Among this year’s Spring Festival movies, “Article 20” directed by Zhang Yimou did not attract special attention at first. But after it was released, word-of-mouth and box office "counterattacked" all the way. The title of the movie refers to Article 20 of the Criminal Code, which is the "justifiable defense" clause.
In the past few days, the Supreme People's Procuratorate has spoken out for the film many times. Although the protagonist is a prosecutor, the more important point may be that the film asks a question that people have been very concerned about over the years: when encountering gangsters committing crimes. , should passers-by act bravely? If something happens because of this, can I get legal protection?
In the past, the "justifiable defense" clause was rarely used in judicial practice and was regarded as a "sleeping" clause. In recent years, the number of cases to which this provision applies has increased significantly. Taking advantage of the movie's popularity, reporters from Liberation Daily and Shangguan News sorted out the process of the "legitimate defense" clause from "sleep" to activation, and found that behind each landmark incident is the continuous progress of China's rule of law.
Maoyan Professional Edition shows that "Article 20" is still loved by the audience
The long-dormant Article 20
The "legitimate defense" clause itself is nothing new. As early as my country's Criminal Law promulgated and implemented in 1979, the legitimate defense system was clearly stipulated. In 1997, the Criminal Law revised and improved the legitimate defense system. On the one hand, it relaxed the conditions for the limit of defense, that is, if legitimate defense clearly exceeds the necessary limit and causes major damage, it is excessive defense. On the other hand, it stipulates unlimited defense, that is, unlimited defense can be taken against violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety. Even if the illegal offender is injured or killed, he will not be held criminally responsible.
Judging from the legal provisions alone, the basic framework of the legitimate defense system has been established. However, it is not enough to do it on your own. There is such a plot in the movie "Article 20". A suspect suspected of intentional injury argued that the other party threatened to kill himself, his wife and daughter, and went to the car to get a knife. He also saw the knife in the other party's car, and then he fought back and killed the other party. However, during the handling of the case, the knife was not found for a long time, which led to major disputes over the determination of the case.
This is a real dilemma faced by many judicial investigators in the past. The facts and evidence of cases involving self-defense are relatively complex, and a considerable number of cases lack evidence. Once there are casualties, the understanding that "the dead are the most important", "whoever makes trouble is justified" and "whoever is killed or injured is justified" objectively makes the investigators less afraid to apply the legitimate defense system.
This has resulted in a result: for a long time, judicial investigators have been extremely strict in judging the prerequisite of "ongoing unlawful infringement" in the self-defense clause, which seems to be too rational and unreasonable. This is also reflected in the movie.
Movie poster
Luo Xiang, a professor at China University of Political Science and Law, once wrote an article criticizing this. He used the "cesspit case" as an example: a woman who was raped by a gangster pushed the man into the pit during the sexual assault. The man desperately tried to climb out of the pit, and the woman stepped on the man's hand. So, was the woman's second step in self-defense or over-defense, or was it intentional harm?
Judging from previous cases, it is highly likely that the woman cannot constitute legitimate defense. The reason is that in the absence of detailed rules, case investigators are accustomed to looking back at the entire incident from a "God's perspective" afterwards with an extremely calm attitude, ignoring that the parties involved were in an environment out of their control. Why can't
fight back after being beaten? What's wrong with being brave? After being repeatedly tortured and humiliated, and faced with serious personal danger, why can’t I resist bravely? The law is nothing more than human kindness. The long-term "sleep" of Article 20, the heavy price that may be paid for being a good person, has brought dissatisfaction and confusion among the broad masses of the people.
The "Kunshan Anti-Murder Case" is a key turning point
If we look back at the activation of the legitimate defense clause at this point in time, it is not difficult to see several key events.
One is the case of "Yu Huan stabbed to death the man who insulted his mother." On February 17, 2017, the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury in the first instance.On June 23 of the same year, the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court determined that Yu Huan's defense was excessive and commuted the sentence to 5 years in prison. Although Yu Huan was not found not guilty, at the time, the finding of "excessive defense" was a major breakthrough.
The second is the "Kunshan Anti-Murder Case", which is considered by many scholars to be a truly turning event. On August 27, 2018, Liu Hailong was driving and had a dispute with Yu Haiming, who was riding a bicycle, on Zhenchuan Road, Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province. Liu Hailong took out a machete and hit Yu Haiming continuously. Later, Yu Haiming grabbed the machete and stabbed and chopped him. Liu Hailong was injured and died. After media reports, public opinion strongly called for the application of the self-defense clause to Haiming.
