The Analysis Of Zhang Fulin Case Of Excessive Defense

The active Chinese Criminal Law Article NO20has set a rule to justifiable selfdefense. In order to stop the country, public interests, and personal security, propertyor other rights of self and others from ongoing unlawful infringement, one can takeactions to avoid unlawful infringement that probably harms the criminal, whichbelongs to justifiable self-defense. In recent years, controversial cases involvingjustifiable self-defense frequently appears on newspapers, Zhang Fulin’s intentionalinjury case is a typical one. In the process of fighting against the criminal, ZhangFulin seizes the stab of the criminal-Wang Jun and kills him in order to protect thepersonal security of his wife and himself. From the try to the final judge of this case,there has raised intense social debates. The controversial debates focus on two aspects.On one hand, whether Zhang Fulin’s behavior belongs to justifiable self-defense.According to the Chinese Criminal Law, the establishment of justifiable defense needsfive legal requirements, namely motivation, subjectivity, time, target, and limits. Atthe time of crime, Zhang Fulin is confronted with unlawful infringement of personalsecurity danger, the intention to take the criminal’s stab conforms to defense target,which pertains to helpless choice confronting with dangerous situations. What’s more,there is no intentional harm or imaginary defense, which accords with subjective andobjective legal requirements. Basing on the above factors, it can be judged asjustifiable self-defense. On the other hand, whether Zhang Fulin’s behaviorcontributes to a spatial defense. After Zhang Fulin’s seizing of the criminal’s stab, thecriminal’s danger reduces, besides, there is no evidence that the criminal will continuehis unlawful infringement, thus at this moment, the unlawful infringement does notconform to the premise of spatial defense of being seriously violent. As a result,Zhang Fulin loses the necessary requirements of taking spatial defense action, whichcan not be regarded as spatial defense. To conclude, in judicial practices, the key tocorrectly determine justifiable self-defense cases is to apprehend and master thedetermine standards of various legal requirements of justifiable self-defense andspatial defense. Through the analysis of this case, the author of this thesis hopes toenlighten the right apprehension of justifiable self-defense system in theoretical andpractical judicial fields, and provide a reference to the perfection of legislation and judicial practice of our national justifiable self-defense.