There is always a puzzling phenomenon in life: a lot of people who are in charge, who suffer loss, who are victims of abuse, choose to remain silent and feel bad for themselves. The first reaction of the vast majority of ordinary people is not to sue for rights, but to compromise, even when they are left behind by the money, by the ill-intentioned neighbours, by the unpaid wages of their workers and by the malicious infringement of their rights by small things。
There is an old saying that: “we won the case, lost our money, lost our lives”, “we die, we die, we die.”。
This phenomenon is evaluated by many outsiders as a result of the weakness of the human nature of the country, love and dignity, ignorance of the defence of rights and low legal awareness. But the truth is, it's not that simple。
In conjunction with the supreme people's court's statistical data on the proceedings of previous years, research on the protection of the rights of the chinese people, and reports on judicial practice at the grass-roots level, it is clear that ordinary people do not want to go to court and do not want to defend their rights, but do not want to do so。
National judicial statistics for 2024 show that the average annual prosecution rate for the entire country is only 88. 63, which appears to be low, but a breakdown into civil disputes reveals the truth: only 2. 2 per cent of the population chooses to sue for their rights, more than 70 per cent of the parties to a small dispute and voluntarily drop out of action。
There is also a solid set of data: less than 20 per cent of disputes that ordinary people claim to be 100 per cent justified end up complete, complete, compensated and successfully executed。
Countless ordinary people bear witness to a reality through their own experience: a case is never so simple to justify, it is a war of time, money, energy and mind that ordinary people cannot afford. The so-called endurance is not a weak compromise, but rather the most desperate and rational choice after the balance of pros and cons。
I. Fragmentation: nationalists don't like litigation, they don't keep old times, they've suffered too much from reality
Numerous legal campaigns have always emphasized the weak legal awareness of the people of the country to protect themselves with legal weapons。
That sentence was set up decades ago and is now completely one-sided. Today, smartphones are widely available and legal literacy is widely available, and the vast majority of adults know that they are victims of self-deprivation and abuse and can go to court to sue for their rights。
People don't understand the law, but they understand the real cost of litigation。
Since time immemorial, traditional societies have promoted the concept of “no court proceedings”, and the ancient authorities have advocated that the people should not argue and that those who have been brought to justice should be defined as “the militancy, debauchery and depravity” that have had a certain impact. But what really dominates modern people's choices is not traditional thinking, but real advocacy。
Many of those who have not done so think that the process is simple: a case can be won, a case can be settled, a judgement can be paid。
But those who actually walked into court and finished the proceedings know: justification does not amount to success, success does not amount to money, and access to judgement does not amount to success。
An ordinary civil case, from the preparation of materials, the filing of cases, mediation, court hearings, waiting for judgement and application for execution, will cost a great deal of money every step of the way。
In the face of a dispute, ordinary people are quick to make a real deal: it takes months or even a year or two for thousands or tens of thousands of losses to get into money, energy, emotions, and, in the end, probably not enough to pay back in full, or even back the cost。
After trade-offs, the choice of most people is simply to forget, admit and endure。
It is not cowardice, it is the survival of ordinary people: the time, energy, emotions of ordinary people are much more valuable than the small interests at hand。
Two or five layers of reality, trapped in ordinary people's rights
All seemingly negative concessions are backed by five layers of dilemma that ordinary people cannot break, piled up and discouraged 90% of defenders。
Level one: economic costs are too high for small disputes
Justice was never free, but a way of defending rights with high thresholds, and many were discouraged from doing so before it began。
Many people thought it would take dozens and hundreds of dollars to go to court, the biggest area of cognitive error. Real expenses, hidden in all subsequent processes。
First, fees for legal services. In ordinary civil disputes, debt disputes, labour disputes, lawyers' fees range from 3,000 to 10,000, and they are more expensive when they are complex, requiring relocation. In many cases, the amount involved was only 35,000 or 120,000, which accounted for most of the fees of lawyers alone, and even if the full recovery was successful, it ended up in vain。
Second, the costs of invisibility litigation. The printing of case materials, notarization of evidence, forensics, transportation to and from the country and loss of work were all self-funded. In particular, forensics, which cost thousands of dollars at a time, fail to prove it, and costs are not refunded。
Third, the cost of losing risk. Legal proceedings are uncertain and there is no 100 per cent case. In the event of failure, not only are their losses not recoverable, but they are also charged in full with the costs of litigation, reasonable defence of the rights of the other party and are lost twice。
