A mental patient who causes harmful results when he can't identify or control his own behavior and is confirmed by legal procedures shall not bear criminal responsibility, but his family members or guardians shall be ordered to strictly guard and treat him; When necessary, the government forces medical treatment.
Intermittent mental patients who commit crimes when they are mentally normal should bear criminal responsibility.
If a mental patient who has not completely lost the ability to identify or control his own behavior commits a crime, he shall bear criminal responsibility, but he may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment.
A drunken person who commits a crime shall bear criminal responsibility.
According to the criminal law, a person without capacity for civil conduct is a minor under 14 years old and a mental patient who can't recognize his own behavior at all. Mental illness refers to serious mental illness recognized by medicine, but it does not include some minor mental problems and abnormal psychology. Whether a mental patient bears legal responsibility depends on whether the person's mental illness has been confirmed by a forensic doctor, whether he is in a sick state at the time of his behavior, and whether he has completely lost the ability to identify and control his behavior.
Article 20 In order to protect the state, public interests, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing unlawful infringement, stopping the unlawful infringement and causing damage to the unlawful infringer, it is justifiable defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
If justifiable defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes great damage, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.
Taking defensive actions against violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., which seriously endanger personal safety, and causing casualties of illegal infringers, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.
Article 20 of the Criminal Law is about justifiable defense, which is called justifiable defense.
Self-defense requires several elements, that is, the harmful behavior is in the process of happening; The harmful behavior of the other party damages the legitimate rights and interests of the defender or others; The defender's position must be aimed at the infringer; The harmful behavior of the other party must actually occur; Defense should not exceed the necessary limits.
The object elements of defense must be aimed at the actual injurer, and there is no requirement for the injurer. Therefore, if the mental patient infringes, we can certainly defend ourselves. Although criminal law protects vulnerable groups, we can't watch ourselves get hurt. Criminal law protects every citizen. If we can't defend against mental patients, then we don't live in a potential crisis every day.
In response to your question, the focus should be on whether the defensive behavior conforms to the constitutive requirements of justifiable defense, that is, whether the mental patient has really committed aggression and whether the defender has made appropriate defensive behavior in the process of carrying out harmful behavior.
Injuring or killing a mental patient must be justified when he is doing injury or life-threatening injury. Eight kinds of vicious crimes are infinitely defensible, so no matter how you defend them, you should compare them to see if they are over-defended.
If it is self-defense, not imaginary defense (the other party is not a real threat, but out of illusion), after-the-fact defense (revenge after the harmful behavior) or excessive defense, then of course it will not bear legal responsibility.
Baoying County Lawyer/Baoying