In our daily lives, justifiable self-defense is a widely applied legal principle that gives citizens the right to defend themselves and others in the face of wrongful aggression. However, with the continuous development of society, there have been some deviations in the understanding and application of legitimate defense, and some citizens have taken undue legal responsibility because they have too rationally compared the injuries of both sides when exercising the right of legitimate defense.
Recently, a justified defense case in Fushun City, Liaoning Province, has attracted widespread attention. In this case, Yin faced a siege of six people and used knives to fight back, which eventually led to the death of one of them and the injury of the rest. In the course of the subsequent trial, there were obvious differences in the determination of Yin's behavior by different courts, and it was not until the judgment of the High Court that Yin finally obtained a not guilty result.
The trial process of this case has once again triggered discussions and reflections on legitimate defense in all walks of life. In judicial practice, why do there differences in the determination of legitimate defense? What are the constituent elements of justifiable defence? How should we correctly understand and apply the relevant legal principles of justifiable defense? This article will start from this case and discuss in depth the "innocence" blade of justifiable defense.
1. Case review: Yin's path of legitimate defense
1. Cause of the incident
In June 2018, a fierce quarrel occurred in a restaurant in Fushun City, Liaoning Province, and one of the parties to the quarrel was the later defendant Yin. It is understood that the cause of the quarrel was that Yin had some competitive conflicts with others, and the two sides had a disagreement on the issue of queuing in the restaurant, which eventually turned into a physical conflict.
In this conflict, Yin was obviously at an absolute disadvantage, he was not only besieged by the other party, but also beaten by the other party using a chair, and the scene was very chaotic. It was in such an emergency and dangerous environment that Yin made the decision to use knives to fight back, and this counterattack ultimately led to the death of one person and the injury of the others.
2. The process of the third instance
In response to Yin's counterattack, the judicial authorities filed a criminal case for investigation in accordance with the law, and finally prosecuted him on suspicion of intentional injury. In the course of the subsequent trial, there were obvious differences in the court's determination of Yin's conduct.
First of all, the judgment of the basic court, the court of first instance held that Yin's counterattack had exceeded the limit of legitimate defense and constituted the crime of intentional injury, and finally sentenced him to 10 years in prison. However, after Yin's family and defense lawyer appealed, the court of second instance did not change the original verdict and still upheld the criminal verdict of 10 years in prison.
Faced with two consecutive guilty verdicts, Yin's family did not give up, and they chose to appeal again, hoping to get a more fair trial result. After a full trial, the Court of Final Appeal fully understood and tolerated Yin's counterattack, and finally rendered a not-guilty verdict, finding that he was justified in self-defense and giving appropriate legal protection to the infringement he suffered.
Through the process of three trials, Yin finally obtained a result of not guilty, and the emergence of this result has once again triggered deep thinking in society about the difference in the determination of legitimate defense.
2. Differences in determination: Why did the High Court acquit Yin
In this justifiable defense case, the reason why Yin was able to finally obtain a not-guilty verdict was inseparable from the obvious differences between the three courts in determining justified defense.
1. Criteria for Identification
In judicial practice, the determination of justifiable defense generally involves a number of constituent elements, such as the defender's defensive intent, the cause of the defense, the time of defense, the object of defense, and the limit of defense.
In the course of the trial of this case, different courts differed in their determination of justifiable defense, and the courts of first and second instance made their determinations more from the perspective of the victim, and they compared the injuries of both parties too rationally, holding that Yin's counterattack had exceeded the limit of justifiable defense and constituted the crime of intentional injury.
The difference is that when hearing this case, the High Court made a determination from Yin's point of view, and they fully considered the urgent and dangerous environment Yin was facing at that time, as well as his defensive psychology and counterattack behavior, and finally gave him a legal defense determination of innocence.
2. Governing Law
In addition to the differences in the determination of justifiable defense, there was also a certain degree of deviation in the application of relevant legal principles by different courts in this case.
In the process of applying the specific law, the courts of first instance and second instance compared the injuries of both parties from a more rational perspective, and they held that Yin, as the defendant, should bear corresponding legal responsibility, but could not obtain the legal protection of legitimate defense.
In the course of the trial by the High Court, they paid more attention to the substantive connotation and value orientation of legitimate defense, fully considered the emergency and dangerous environment at the time of the case and Yin's defensive psychology, and proceeded from the actual infringement of the victim, and gave a more reasonable and fair application of the law, and ultimately protected Yin's lawful rights and interests.