According to the ccd study, 78 per cent of ordinary people have opted to give up their rights directly in small disputes up to $10,000. The reasons are very uniform: the cost of defending rights is far greater than the amount of the loss, and litigation is a mere loss。
The rich fights for resources, for rights and interests; the ordinary fights for money and time. For ordinary families, it is winning or earning。
Second chain: the time cycle is too long for ordinary people to afford a living
That is at the heart of the most committed and realistic。
Many have no idea of the length of the proceedings, and the real grass-roots judicial rhythm is ordinary civil cases, from 3 to 15 days for the filing of a case, from 1 to 2 months for pre-suit mediation, from 1 to 3 months for scheduled sessions, from 1 to 2 months for the conclusion of the trial, from one to 2 months for judgement, from appeal to second instance。
A simple debt, a neighbourhood dispute, a labour dispute is a normal half-year-long process, and trials are widespread throughout the years, with one or two years of delay in complex cases。
For ordinary people, people need to work to earn a living, to feed their families and to take care of their families. No one has been able to lay down their jobs and their livelihoods, staring at court processes, preparing materials, running courts and holding court sessions。
Capitalists, freelancers, retired people can afford time; ordinary workers, farmers and wage-earners cannot afford it。
Many defenders have given up, not want to defend, but cannot afford to delay. In three or five months, work was affected, income lost, life disrupted and, in the end, even if the case was won, the overall sum was still in deficit。
Justice, while not absent, comes too slowly and ordinary people cannot afford to wait。
Third-level shackles: winning is easy to execute, winning the case is probably a pleasure
This is the source of the truth that in judicial practice ordinary people are the easiest to step on and “win the case and lose the money”。
The vast majority of ordinary people thought that if the case was won, the court would award money to the other and they would be able to get it themselves。
The reality is the opposite: the judgement is a piece of paper, and the real difficulty is enforcement。
During the proceedings, many defendants moved property ahead of schedule, concealed deposits, sold assets, changed contacts and even deliberately failed to cooperate. Even if the plaintiff had won, it had only received an effective judgement, without property, deposits, fixed income or malicious default, and the court was unable to enforce the refund。
The end result is that the case won, the reason won, the money won't come back, and the time and costs are wasted。
The supreme law enforcement data show that civil small debt disputes, ordinary civil tort cases, have a final implementation rate of over 40 per cent. In short, nearly 40 per cent of the cases were successful, as the other party had no property to enforce, and ultimately the plaintiff's defence was completely frustrated。
This sense of weakness is enough to be fully visible once: instead of paying compensation for more than half a year, it would be better to stop the loss and silence at the outset。
The fourth chain: social bonds of acquaintances. Winners
The vast majority of disputes in the chinese countryside and in the community of acquaintances occur between acquaintances: relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues, and friends。
The common man is in court, winning the law, losing the human face, the reputation, the place where the circle stands。
Once the prosecution is torn to pieces, the original acquaintance completely turns his back and settles long-standing grievances. Neighborhood disputes are prosecuted in the morning, morning and evening, and there are endless contradictions; the family and the circle of acquaintances have been accused of family disputes and have been labelled as “cool, unpopular, troublesome”。
The logic of survival in grass-roots societies has never been a mere legal right or a wrong, but has been a relic of human nature and of the world。
Many old people, ordinary people, see very well: tens of millions of benefits are small things, and it is a matter of long and secure lives, a harmonious human environment and a decent reputation。
For a little loss, permanent resentment, the destruction of the circle, and the argument of those around it have been rewarded. That is why they prefer to be tolerant and self-defeating rather than go to court。
It is not to condone fault, it is to the wisdom of ordinary people to survive。
Fifth-level shackles: the threshold of proof is too high for ordinary people to defend their rights without justification
The legal judgement is right and wrong, and is never based on oral arguments, personal complaints, but only on a complete, legitimate and valid chain of evidence。
Many ordinary people suffer from a daily loss: oral loans, verbal engagements, neighbourhood chores, temporary labour, no contracts, no receipts, no audio and video recordings, and no documentary documents。
While the truth is in their own hands, the absence of legally recognized evidence prevents the case from being opened and won。
People who are not aware of the evidence, who are not aware of its retention, who are not aware of the procedural norms, are not legally able to prove their innocence. In the end, we can only watch the perpetrators escape from responsibility and bear the loss in silence。
Many appear to be indulging, and there is no alternative: without evidence, prosecution is lost and meaningless。
To correct the three major areas of cognitive error: stop misperception of ordinary people's “inhalation”
Many are at a high moral level: people are now too weak, too condoning the evil, and too ignorant to defend their rights。
