What Does Good Personal Character Mean?

Regarding the case of the Da River pipeline break, when considering the criminal responsibility of 5 officials who were regarded as individuals with "good character" and significant contributions to society, they were not subject to criminal investigation and prosecution. In this case, there is a clear indication of criminal conduct and tremendous material damage, yet the actions of members of the Vinaconex Board of Directors showing signs of the crime of "Violating regulations on construction causing serious consequences according to Article 229 of the Penal Code" were surprisingly not pursued further in the investigation. To be specific, the central judicial authorities deemed it unnecessary to criminally handle the legal violations of the Vinaconex Board members. The rationale provided is that during the investigation, these individuals provided sincere declarations, cooperated with investigative agencies to clarify the nature of the case, had good character, and made significant contributions to the construction industry. Moreover, the investigation results did not identify any profiteering motives; those primarily responsible for unlawful decisions were found to have terminal illnesses.

Regarding the case of two young men stealing bread, their impulsive actions constituted the crime of asset robbery, despite the negligible material damage, their conduct still formed a criminal offense and they were held criminally accountable.

The actual proceedings of these two cases have raised public concerns: Why were the two young men jailed for stealing bread worth only 45 thousand dong, while 5 officials responsible for the Da River pipeline supplying billions to the capital, which broke nearly 20 times, affecting tens of thousands of households with chronic water shortages, not criminally prosecuted?

Illustrative Images

From the public's standpoint, comparing the two cases reveals an apparent absurdity and significant unfairness. However, from a legal perspective, adjudicating any conduct must be based on specific regulations. Both beneficial and detrimental circumstances are crucial factors in determining the sentence, with the personal circumstances (character) of the offender also being a critical element. The character of the offender encompasses a set of features, signs, and qualities reflecting the social essence of the individual when committing a legal violation, which combined with external conditions affects their criminal behavior.

To determine an appropriate sentence, it is crucial to clarify the characteristics of the offender's personality. These characteristics are manifested in the biography of the accused and other related documents. Investigation agencies, the Prosecutor's Office, and the Court must validate the personal traits of the accused.

The personal traits of the offender include both positive and negative aspects. In some cases, certain personal characteristics of the offender may be regarded as grounds for excluding criminal responsibility, exempting punishment, or determining the crime and sentencing framework, or may be considered as aggravating or mitigating circumstances in criminal responsibility. Therefore, when deciding the punishment, it is necessary to differentiate each specific case. All personal traits of the offender that are not officially classified as grounds for determining the crime, sentencing framework, or as aggravating or mitigating circumstances should be fully considered. Thus, the phrase "good character" serves as a mitigating factor in criminal responsibility.

Returning to the pipeline break case, in evaluating the conduct of the officials, the Court considered the "good character" factor to mitigate criminal responsibility in resolving the case. Meanwhile, the bread theft case lacked this mitigating factor, leading to a legally reasonable but emotionally contentious outcome.

Law has emerged as an effective tool for regulating social relationships, and sometimes the application of legal provisions in handling violations also depends on the nature of the violator's actions, whether fortunate or unfortunate. Therefore, while the legal provisions are deemed reasonable, the implications may still be contested by the public.

-TP-

>> CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN VIETNAMESE