty and weakness of the past and the promise of prosperity and strength for a people who had finally “stood up.”
Yang ridicules Chen for his linguistic inelegance and ignorance, yet Yang’s statement (which earned a provincial award for excellent prosecution statements) also suffers from errors, faulty logic, and sloppy legal citations. Yang misquotes China’s constitution, and in what the prosecution must have thought was one of its most damaging arguments, Yang exposes Chen’s inability to elucidate the “Three Principles of the People” that he advocated in his posters. Yang then reveals his own ignorance by identifying “democracy” rather than “nationalism” as the first component of Sun Yat-sen’s famous theory. The fact that, despite these flaws, Yang’s statement was deemed worthy of an award reinforces the suspicion that it was assessed not for its excellence in legal analysis or logic, but rather for its ideological correctness.
The outcome of Chen’s trial is currently unknown, but considering that prosecutors sought a maximum five-year sentence, he is believed to have been released no later than 2007.
* Counterrevolutionary correspondence is related to the three types of cases. Among law enforcement authorities, it principally referred to cases in which letters were sent with counterrevolutionary purposes to overseas correspondence addresses broadcast by radio stations of “Chiang clique agents,” according to a notice issued by the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and Ministry of Public Security on December 26, 1979.⇑
Procuratorate Prosecution Statement: click to expand
Xiangxi Tujia & Miao Autonomous Prefecture People’s Procuratorate
Prosecution Statement
Presiding Judge, Adjudication Officers, and Citizen Observers:
This morning, the First Criminal Division of the Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People’s Court held a hearing here to publicly try the inciting subversion case against defendant Chen Shifu. In accordance with Articles 153, [160], 165, and [169] of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC and Article 15 of the Organic Law of the Procuratorate of the PRC, I have been assigned by the Xiangxi Autonomous Prefecture People’s Procuratorate to represent it as prosecutor on behalf of the state and appear in court to support the prosecution, as well as to undertake legal supervision of the criminal process.
In the court investigation phase of the trial just now, the court’s investigation of the defendant’s testimony in court and questioning by the prosecutor, the reading of relevant witness statements, expert opinions, the record of the crime-scene investigation, and the presentation of relevant documentary evidence sufficiently demonstrates the correctness of our procuratorate’s decision to charge defendant Chen Shifu with the crime of inciting subversion and that the evidence is sufficient and reliable. In order to further expose criminality, castigate evil, uphold justice, and promote legal institutions, the prosecution will set out the following several arguments for the court’s consideration as it decides upon conviction and sentencing for the defendant:
I. Defendant Chen Shifu’s actions constitute the crime of inciting subversion.
According to Article 105(2) of the Criminal Law of the PRC: the offense of “inciting subversion of state power” means to engage in incitement by spreading rumors or slanders or any other means to subvert state power or overthrow the socialist system. Before convicting under this offense, we must clarify two concepts:
- What is the nature of our country’s state power?
- Article 1 of the Constitution of the PRC states: “The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.” The Constitution also states [The following language is not found in the Constitution–Trans.] that the Communist Party of China (CPC) is the core of leadership of China’s socialist revolution and socialist construction effort and the core of leadership of China’s state power of people’s democratic dictatorship. From the above constitutional provisions, we can see that leadership over the state by China’s working class is realized through CPC rule. Overthrow of the CPC is equivalent to overthrowing the leadership of the working class and tantamount to subverting state power, and is thereby a rejection of the socialist system.
- Inciting subversion is a behavioral offense, which means that a crime is constituted so long as the perpetrator engages in behavior that incites subversion of state power—regardless of whether or not that behavior results in actual harm or whether others believe [the incitement] or commit acts of incitement.