There is no understanding of the plight of ordinary people, and the three error zones must be completely corrected。
Mistake one: no lawsuits = condoning evil men, not knowing what to do. Rights
Recession by ordinary people, rather than condoning, is the best cost to stop losses。
Size, weight and value. It is a reasonable choice to be held in debt to hundreds of thousands, to be offended by small things, to be subjected to minor violations, to be tolerated; and to be subjected to massive fraud, malicious abuse, material property damage and physical injury, the vast majority of those will be prosecuted decisively and will not compromise。
Ordinary people are not disempowered and do not risk a large cost for small things。
Mistake two: the law is the easiest defense weapon for ordinary people
The law is the most just bottom-line weapon, but it is by no means the easiest and most efficient way of defending rights on a daily basis。
Day-to-day neighbourhood conflicts, small debts, minor disputes, conciliation, private settlement and concessions are much more efficient than litigation. The law is the last line of defence and is not the preferred option for everyday minor matters。
Mistake 3: if you're in charge, you'll win the case
Jurisprudence is not the same as reason, and truth is not the same as evidence. Judicial trials rely on evidence and legal provisions, and not on personal grievances and reasoning. It is an inescapable reality that ordinary people often have the advantage of reason, the fact of the matter and the inability to win at the legal level。
Iv. The common man must understand: to distinguish the scene, to be patient, to be informed
It is not an impotence to understand that ordinary people do not fight, but rather to learn to defend themselves rationally, to choose between them, to avoid blind internal consumption and to avoid compromise。
It's a situation where you can't stand the damage, you don't have to go to court
(a) small disputes of up to $10,000, which are costly to defend, difficult to enforce and time-consuming
2. A slight contradiction between acquaintances, neighbourhood matters, speech struggles and a retreat from the need to preserve long-term coexistence
3. Incomplete evidence, verbal agreement, and disputes without documentary evidence, with an extremely low probability of successful prosecution
4. Cases in which the counterparty has no fixed property, no repayment capacity and cannot succeed in executing the refund。
It's not enough to press charges
1. Large amounts of arrears, material property losses, malicious fraud involving large amounts
2. Malicious failure to pay for labour, denial of compensation for work injuries and serious violations of their legitimate labour rights
3. Personal injury, violation of honour, malicious defamation, touching rights at the bottom
4. Refusal by the other party to engage in malice, repeated abuses and advances will only increase。
It is also a practical technique to keep in mind that community mediation, mediation in small disputes, political complaints, free and efficient access to justice are the most expensive means of protecting the rights of ordinary people。
V. Conclusion of the complete: the institutionality of the institution of the involved
“deathless, unprovoked and unprovoked”, a popular saying that has been raging for many years, has never been a reflection of the ignorance and cowardice of the people at the bottom, but rather of the countless ordinary people who have learned their survival experience in a sub-humanist practice。
Nationals seem to be accustomed to indoctrination, and behind them they have never been able to defend their rights or be more serious, but have calculated time, economic, human and energy bills。
The high cost of defending rights, the lengthy litigation cycle, the difficult implementation of the ground, the complex evidentiary threshold, the binding of the human condition in a well-known society, and the five-fold reality shackles allow the vast majority of ordinary people to opt for timely cessation and compromise。
We have never denied the justice and power of the rule of law, and law is always the last line of social equity. But we also have to face up to the impotence of ordinary people: for ordinary people who are running for a living, it is more important to live well, to live in peace, to be free from trivialism, than to fight for right and wrong and win。
Real maturity has never been a matter of realism and competition, but of balance and trade-offs. The wisdom of ordinary people is best known when it comes to small things, when it comes to nothing, when it comes to nothing, when it comes to nothing。
It was to be hoped that the future grass-roots system of rights protection would be simpler, more efficient and less costly, allowing ordinary people to speak with reason, to complain, to defend their rights, and to do justice within their reach, and that there would no longer be any need to resist concessions in exchange for a stable life。
Topical discussion
Have you ever had a history of losing control and finally choosing not to talk? Do you think that ordinary people are reluctant to take a case, the most central reason being that it is too costly, too difficult to implement, or is it a matter of concern? In small disputes, do you choose whether to defend or stop in time? You are welcome to share your comments in the comment area. Follow-up updates on human rights, legal literacy and life-scrambling practical dry goods are ongoing, and interest can be noted in a number of accounts。
Disclaimer
This paper is an objective analysis of the population and is not negative. All views are based on the current state of life at the grass-roots level and the public availability of judicial data, and do not constitute legal guidelines for the defence of rights。
