First, is it excessive defense or legitimate defense?
In this case, the public security organs denied "self-defense", and some legal professionals cautiously thought it was excessive defense, while the voice of the media was more inclined to self-defense. Article 20 of China's criminal law stipulates: "In order to protect the state, public interests, personal, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement, stopping illegal infringement and causing damage to the illegal infringer, it belongs to self-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." "It is not excessive defense to take defensive actions against violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, such as murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc., causing casualties of illegal infringers." Accordingly, if Deng Dagui's behavior is identified as a violent crime that seriously endangers personal safety, Deng Yujiao belongs to self-defense and should not bear criminal responsibility; Otherwise, its behavior belongs to excessive defense.
The qualitative basis is firstly the identification and analysis of the facts of the case. After the case occurred, the Badong County Public Security Bureau filed a case against Deng Yujiao on suspicion of intentional homicide. The conclusion of the investigation by the public security organs is that "after in-depth investigation and comprehensive evidence collection, the public security organs believe that stabbing Deng to death while forcibly accompanying Deng to take a bath, stabbing him to death with a knife, dragging, shoving and insulting him after being rejected, and his behavior of causing death and injury belongs to excessive defense. After the incident, Deng Yujiao used her mobile phone to call 1 10 to report to the police, and voluntarily surrendered to the public security organs, truthfully confessing her behavior, with the plot of surrender. According to the lawyer's application and considering Deng Yujiao's physical condition, the public security organ changed the compulsory measures and carried out residential surveillance on Deng Yujiao. At present, Deng Yujiao is accompanied by his family. " (May 3, 20091,Xinhuanet)
Judging from the general description of the facts by the public security organs, it is concluded that Deng and others' actions are "serious insults", not violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, such as rape, so their actions are excessive defense. However, if Deng Yujiao doesn't take the defensive way of "stabbing", is it possible to be raped? I'm afraid it's hard to draw a conclusion. First, Deng and others have been informed that they are not waiters in the spa and do not provide heterosexual bathing services; Secondly, Deng and others continue to resort to violence and coercion while knowing that they do not provide heterosexual bathing services. Third, the purpose of Deng et al. is obviously sexual demand; Fourth, the special circumstances at that time just increased the risk of Deng Yujiao being raped. In other words, if we want to rule out the suspicion of rape, we must grasp every detail of the facts of the case, which is exactly what the media can hardly see.
Second, is it intentional homicide or intentional injury to death?
If Deng Yujiao's behavior is deemed to be excessive defense, is it intentional homicide or intentional injury to death? Theoretically speaking, "intentional homicide" means that the actor knows that his actions will cause the death of others, and hopes or lets the death result happen. "Intentional injury" means that the actor knows that his behavior will cause physical injury to others, and hopes or allows the injury to happen. No matter how it is analyzed theoretically, it is difficult to distinguish between intentional homicide and intentional injury to death. Because objectively, their behaviors and actions are often the same, and the results are the same. The difference lies in subjective intention. Whether it is intentional homicide or intentional injury can only be judged by combining the various circumstances of the case, including the cause, premeditation, the place where the injury occurred, restraint, attitude and performance after the crime, etc. On the whole, the intentional injury of the pedestrian in this case is greater. Of course, the final nature of this case still depends on the judge's opinion.
In any case, the purpose of paying attention to this case is to hope that the judicial organs can find out the facts of the case, give the suspect a fair treatment and safeguard the dignity of the law. No moral condemnation, extreme comments and fanatical public opinion can replace legal rationality.