In conclusion, knowing the nature of China’s state power and understanding that the crime of inciting subversion is a behavioral offense, let us again review the case and analyze the actions and subjective intent of defendant Chen Shifu: The prosecution charges that defendant Chen Shifu incited subversion of state power (i.e., the leadership of the CPC) by posting “big character posters.” To show why we say this, the prosecutor will read an excerpt from defendant Chen Shifu’s third “big character poster” (i.e., “Call to Arms”): “I call on all ordinary people and celebrities in China to rise up and overthrow the Communist Party; to retake our national government and govern China properly. Everyone can begin by posting ‘big character posters’ all over or directly participating in anti-Communist organizations. . . .” From this excerpt, we can see clearly that the defendant subjectively had a clear intention to overthrow the CPC and subvert state power and that he objectively engaged in corresponding behavior (posting ‘big character posters’). So, whether one looks at subjective or objective criteria, [his actions] satisfy the main constituent criteria for the crime of inciting subversion. The prosecution’s decision to prosecute defendant Chen Shifu on this charge is correct. However, ever since he was taken into custody—including in court today—defendant Chen Shifu has claimed in his defense that he only wanted to make comments and did not really want to overthrow the Communist Party. The prosecution believes that this is only sophistry on the defendant’s part in an effort to mitigate his criminal liability. Think about it: Does it make sense to overthrow a state’s ruling party first and then make comments? The prosecution believes that no ruling party in any country in the world would accept this way of making “commentary.” The collegiate panel should not give any credence to this sort of ridiculous defense argument.
II. The evidence supporting the criminal charges against defendant Chen Shifu was collected legally and is objective and mutually correlative.
During the just-concluded court investigation phase, the prosecution put forth a large amount of evidence supporting the criminal charges against the defendant. Below, the prosecution will summarize [that evidence] as follows:
- Defendant Chen Shifu fully confessed to using a brush to write the three big character posters “Letter of Protest,” “On the Current Political Situation,” and “Call to Arms,” and what he has said about the paper, ink, and adhesive used; the locations of posting; and the contents is all corroborated by the testimony of witnesses Chen Xiaohua, Yao Jinxiang, Wu Caixu, Xiang Famao, Peng Bin, Zhang Furong, and Li Wancai.
- The testimony of Zhou Minglong, Wang Boyu, Li Wenzhi, Chen Shiyun, Fan Guihua, and Wu Dan, confirming that they personally saw the big character posters and some of the contents, is completely consistent with the confession of defendant Chen Shifu.
- The corroborating documentary evidence of the three big character posters, “Letter of Protest,” “On the Current Political Situation,” and “Call to Arms,” in the case file.
- The public security authority’s record of on-scene investigation and relevant photographs, which are on file, and the conclusions of the Longshan County Public Security Bureau’s handwriting analysis determining that the three big character posters were all written by Chen Shifu himself, about all of which defendant Chen Shifu has not raised any objections.
- Documents on file such as the crime report, record of case solution, and record of defendant Chen Shifu’s apprehension.
The evidence above is not mutually contradictory and forms a complete chain of evidence. The only exclusive conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence is that defendant Chen Shifu used the posting of big character posters to incite subversion of state power.
III. Refutation of some of defendant Chen Shifu’s mistaken views
In questioning the defendant and examining the investigation file, the prosecution has discovered that defendant Chen Shifu’s thinking is very confused and that his views are full of holes. There are numerous poorly constructed sentences and mistaken characters in the big character posters he wrote. (Based on the prosecution’s rough tally, there are more than 25 mistaken characters and seven poorly constructed sentences in his “Call to Arms,” an “essay” of fewer than 300 characters.) Some of his views display certain confusions, of which the prosecution will examine two in particular in order to set the record straight:
- First is the idea that the “freedom of expression” enjoyed by citizens can conceal his criminal activity. During the prosecution’s questioning and even here in today’s courtroom, the defendant continued to say that citizens enjoy the right to “freedom of expression.” There’s no mistake, “freedom of expression” is a fundamental right granted to citizens by the Constitution. But the prosecution is obligated to point out that “freedom of expression” must be established within the framework of law, instead of overriding the law. Moreover, the prosecution wants to explain very carefully that our country and our ruling party has never been afraid of comments from the masses. On the contrary, we welcome very much the oversight of the broad popular masses. Had the defendant expressed his comments and suggestions through lawful channels such as the system of letters and visits or petitioning or made complaints to a people’s congress deputy, he wouldn’t be standing here today in the defendant’s docket. On the contrary, he would receive the law’s protection. Unfortunately, however, Chen Shifu chose the unlawful manner of “posting big character posters” and made vicious attacks and slanders against the government and our party. This is something the law cannot allow. I wonder whether defendant Chen Shifu now realizes this as he sits in the defendant’s docket.
