Zhang Yimou's movie "Article 20" released during the Spring Festival refers to Article 20 of the Criminal Law on "legitimate defense" clauses, few legal provisions can cause such a big controversy among the public, basically people who study criminal law know the content of Article 20, but if you ask him what Article 19 is, it is estimated that nine out of ten people may not be able to answer, and all kinds of scenes in the TV series that violate the legal provisions can only be seen as jokes.
Article 20 has been controversial in judicial practice, just like the three cases in the movie, there are different understandings of "legitimate defense" between the lawmakers and the general public to stop bullying on campus and bus bravery, and the initial provisions are very harsh, and it is difficult for the public to feel fair and just, so there is the embarrassment of the father who is the supervision officer in the film who doubts that the child is beaten and cannot be dealt with by the police. In the real society, due to the controversy caused by some judgment cases, there has always been a huge call for amending the law among the people, and the 2018 Jiangsu Kunshan Longge anti-homicide case, which is one of the prototypes of the film material, has become an important turning point in the revision of Article 20.
This so-called Kunshan Longge anti-homicide case actually originated from a street fight caused by a traffic accident, because the perpetrator - Liu Hailong, single-handedly promoted the revision of Article 20 of China's Criminal Law on "justifiable defense" clause, which made the law progress for at least 10 years, and he is also known as the most valuable man who died in the history of Chinese criminal investigation.
On August 27, 2018, in Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province, Yu Haiming rode a bicycle and forcibly merged with the left rear BMW car, and almost collided, and then a man suddenly came out of the driver's position of the BMW owner, who was the protagonist of the incident - Liu Hailong, Liu Hailong beat Haiming after getting out of the car, and Yu Haiming has been reluctant to dodge.
Later, Yu Haiming was forced to start a counterattack in desperation, which angered Liu Hailong even more, and the angry Liu Hailong turned around and ran back to the BMW car, took out a long knife, and slashed at Yu Haiming. Later, because the machete fell off the ground, Yu Haiming picked it up first, and counterattacked 5 times in a row within 7 seconds, hitting Liu Hailong's abdomen, buttocks and chest respectively, and Liu Hailong ran to the green belt more than 30 meters northeast of the BMW car and fell to the ground.
An hour after the incident, Liu Hailong died of his injuries, and Kunshan** also arrested Yu Haiming and set up a task force. On the second day of the incident, Kunshan ** called up the intersection ** surveillance and analyzed the case frame by frame, during which Yu Haiming was detained in the detention center and spent two sleepless nights tormented.
But what he didn't know was that outside the high wall, this case has caused a sensation on the whole network and has become the focus of attention of many ** in China, Yu Haiming counterattacked to the death of Liu Hailong, whether it was legitimate defense or excessive defense, a large number of netizens debated endlessly, **hot spots continued to rise, and the Internet voice was also very loud, which also caused a lot of pressure on **.
On September 1, 2008, Kunshan** determined through a 5-day careful study and judgment of the case that Liu Hailong's unlawful infringement was a continuous process, and that Liu Hailong's machete fell to the ground and then stepped forward to grab the knife, indicating that he had a firm will to take the initiative to harm others, and that Yu Haiming snatched the knife and fought back against Liu Hailong's death, which was an instinctive self-protection under the threat of violence, and was in line with the intention of legitimate defense, and finally declared that Yu Haiming's behavior was justified defense, and he was acquitted on the spot.
This result made countless netizens cry out happily. Some people will say that it is the society ** that saved Yu Haiming, and some people say that it was the progressive justifiable defense law that saved Yu Haiming. However, in any case, being able to make a correct determination of responsibility in such a short period of time is still a huge step forward in the field of the legal system.
However, in many similar cases, I am afraid that it is not as easy to identify as the above-mentioned facts, because in the past judicial handling of similar cases, the most difficult issue was the issue of the burden of proof. In the movie "Article 20", the key to the verdict is whether the creditor went to the car to get a knife? In the film, after the unremitting efforts of the judicial authorities, the knife is finally found in the river. But if the knife is not found, can this case still be found to be justified defense? Another example is Yu Haiming's anti-homicide case, if the on-site surveillance video is missing, can Yu still be recognized as legitimate defense?
Many judicial makers in China always like to look at problems from the perspective of God, and always analyze the case from the position of a rational person with "hindsight", and ordinary people will be so rational when they encounter this kind of thing? It's just ordinary people with flesh and blood. The normal response of ordinary people is not destined to be as perfect and rational as the framers of the law liked, so it is not surprising that the past has been too demanding on the suppression of such crimes, and it is inevitable that there will be precedents that the public does not understand.
So why is it so difficult to determine "legitimate defense" in China's judicial circles? Because of the huge number of Chinese people, the difference between urban and rural areas is particularly large, especially in the urban bottom and rural areas, there are many legal illiteracy and illiterate, there are many neighborhood conflicts, and there are many disputes in public places. The judicial organs are worried that the legitimate "right of defense" may be abused, leading to the proliferation of "countering violence with violence" among the people, giving rise to sharp social contradictions, and even "defense inducement", allowing some people to act in the name of defense.
Therefore, the law has strict provisions on both general "legitimate defense" and "unlimited right of defense". In addition, under China's current public procuratorate and law evaluation system, the procuratorate cannot afford to have the court change its verdict to not guilty on the grounds of "legitimate defense" after initiating a public prosecution, which is also an important reason.
Of course, the conservative determination of "legitimate defense" will have a superimposed effect in judicial practice, and after years of conservative superposition, it has caused the alienation of the law in practice. This is one of the reasons why ordinary people are dissatisfied with the verdict of similar cases.
The essence of "legitimate defense" is to empower the people, encourage the people to fight against illegal encroachments, the law does not need to give in to the lawless, and must not be too strict with the defenders, chilling the hearts of those who are brave in the face of justice.
Of course, with the behind-the-scenes support of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, I believe that in the future, similar judicial provisions in China will become more and more perfect with the development of society, so that the wicked can be punished as they deserve, and the good people can be protected by the law.