It is precisely because of the High Court's deep understanding and application of justifiable defense that Yin was able to finally obtain a not-guilty verdict, and it also provides important enlightenment for us to correctly understand and apply the relevant legal principles of justifiable defense.
3. Constitutive Elements: The "not guilty" argument of legitimate defense
Through the trial process of this case, it is not difficult for us to find that the determination of justifiable defense in judicial practice is not a simple matter, it involves a reasonable grasp and balance of multiple constituent elements, and it also requires the court to make a determination and understanding from the perspective of the defender when applying it concretely.
So, what kind of behavior can be considered justifiable defense? What are the specific constituent elements?
1. Defensive intent
First of all, defensive intent is the first premise and one of the most basic constituent elements of legitimate defense. The so-called defensive intent refers to an active defensive act carried out by the defender in order to stop an illegal act of infringing on the lawful rights and interests of himself or others.
When making a specific determination, the court needs to fully consider the emergency and dangerous environment in which the defender is located, as well as his true defensive intentions, avoid overly rationally comparing the injuries of the two parties, and reasonably infer and determine the victim's actual violations.
2. Limits of defense
In addition to defensive intent, the limit of defense is another important component of justifiable defense, and it is also a place where courts are often prone to deviations when determining justifiable defense.
The so-called limit of defense refers to a reasonable judgment and measurement of the degree of imminent danger and the degree of infringement that the defender can bear when taking necessary defensive acts, and the defenders should not use excessive or unnecessary force to counterattack, but should choose appropriate means of defense according to the actual situation, and immediately stop the defensive acts after the defensive purpose is achieved.
In the specific determination process, the court needs to fully consider the emergency and dangerous environment and psychological pressure faced by the defender at that time, avoid requiring the defender to be too harsh, make a rational judgment in a very short period of time, and also need to conduct a comprehensive analysis from the perspective of the defender, and reasonably tolerate and understand it.
3. Statutory Conditions
In addition to the constituent elements of general application, the criminal law of the mainland also clearly stipulates the conditions for determining justifiable defense, stipulating five specific conditions for justifiable defense, including the offensive act of unlawful aggression, the reasonable expectation of endangering the boundary, the immediate defensive act of unlawful aggression, the necessity and urgency of justifiable defense, and the reasonableness and necessity of defensive means.
In the specific determination process, the court shall conduct a comprehensive review and grasp of the conduct of the parties to the case by strictly referring to these statutory conditions, and only when the conduct of the parties to the case meets these specific conditions can it be found to be justified defense, thereby exempting them from legal responsibility.
IV. Profound Enlightenment: The Judicial Application of Justifiable Defense
Through the trial process of this justifiable defense case, it is not difficult for us to find that when determining justifiable defense, the judicial organs need to take more into account the urgent and dangerous environment faced by the parties to the case, avoid comparing the injuries of the two parties too rationally, and also need to make more determinations and understandings from the perspective of the defender.
At the same time, the mainland's judicial organs also need to give more consideration to the essence and value orientation of legitimate defense when trying cases of legitimate defense, fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens in the face of illegal infringements, and guide citizens to dare to exercise their right of legitimate defense, so as to form a positive judicial tendency.
In specific work, judicial organs may strengthen publicity and interpretation of the relevant legal provisions on legitimate defense, organize and carry out discussion and exchange activities on legitimate defense cases, and strengthen professional training for judges and procurators, so as to improve their professional level and judicial philosophy in the determination of legitimate defense, and better protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens.
At the same time, when facing unlawful infringement, the general public should also understand and master the relevant laws and regulations on legitimate defense, carefully choose the means of defense, and bravely resist when necessary, but never cross the bottom line of the law, so as to protect the legitimate rights and interests of themselves and others, and also provide more judicial reference and support for the judicial organs to correctly handle legitimate defense cases.
epilogue
As an important legal principle, justifiable defense bears the important mission of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, and is also an important right of citizens to protect themselves. In judicial practice, we need to have a deeper understanding and grasp of the connotation and requirements of legitimate defense, and avoid biased understanding and application of it.
Only when we can correctly understand and apply the relevant legal principles of justifiable defense can we better safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, promote social fairness and justice, and provide more solid legal protection and public safety for the construction of a society governed by law.
It is hoped that through the in-depth analysis of this case, it can arouse the attention and thinking of all sectors of society to legitimate defense, and also provide us with some useful enlightenment and reference for correctly understanding and applying the relevant legal principles of legitimate defense.