- Only the “Three Principles of the People” and the Nationalist Party (Guomindang) can properly govern China. This is something that the defendant has said many times; but, ironically, when asked by the prosecution what the “Three Principles of the People” were, the defendant could not answer. Just think, how can a person who doesn’t even know what the “Three Principles of the People” are know whether they can properly govern China? This in and of itself is a joke. One cannot deny that during the old era of democratic revolution, Sun Yat-sen’s idea of the “Three Principles of the People” being “Democracy, People’s Rights, and People’s Livelihood” [The first principle is “nationalism” (minzu) not “democracy” (minzhu)—Trans.] was certainly a progressive idea during its time. Today, however, when China has already entered the socialist era, it is clearly out of step with the times to talk about the “Three Principles of the People.” These days, only Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important idea of “Three Represents” can guide China on the path towards being a strong nation with wealthy citizens. The more than 20 years since reform and opening have proved this point, and I believe that future history will also prove this point. As for whether or not the Nationalist Party can properly govern China, anyone who understands even a little bit of modern history knows that from the 1911 Revolution until the founding of New China [in 1949], China was under control of the Nationalists for several decades. But what they brought the Chinese people was endless war and chaos, hardship and destitution, bullying by foreign powers, and selling out the nation in search of personal glory. As someone born after [1949] who grew up as a citizen of New China, defendant Chen Shifu never had any experience of the old China under Nationalist rule, so how can he know if the Nationalists governed well? Actually, you don’t have to go very far; if you had looked at the great differences between old and new China with regard to your own Zhaoshi Town or asked the old people around you, you wouldn’t have made such a basic error. The prosecution also wants to take this opportunity to mention to the defendant: the “ruling party” in Taiwan is the Democratic Progressive Party, not the Nationalist Party. Just think, the Guomindang cannot even govern the several dozen million people of Taiwan Province; how could they lead the more than one billion people of the mainland towards relative prosperity? Isn’t the defendant taking too much for granted?
IV. The ideological origins and social consequences of defendant Chen Shifu’s crimes and their lessons to us
Before analyzing why the defendant committed his crime, the prosecution first wishes to discuss three things: 1. After the defendant committed his crimes, the public security authority searched his residence in accordance with the law. They found not a single book promoting our party’s policies but discovered several reactionary books such as Biography of Chiang Kai-shek; 2. The defendant confessed to public security and procuratorate authorities on multiple occasions that when he was working as a migrant laborer in Fujian he often listened to Taiwan radio broadcasts to the mainland when he was bored; 3. During the process of relocating the marketplace, the defendant went to create a scene at the township government and other bodies because of the gap between the compensation payment and the expected [expenses].
From the above three matters, it is actually very easy to explain the origins of the defendant’s crimes. He neglected his studies for a long time and stopped reforming his own worldview. Because he frequently listened to hostile radio broadcasts, he gradually developed dissatisfaction with current reality and a hatred for the party and government. The moment his own interests were affected, he immediately went to stand on the side of opposing the party, opposing socialism, and opposing the people. After the Chen Shifu case occurred, it created a big impact in Zhaoshi as well as the surrounding townships. In several middle and primary schools in Zhaoshi Town it was necessary to disrupt the normal curriculum to hold several days of political-thought classes for the students in order to set the record straight. During those several days, Zhaoshi was filled with discussion of the “big character poster” incident. No sooner had the special case team arrived in Zhaoshi than a dozen or so old party members set out on their own initiative to find the team leader. These old comrades with 20 or 30 years of party membership all expressed the same desire: the case must be solved quickly and the perpetrator taken into custody because criminals who spread such heresies and disrupt people’s thinking must be severely punished. I think the words of these dozen or so old party members represent the thinking of Zhaoshi’s masses, who number more than 100,000 people. Now the case has been solved and the defendant will receive law’s sanction, but the prosecution still feels a sense of unease. How could a case like this occur in a place with such a glorious revolutionary tradition as Zhaoshi? How can we eliminate these kinds of cases once and for all? The prosecution wants to use this case to share the following lessons:
- We cannot do as some local governments and pursue only economic development but must also develop spiritual civilization—both must be “grasped firmly with both hands.” Lately, there have been deviations in the ideology guiding the work of the heads of some local governments (of course, only a small minority). It’s as if it’s only important to pursue economics and nothing else is important. Actually, this kind of thinking is dangerous. If we sacrifice the construction of spiritual civilization in pursuit of economic development, I think this kind of prosperity will certainly not last long. Problems such as this case might even emerge.