Subsequently, the Supreme People's Procuratorate directed the Jiangsu Procuratorate to intervene in advance, put forward a qualitative opinion on the case, determined that Yu Haiming's behavior was legitimate defense and was not criminally responsible, supported the public security organs in withdrawing the case, and publicly released it as a typical legitimate defense case. The "Kunshan Anti-Homicide Case" has been included in the "Work Report of the Supreme People's Procuratorate" more than once.
The reason why the "Kunshan Anti-Kill Case" is called a turning event in awakening the sleeping clause is not only because the case triggered a full discussion on the legitimate defense system from all walks of life and gradually reached a consensus, but also because the case set a strong example effect. Subsequently, a number of cases that attracted great attention from society, such as the case of Zhao Yu's bravery for justice, the anti-murder case in Laiyuan, Hebei, and the Sheng Chunping case in Zhejiang, were all deemed as legitimate defense and were widely praised by the people.
Motivated by a case, on September 3, 2020, the "Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, and Ministry of Public Security on the Application of the Justifiable Defense System in accordance with the Law" clearly stated: Whether the illegal infringement has begun or ended, Reasonable judgments should be made in accordance with the law based on the situation in which the defender is engaged in defense and in accordance with the public's general understanding. The defender should not be harsh on the defender. To determine that the defense is excessive, both "obviously exceeding the necessary limits" and "causing significant harm" must be met. Two conditions, one is indispensable.
At the National Two Sessions in 2023, Zhang Jun, the then Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, revealed in the "Work Report of the Supreme People's Procuratorate" that in the past five years, procuratorial organs across the country had determined that 1,370 people were not arrested or prosecuted for legitimate defense, which was 5.8% in the previous five years. times.
The essence of legitimate defense is to empower the people and encourage the people to fight against illegal infringements. We must not be too demanding on the defenders and chill the hearts of those who are brave enough to do what is right. In the final analysis, the law cannot give in to illegality, which is also an important manifestation of the progress of our country's rule of law.
All the efforts of the legal community
It should be pointed out that the protagonist of the movie is the prosecutor. In reality, the procuratorial organs at all levels have indeed done a lot of work. However, whether it is to completely activate the legitimate defense clause or to promote the construction of a rule of law in China and promote the progress of the rule of law, it has never been a matter for the procuratorial organs alone.
At about 7:58 a.m. on May 16, 2018, Qian, a retired security guard from a shopping mall in Pudong, came to the control room. He suddenly took out a fruit knife from his pocket, walked towards security guard Zhu with the knife and stabbed him. Another security guard, Ma, casually picked up a metal pole about 2 meters long from the ground and drove Qian out of the control room. When they arrived at the door, Ma saw that the fruit knife in Qian's hand had been knocked off, so he dropped the metal pole and rushed forward to subdue Qian. While the two were fighting, Zhu rushed up with a wooden stick and hit Qian twice on the back of the head. Qian was knocked to the ground. Qian was hit on the head and suffered a craniocerebral injury. He died a few days later after resuscitation failed.
The court of first instance held that Zhu and Ma jointly intentionally harmed the body of others by punching, causing death. Zhu was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months in prison for the crime of intentional injury, and Ma was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months in prison. months.
Due to family difficulties, Ma could no longer afford a lawyer during the second trial. The Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court notified the Shanghai Legal Aid Center to provide legal aid to Ma in accordance with the law, and lawyer Lu Fengyang was assigned to become Ma's defender. Although Ma himself appealed only because he believed that the first-instance sentence was too harsh, after reading the case file, Lu Fengyang believed that Ma's behavior was self-defense and decided to plead not guilty.He said at the second trial that Ma knocked the knife out of Qian's hand with a stick and then threw the stick. It can be seen that his original intention was just to subdue Qian. If he had the intention of harming him, he would not have thrown the stick. Therefore, Ma’s behavior did not constitute intentional injury, and the first instance’s characterization of the case was wrong.
In the end, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court accepted Lu Fengyang’s defense opinion and believed that the original judgment had errors in the determination of facts and the application of the law, resulting in improper sentencing. It corrected it in accordance with the law. It revoked the original judgment and sentenced Zhu to 6 years in prison and Ma to no penalty. crime.
Past facts have proven that the progress of the rule of law requires the efforts of all legal communities. Legal theorists continue to participate in the discussion of judicial details, judicial staff such as public prosecutors and law enforcement continue to improve their case handling capabilities and concepts, lawyers defend defendants in accordance with the law, and public opinion supervision promotes further improvement of relevant laws... Only in this way can the legitimate defense clause be fully activated. Make progress in the construction of the rule of law on a larger scale.
