1979年11月14日，在浙江杭州體育場舉行一場極具轟動性的公審大會，吸引超過六千名群眾到場旁聽。這場審判之所以引起如此關注，不僅因為被告是一對罪行纍纍的雙胞胎，更因為他們的父親是中國人民解放軍的開國少將——熊應堂。

這對兄弟名叫熊紫平與熊北平，他們長期仗著父親的軍事背景，在當地橫行霸道，行徑惡劣。他們打著「將軍之子」的名號，作威作福，長期性侵、騷擾與欺凌無辜女性，受害者人數竟超過一百人，社會影響極其惡劣。他們的行為令人髮指，也讓地方群眾積怨已久。此案發展到後期，已不單是刑事問題，更觸動社會對特權階層子女行為的憤怒與對司法公正的高度期待。

案件曝光後引發中央與地方政府的高度重視，尤其是在改革開放初期，中共高層明確表態要整頓社會風氣、打擊黑惡勢力與消除特權現象，熊氏兄弟的案件被視為極具代表性的試金石。最終，當局決定以公審的形式對外公開，彰顯依法治國與絕不姑息特權的決心。

審判過程中，哥哥熊北平得知父親對此案絕不庇護、態度強硬，頓時慌亂不安。他最終選擇坦白罪行，表現出一定程度的悔意並積極配合偵查，因此法院考量其態度良好，判處死刑，緩期兩年執行。這樣的判決意味著，只要在監禁期間表現良好，未來可能減刑為無期徒刑或有期徒刑。

然而，弟弟熊紫平卻與之截然不同。他在審判期間毫無悔意，言辭囂張，態度惡劣，甚至對受害者與司法機關表現出極度不尊重與敵意。法院最終決定對其判處死刑，並立即執行，展現法律的嚴正與對重罪的零容忍。不久之後，熊紫平被依法槍決。而熊北平雖然躲過即時處決，但最終受不了勞改在獄中選擇自殺，結束自己的人生，兩人均在27歲死亡。此案至此落幕，兄弟二人皆未能逃脫自己犯下罪行的代價。

面對兒子們犯下的滔天大罪，熊應堂將軍感到極度悲痛與羞愧。他並未利用自己的軍職影響審判，而是主動向組織請辭，表示自己對家庭教育的失職負有不可推卸的道德責任。他認為，作為一名軍人，自己雖然在戰場上浴血奮戰、忠誠國家，但在子女教育上卻未盡到為人父的本分，讓國家與人民蒙羞，是一生最深的遺憾。

請辭後的熊應堂選擇淡出公眾視野，過著深居簡出的生活。他拒絕接受媒體採訪，也極少參與任何公開活動。他晚年在上海定居，生活簡樸清靜，據說經常獨自閱讀、回憶舊事，或寫日記抒發內心悔恨與悲傷。1996年，熊應堂因病在上海辭世，享壽85歲。

這起雙胞胎兄弟作惡的案件，不僅震驚一時，更成為當時中國法治建設與整肅特權風氣的重要象徵。它表明，即使是開國將軍的後代，也不能凌駕於法律之上。法律面前人人平等，是建設現代法治社會的基石。熊應堂將軍雖非案件主謀，卻願意以請辭方式承擔道義責任，也為他贏得了部分輿論的尊重，顯示出一位老一代軍人面對家國與道德之間艱難抉擇的沉重與勇氣。這場悲劇最終也提醒世人：無論出身如何，子女教育不可忽視，權力與地位絕非犯罪的護身符，而真正的榮耀，應當建立在正直與良知之上。

On November 14, 1979, a sensational public trial was held at a stadium in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. The event attracted over 6,000 onlookers and drew massive attention nationwide—not only because the accused were twin brothers who had committed a series of heinous crimes, but also because their father was none other than Xiong Yingtang, a founding major general of the People’s Liberation Army of China.

The twin brothers, Xiong Ziping and Xiong Beiping, had long abused their father’s military status to act with impunity in their local community. Under the notorious banner of being “sons of a general,” they terrorized the area, committing numerous acts of sexual assault, harassment, and abuse against women. Reports later revealed that their victims exceeded one hundred, a number that sent shockwaves through society. Their actions were not only criminal but symbolized the unchecked arrogance of privileged offspring, which had long stirred resentment among the public.

As the details of the case emerged, it quickly drew attention from both local and central government officials. At the time, China was in the early stages of its Reform and Opening period, and the Communist Party leadership had been making public commitments to clean up social conduct, crack down on organized crime, and eliminate the abuses of privilege. The Xiong brothers’ case was seen as a critical litmus test—an opportunity for the state to demonstrate its resolve in upholding the rule of law and its commitment to justice.

During the trial, the elder brother, Xiong Beiping, realized his father would not intervene on his behalf. The general had taken a firm stance: no interference, no protection. Struck with fear and remorse, Xiong Beiping chose to confess, showing a degree of cooperation with authorities. The court took his attitude into consideration and sentenced him to death with a two-year reprieve—meaning the sentence could later be commuted to life imprisonment or a fixed-term sentence if he behaved well during that period.

In stark contrast, the younger brother, Xiong Ziping, remained defiant throughout the proceedings. Arrogant and unrepentant, he showed blatant disrespect toward both the court and the victims. His behavior left no room for leniency. The court handed down an immediate death sentence, underscoring its zero-tolerance policy for severe crimes, especially those involving abuse of power and privilege.

Shortly thereafter, Xiong Ziping was executed by firing squad in accordance with the law. Though Xiong Beiping initially avoided execution, he later died by suicide in prison, reportedly unable to bear the hardship of reform-through-labor. Both brothers died at the age of 27, and with their deaths, one of the most shocking criminal cases of the era came to a close. Justice had been served, but at great personal and public cost.

General Xiong Yingtang was devastated and deeply ashamed by his sons’ actions. Rather than using his influence to interfere with the proceedings, he voluntarily submitted his resignation to the Party, accepting moral responsibility for the failure in his children’s upbringing. As a veteran who had shed blood on the battlefield in service of his country, Xiong considered this his greatest personal failure—the inability to guide his own children and the shame their actions had brought to the nation and its people.