- The character of some of our law enforcement personnel needs to improve. The defendant in this case, as well as many other members of the public, all complained to us about simple work methods and rough attitudes of some local law enforcement personnel. Perhaps to the [law enforcement officers] themselves this is only a matter of work details, but in the eyes of the popular masses these law enforcement personnel represent the image of the party and the government. If the behavior of an extreme few damages the image of the party and the government or even gives those with ulterior motives an opportunity, this does more harm than good.
- We still have a long way to go in our legal education work for the masses, especially for the masses in “old, minority, remote, and poor” [Here, “old” refers to old revolutionary base areas where CPC activity had been strong prior to 1949—Trans.] regions such as ours. On this point, the prosecution only wants to say one thing: The prerequisite and foundation for our ability to “rule the nation in accordance with the law” is to have the masses know and obey the law.
V. The defendant ought to be held criminally responsible.
According to Article 105(1) of the Criminal Law [The following is not actually a direct quote, the correct citations are Article 105(2) and Article 113—Trans.]: “Whoever incites subversion of state power shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention, public surveillance or deprivation of political rights and may have their property confiscated.” Reviewing this case, defendant Chen Shifu has no grounds for lenience or mitigation, and we hope that the collegiate panel will render a lawful and fair verdict based on the magnitude of the defendant’s crimes, the social impact, and the defendant’s attitude towards confessing guilt. This concludes the prosecution’s statement.
Prosecutor: Yang Qinghua
April 18, 2003
(Note: This prosecution statement was awarded first prize in a provincial competition of prosecution statements.)
 | Chinese Source（原文）: 湘西州检察志（1989‒2007），pp. 300-305 Click on icon to expand |
湘西士家族苗族自治州人民检察院
公诉意见书
审判长、审判员、旁听公民们:
湘西自治州中级人民法院刑事审判第一庭今天在这里开庭，公开审理被告人陈世富煽动颠覆国家政权一案。根据《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》第一百五十三条、第一百六十条、第一百六十五条和第一六十九条以及《中华人民共和国检察院组织法》第一十五条之规定，我受湘西自治州人民检察院的指派，代表本院，以国家公诉人的身份，出席法庭支持公诉，并依法对刑事诉讼实行法律监督。
在刚才的法庭调查阶段，通过被告人的当庭供述、公诉人的讯问、宣读有关证人证言、鉴定结论、勘验笔录以及出示有关书证等一系列法庭调查活动，充分说明本院指控被告人陈世富所犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪定性是准确的、证据也是确实充分的。公诉人为了进一步揭露犯罪、鞭挞邪恶、匡护正义、弘扬法制，下面就本案谈如下几点公诉意见，供法庭在对被告人定罪量刑时予以考虑:
（一）被告人陈世富的行为己构成煽动颠覆国家政权罪
《中华人民共和国刑法》第一百零五条第二款规定"煽动颠覆国家政权罪"是指以造谣、诽谤或其它方式煽动颠覆国家政权、推翻社会主义制度的行为。我们在认定此罪名前必须要明确两个概念:
- 我国国家政权的性质是什么?
