20 17 On March 26th, a female entrepreneur Su borrowed 1.35 million yuan from Wu Xuezhan, the boss of a real estate company, with a monthly interest rate of 10%. After paying the principal and interest of 6.5438+0.84 million yuan and a house worth 700,000 yuan, she still can't pay off her debts. After being humiliated by 1 1 the debt collector for an hour, Du Zhihao, the debt collector, took off his pants and abused Sue by extreme means in front of her son Yu Huan. When the police who came to handle the case after receiving the alarm left the reception room, Yu Huan, in a hurry, took out a fruit knife and stabbed Du Zhihao to death, causing two serious injuries and one minor injury. Later, the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury.
If there were no casualties caused by a knife attack in a hurry, it would only be an "illegal detention case" caused by an ordinary private lending dispute. But the special feature of this case lies in the despicable means and bad nature of the "mother-insulting plot" mixed in it. It can be said that there have been no similar cases in recent years, which not only caused the consequences of one death and two injuries, but also challenged the public's social morality and fair cognition. More importantly, the trial result of this case is not determined by "excessive defense" as expected by defense lawyers and others, that is, "if justifiable defense exceeds the necessary limit and causes great damage, criminal responsibility should be borne, but punishment should be mitigated or exempted".
Why can't it be considered as "excessive defense" and the defendant be given a lighter punishment? The reason given by the local court is that Yu Huan has been entangled with many debt collectors for a long time and cannot correctly handle contradictions. Although his personal freedom was restricted at that time and he was insulted and abused by the other party, no one used tools. In the case that the police station has been dispatched, the right to life and health of the defendant Yu Huan and his mother is less threatened, and there is no urgency of excessive defense.
Indeed, the establishment of justifiable defense in criminal law takes "the urgency of defense" as the core element, and its essence lies in two aspects: first, illegal infringement is going on; Second, we must stop the infringement. Judging from the court's determination, the defense may not reach the level of "having to do it". The problem is, "no one uses tools", so there is no real danger to the defendant and his mother? When "extreme insults" have appeared, who can predict what worse and more dangerous violations criminals will take next?
But "the police station has been out of the police", the police just reminded me that "paying the bill is ok, but I can't hit people" and left the room immediately. It should be said that this limited law enforcement method has not achieved the effect of stopping "illegal detention", and the personal danger of the defendant and his mother still exists. In this case, the defendant, who had no hope of seeking relief, lost control of his emotions and stopped the infringement by violence, which really met the requirement of "doing it as a last resort", but "exceeding the necessary limit". Of course, according to the relevant judicial interpretation, there were "1 death" and other situations, and the relevant law enforcement officers were suspected of dereliction of duty.
In fact, in addition to the case of the day, the judiciary should also comprehensively consider the illegality of some previous situations of the other party, namely, triad background, usury and illegal detention. These facts not only prove that the defendant's angry behavior is "forced" from the side, but also prove that its "subjective malignancy" is low, thus obtaining a more favorable judgment in judicial practice.
The purpose of "justifiable defense" stipulated by law is to encourage citizens to take necessary measures to fight against illegal infringement and protect their legitimate rights and interests, so as to make up for the lack of public relief. In judicial practice, if we raise the threshold of "exceeding the necessary limit" and treat it indiscriminately, it will only curb the courage of citizens to crack down on evil and run counter to the legislative spirit of self-defense.
The law is gray, but the tree of justice is evergreen. Similarly, the law is cold, but the spirit of law has a temperature. Any improper law enforcement and unfair judgment is a betrayal and harm to the spirit of law. At present, the defendant has filed an appeal, expecting that in the upcoming second trial, the judicial organ will insist on "exercising judicial power independently according to law", uphold the spirit of law, make a fair judgment, realize the unity of eliminating social harm and preventing criminal violations, and demonstrate the justice of law.