Without a court ruling, this suspect remained a suspect and there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty. Under these conditions, how could a policeman resort to unusual investigation methods that completely ignore the rights of this suspect? This is an irrational action against the law and the harm it does may exceed that of the crime itself. The hidden logic is that the end justifies the means. In view of this logic, we can, in the name of public interests, label anyone as a suspect and justify any means, even if that means are inhumane and involves power abuse by the police.

Though the human-flesh search engine may help catch the criminal suspect in record time, what if the person turns out to be innocent?

If we support online manhunts launched by the police, we are actually giving up our basic human rights to the government. Who is able to ensure that a false accusation today might not happen again tomorrow?

Positive step

Chen Aihe (China Youth Daily): It is true that any suspect, until convicted in court, shall not be regarded as a criminal. But we should not forget that concealing a suspect's image is not obligatory. According to the Criminal Law, the police are allowed to disclose relevant details of criminal cases, detain criminal suspects and ask the public for assistance in investigating criminal cases.

Police regulations also state that suspects may be tracked down by using media exposure.

That is to say, it is lawful for the police to release the suspect's details on the Internet. The post was made by a real policeman in the name of the Ruyang Bureau of Public Security, which shows the officer was performing his duty in accordance with the law.

What is more important is that the police have made a great deal of investigations and a thorough study of banks' surveillance camera video. All the evidence supported the preliminary judgment that the young man was the prime suspect. It is fair to say that the policeman's post, with much evidence in hand, will not infringe on the suspect's rights of portrait and honor.

What is more, "suspect" and "criminal" are two different terms. If the young man wanted was really innocent, all he would need to do is to explain his side of the story to the police. Even if he is wrongly seized, he can demand clarification of the facts by police authorities or even claim for state compensation.

Although some lawmakers have proposed to outlaw the human-flesh search engine for its alleged violation of citizens' rights, this is still a call for regulating this method only, not banning it. Whether to ban the human-flesh search engine or not is still under discussion and, at present, it shall not be regarded as illegal until the law says so.

Yang Tao (Changjiang Times): Many people expressed their concerns that releasing the young man's picture may violate his rights of portrait and honor. I don't think we should generalize about that. In fact, we should examine whether the manhunt is an official or a personal act. If official, then we need to know whether the procedure is legal or not.

From the post, we can tell that obviously it is official since the post was made by the investigating police officer and local police authorities sanctioned the process. Relevant laws and regulations have vested police authorities at different levels with the power to release information that could help track down criminal suspects.

In this sense, Zhao, as an average policeman himself, is not entitled to release information on the Internet in an official capacity, unless approved by police authorities. What if the approved information contains false elements that may infringe upon the rights of others? In this case, the victim can initiate prosecution and claim for state compensation.

For this reason, we should not bar Zhao from posting on the Internet because of false information that may be included. What should be a real concern is whether his behavior is in accordance with legal procedures.

Guan Ruoyu (www.eastday.com): The online manhunt for criminal suspects should be seen as a method of cooperation between the police and the public. Its strong point is that once information enters the public domain, netizens can offer feedback information, which helps to provide more evidence.

In some cases, the human-flesh search engine may infringe on the legal rights of a certain party, but it does not necessarily cause infringement. In fact, the main cause for the abuse of the human-flesh search engine is that some netizens, who operate under the guise of morality, wage personal attacks on others.

The key point lies in how to use and regulate this search method. Applying the human-flesh search engine to track down criminal suspects is a new attempt. But the conviction and punishment should be decided by judicial authorities.