- 《中华人民共和国宪法》第1条规定"中华人民共和国是工人阶级领导的、以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政的社会主义国家“。同时《宪法》还规定“中国共产党是我国社会主义革命和社会主义建设事业的领导核心，是我国人民民主专政的国家政权的领导核心。由上述宪法规定我们可得知：中国工人阶级对国家的领导是通过中国共产党的执政来实现的，推翻中国共产党，即是推翻工人阶级的领导，既是颠覆国家的政权，从而否定社会主义制度。
- 煽动颠覆国家政权属于行为犯，即只要行为人具有煽动颠覆国家政权的行为，不管是否产生实际危害结果，不管他人是否相信或实施了煽动内容的行为，都构成犯罪。综上，知道了我国国家政权的性质，明白了煽动颠覆国家政权罪是行为犯，我们再来结合案情分析被告人陈世富的行为和主现故意：公诉机关指控被告人陈世富利用张贴"大字报"的形式煽动颠覆国家政权(即中国共产党的领导)。为什么这样讲，公诉人下面摘录宣读被告人陈世富在第三张"大字报"（即《号召书》）中的一段话：“号召天下百姓和知名人士站起来，推翻共产党，把国民政府接回来，再好好的治理中国。大家首先可以《大字报》的形式到处张贴，或者直接参加反共组织……"从此段话我们可以清楚地得知，被告人在主观上明显具有推翻中国共产党领导，颠覆国家政权的故意，同时在客观上也实施了相应的行为(张贴"大字报")，其无论从主观要件上，还是从客观行为要件上均符合煽动颠覆国家政权罪的构成要件。公诉机关以此罪起诉被告文陈世富在定性上是准确的。虽然，在被告人陈世富被抓后，乃至在今天的法庭上，陈一直辩称其只想提意见，并不是真的想推翻共产党。公诉人认为这只是被告人为了减轻罪责的一种狡辩，试想：有没有先将一个国家的执政党推翻后，才提意见的道理。公诉人想世界上任何一个国家的任何一个执政党都不会接受这种"提意见"的方式的。对于此种荒谬的辩解，合议庭在应不予采信。
（二）认定被告人陈世富犯罪的证据来源合法、客观、证据之间具有关联性
公诉人在刚才的法庭调查阶段，列举并出示了大量认定被告人犯罪的证据。公诉人下面在这里作一下归纳：1、被告人陈世富对其用毛笔书写《抗诉书》、《时局论》、《号召书》三份大字报供认不讳，所述用的纸张、墨水、胶水、张贴的位置、书写的内容均与证人陈小花、姚金香、吴才绪、向发茂、彭斌、张芙蓉、李万财证实一致；
2 、证人周明龙、王伯宇、李文志、陈仕云、范桂花、吴丹等人证实亲眼看见的大字报的纸张及部分内容与被告人陈世富供述完全吻合；3、有书证《抗议书》、《时局论》、《号召书》三张大字报在卷佐证；4、有公安机关的现场勘场笔录、相关照片在卷，龙山县公安局文检鉴定三张大字报均系陈世富一人书写，并经被告人陈世富辩认后没有异议；5、有报案记录、破案记录、抓获被告人陈世富经过等材料在卷。以上证据间互无矛盾，且已形成完整的证据索链。通过这些证据只能得出唯一的排他性的结论即：被告人陈世富采取张贴大字报的方式煽动颠覆国家政权。
（三）对被告人陈世富几个错误观点的反驳
公诉人讯问被告人及审查卷宗时发现，被告人陈世富的思维相当混乱，观点也漏洞百出，书写的大字报病句、错字更是随处可见（公诉人粗略统计了一下，在其《号召书》不足三百字的"文章"中，便有多达二十五个错别字和七个病句）。然而其某些观点，又颇具一定的迷惑性，公诉人下面剖析两点，以正视听： （1）以公民享有"言论自由"权掩盖其犯罪行为，公诉人在提审被告人，甚至在今天的法庭上，被告人还提到公民享有"言论自由"权。不错，"言论自由"是《宪法》赋予公民的一项基本权利，但是公诉人必须指的是"言论自由"权必须是建立在法律的框架之下，而决非凌驾于法律之上。另外，公诉人要慎重说明的是，我们的国家，我们的执政党从来都不怕群众提意见，相反还十分欢迎广大人民群众的监督。假如被告人能够利用信访、上访或找人大代表代为反映等等这些合法的途径提出自己的意见和建议，那么今天他不但不会坐在被告席上，相反还会受到法律的保护。然而遗憾的是，陈世富却选择了“张贴大字报”这种不法手段，同时还对政府及我党进行恶毒的攻击和诽谤，这就是法律所不允许的了。不知今天坐在被告席上的陈世富是否意识到了这点；（2）只有"三民主义"，只有国民党才能治理好中国。