1) The defendant enjoys the right to defense according to law.
The law of our country stipulates that the defendant has the right to defense, without any preconditions and without the restrictions stipulated in the proviso. This means:? 1. The right to defense, as a litigation right of criminal suspects and defendants, runs through the whole process of criminal proceedings and is not limited by the litigation stage. The defendant has the right to defense, and whether the defendant can hire a defender to defend himself is two different concepts. The former is the basis of the latter, but the latter is only a derivative of the former, which cannot sum up the whole of the former. The defendant's request for the defender's defense may be limited by the litigation stage. For example, China's criminal procedure law stipulates that only in the stage of examination and prosecution can the defendant ask the defender to defend, but this does not mean that the criminal suspect has no right to defense in the investigation stage. In fact, anyone enjoys the complete right of defense from the moment he is identified as a criminal suspect, and can exercise this right on his own in the investigation stage. The investigation organ also has the obligation to ensure that they exercise their right to defense, and should listen carefully to their arguments and explanations when investigating cases. ?
2. The right to defense is not limited by whether the defendant is guilty or not and the severity of the crime. No matter whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, he enjoys equal right to defense. For those defendants who are accused of serious crimes and may be sentenced to death, their right to defense should be fully guaranteed according to law to prevent misjudged cases and irreparable losses. Because the defendant is guilty, he should be severely punished, and his right to defense should be restricted and deprived, which violates the principle that the defendant enjoys the right to defense in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law. ? 3. The right to defense is not restricted by the investigation of the case. Regardless of whether the facts of the case are clear and whether the evidence is true and sufficient, the defendant enjoys the right to defense according to law. Even a flagrante delicto caught with stolen goods is not allowed to restrict his right to defense according to law. Defendant's defense is not only a means for judicial organs to identify cases, but also can't be decided according to the needs of judicial organs to identify cases. Defense, as a basic right enjoyed by the defendant according to law, must be guaranteed. What's more, the fact that the case is clear does not mean that the applicable law is correct, nor does it mean that all factors favorable to the defendant have been fully considered, so the defendant's right to defense has not lost its meaning. ? 4. The right of defense is not limited by the attitude of the defendant to plead guilty. Whether the defendant pleads guilty or not cannot be used as a reason to restrict his right to defense. Because the defendant has the right to present evidence and reasons that are favorable or unfavorable to him, the defendant's legitimate rights and interests should be safeguarded through defense, which will not change, and the defendant's defense of denying guilt or heinous crimes cannot be limited to resistance. The attitude of whether to plead guilty can only show whether the defendant repents and the degree of social danger if he is guilty. After conviction, it can be considered as a sentencing factor and should not be used as a reason to restrict the defendant from exercising his right to defense according to law. ? 5. The exercise of the right of defense is not limited by the reasons for defense. Defendants enjoy the right to defense according to law, which does not mean that all defendants must be given a lighter, mitigated or exempted from criminal responsibility. Equal right to defense does not mean that they have the same defense reasons. The enjoyment and exercise of rights and the number of actual defense reasons are two different concepts. Moreover, only after the defendant has fully exercised his right to defense can he know the reasons. Therefore, the defendant's right to defense should not be restricted or ignored according to law on the pretext that the defendant has no defense reasons.
(2) The judicial organs have the obligation to protect the defendant's right to defense.
The rights enjoyed by the subject of rights are based on the corresponding obligations of the subject of obligations to ensure the realization of rights. Therefore, in criminal proceedings, the obligation of judicial organs to protect the defendant's right to defense is the core content of the principle of defendant's right to defense. According to the law, judicial organs should do the following in protecting the defendant's right to defense:
1. The judicial personnel handling the case should take the initiative to inform the defendant what litigation rights he enjoys and how to exercise them during the proceedings; ? 2. The judicial personnel handling the case should not be demanding in the way of exercising the defendant's right to defense. When exercising the right of defense, the defendant may take any form prescribed by law, either orally or in writing; You can defend yourself or entrust others to defend; It can be put forward at the stage of investigation and prosecution or during the trial. As long as the conditions prescribed by law are met, judicial personnel should allow it; ? 3. Judges must listen carefully to the defendant's defense, disproof or complaint, and effectively adopt the defendant's reasonable defense opinions; 4. Judicial personnel shall not illegally restrict or deprive the defendant of his right to defense under any pretext.