Who are American laws protecting?

Is that still a question? American law does not protect the American people, but also protects the people of China? Wait a minute, let's calm down and look at the other side of American law. I came across an article about a female leader in China who was sentenced by China but imprisoned in the United States. This person's name is Gao Zhan, and her anti-government is much stronger than that of domestic celebrities. But 200 1, she was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment by China for selling information to Taiwan Province province. Seeing that her leader was going to jail in China, her father naturally quit, and she was rescued by the whole country. After the final judgment, she was released on parole (the country was weak). Ironically, after arriving in the United States, Gao Zhan was sued by the United States for selling prohibited high-tech chips to a scientific research unit in China in 2000, and was finally sentenced to seven months' imprisonment. After she was released from prison, the US Immigration Service thought that she was a dangerous person in the United States and wanted to repatriate her to China. She didn't want to go to court with the Immigration Bureau, and the final result was that she didn't need to be repatriated, but because she was a dangerous person in the United States, she could only stay in the prison of the Immigration Bureau and couldn't come out, so she was still in prison (this is online). It is also the best to lead the way to this point. In this article, my focus is not to discuss the fate of Gao Zhan, but to reveal the true side of American law. The following is an excerpt from my full text: in the United States, the complexity of law lies not only in the content, but also in the text. The characteristics of American legal provisions are: classic words, obscure words, noble words, and a Latin sentence from time to time. Think about it. If China's laws were written in the classical Chinese of Tang and Song Dynasties, with the ancient saying of pre-Qin, "I-word is changed twice, and herringbone is added three times", how would ordinary people feel after reading it? The American government stipulates that English is the official language, so if there are non-English sentences in government documents, they should be translated into English with parentheses. However, legal documents and regulations promulgated by the government can be directly inserted into Latin without providing English translation. This is another way of saying that legal provisions are not written for ordinary people. What's more, Latin often appears in judges' judgments, which can't be translated in ordinary English dictionaries, so it is difficult for ordinary people to understand their own judgments. Instead of wasting time and effort to find the corresponding English translation, why not use English directly? To put it more seriously, using Latin in legal documents without providing English translation is a show-off and discrimination of law school graduates trained in Latin against ordinary people who have never studied Latin. Because legal knowledge has become a patent monopolized by a few people, and American law is dominated by case law, legal knowledge is difficult to understand and cannot be popularized, resulting in countless legal illiteracy; Ordinary people don't know how to protect themselves by law, which has formed a serious social disease. Because people are afraid of legal knowledge, they need lawyers for every detail, forming a special lawyer power interest group. After reading the above introduction, my first feeling is that it is no wonder that American lawyers are so bloated and rich. The second question is, why do American laws serve people? It is essentially weakening people's legal protection to artificially blur legal provisions and create a gap between law and ordinary people's understanding. If you want to go to court, you can only hire lawyers who can understand obscure legal provisions, which means spending a lot of money, which means that only the rich can better protect themselves with the law. Those who don't have enough money are always excluded from legal protection. In addition to the above feelings, I also thought of China. China has always been the target of attacks by universalists, such as autocracy, dictatorship, lack of human rights, darkness, corruption and so on. Personally, I can recognize many problems in China, but is the system in China essentially protecting the rich like American laws? I thought of hanyu pinyin and simplified characters. Is to reduce the difficulty of learning, so that hundreds of millions of illiterate people in China can become literate as soon as possible. Chinese Pinyin greatly reduces the difficulty of learning pronunciation. Before Chinese Pinyin, China also adopted various ways to promote the traditional Chinese phonetic notation, but the effect was not good. After hanyu pinyin came out, the threshold for illiterate people to learn Chinese characters was suddenly lowered. Simplified Chinese characters have reduced the difficulty for illiterate people to write Chinese characters, greatly lowered the learning threshold, and enabled hundreds of millions of ordinary people to read books and newspapers from illiterate people. I think this is the foundation of China's modernization. On the contrary, the traditional structure of traditional Chinese characters in China is more complicated. From a practical point of view, cultural knowledge is monopolized by a few people, while most people become the bottom of society because they have no cultural ability. To change a person's fate, we should start with changing his cultural knowledge. There can be no real freedom, equality, democracy and human rights without laws that are fair and uniform for all.