这是被告人多次提及的观点，然而可笑的是，当公诉人问其什么是"三民主义"时，被告人却答不上来了。试想，一个连什么是"三民主义"也没弄明白的人，又怎么知道“三民主义”能治理好中国，这本身就是一个笑话。不可否认，在旧民主主义革命时期，孙中山先生提出的以"民主、民权、民生"为核心的“三民主义”思想，在当时确实是一种先进的思想。然而在中国已进入社会主义的今天，再提“三民主义”显然已不合时宜了。在当今，唯有邓小平理论和"三个代表"重要思想才能使中国走上强国、富民之路，改革开放二十多年来的历史已证明了这点，相信以后的历史还将证明这一点。再谈一下国民党是否能治理好中国，稍微懂一点近代史的人都知道，从辛亥革命到新中国成立，国民政府在中国也统治了几十年，然而它带给中国人民的是什么，是无穷的战乱，是民不聊生、是外强欺辱、是卖国求荣。被告人陈世富作为生在解放后，长在新中国的公民，根本都没有经历过国民政府统治过的旧中国，又怎么会知道国民党统治的好呢？其实你根本不用去远方，只要你看一看你们召市新、旧社会的巨大变化，问一问你身边的老人们，你也不至于犯这样一个低级的错误了。公诉人在这里还想顺带告诉一下被告人：目前在台湾"执政"的已不是国民党了，而是民进党。试想连一个几千万人口的台湾省也治理不好的国民党，又怎么能领导大陆十多亿人奔小康。被告人是否有点太想当然了。
（四）被告人陈世富犯罪的思想根源，社会影响及给我们的启示
在剖析被告人为会犯罪前，公诉人想先讲三件事：1、在被告人犯罪后，公安机关依法对其住所搜查时，竟未发现一本宣传我党方针政策的书籍，倒是翻出了几本像《蒋介石传》之类的反动书籍；2、被告人多次向公安和检察机关供述：自己在福建打工期间，由于无聊，经常收听台湾对大陆的广播；3、在这次市场搬迁过程中，由于补偿金与预期有一定的差距，被告人多次到乡政府等部门闹事。从上三件事，其实已很好地诠译了被告人犯罪的根源，那便是长期不学习，放松了对自己世界观的改造，由于经常收听敌台，逐渐产生了对现实不满，仇视党和政府的情绪。当自己的利益一旦受到触动，便马上站到了反党、反社会主义，与人民为敌的一面。陈世富一案发生后，在召市乃至相关乡镇，造成了极大的影响。召市镇几个中、小学、不得不打乱原来的教学计划，对学生上了几天的政治思想课，以正视听。而在那几天，召市的街头巷尾，莫不是纷纷议论"大字报事件"以至于专案组刚一进驻召市，便有十几位老党员自发地找到了专案组负责人，这些有着二、三十年党龄的老同志都表达了一个心愿：请务必尽快破案，请务必抓到罪犯，对于这种公然妖言惑众、扰乱民心的罪犯，必须严惩不贷。我想这十几位老党员的话也代表了召市十几万群众的心声。现在案虽破了，被告人也将要受到法律的制裁，然而公诉人的心情却难以平静，为什么在召市这片有着光荣革命传统的土地上会发生此案，如何才能杜绝此类案件再度发生，公诉人想通过此案谈几点启示：
- 我们某些地方政府不能光抓经济建设，同时还要抓精神文明建设，必须"两手抓，两手硬"。目前，我州某些地方政府领导（当然是极少数）的工作指导思想出现了一定的偏差，仿佛只要经济抓上去了，其它的都不重要了，其实这种思想是很危险的，假如我们以牺牲精神文明建设为代价去抓经济建设，我想这种繁荣一定不会持久，甚至还会出问题，辟如此案。
- 我们某些执法部门人员的素质还有待于提高，本案被告人同时也包括很多群众都向我们反映当地某些执法部门工作人员的工作方法简单，态度粗暴，也许对其个人而言，这仅仅是个工作细节问题，然而在人民群众眼中，这些执法部门的人员部代表的是党和政府的形象。假如因为极个别人的行为损害了党和政府的影象，甚至给一些别有用心的人有机可趁，这将是得不偿失;
- 群众的普法工作，尤其是像我们这样一些"老、少、边、穷"地区群众的普法工作还任重而道远，对于这点，公诉人不想多谈，只想讲一句：群众知法、守法将是我们"依法治国"的前提和基础。
（五）被告人应负的刑事责任
我国《刑法》第105 条第1款规定"犯煽动颠覆国家政权罪的，处5 年以下有期徒刑、拘役、管制或者剥夺政治权利，并可并处没收财产"。结合本案来看，被告人陈世富没有任何从轻、减轻情节，希望合议庭根据被告人的罪责大小、社会影响、认罪态度等对其作出合法而公正的判决，公诉意见发表完毕。
公诉人：杨庆华
2003年4月18日
（注：此公诉词在全省公诉词评选中获得优胜奖。）
Collapse
