The Limits Of The Criminal Law Of Self-help

As a low-cost,high-efficiency private remedy,self-rescue behavior is common in real life.Events caused by self-rescue behaviors,such as catching thieves,accidentally causing death,driving and hitting robbers,often appear in the media.Self-rescue behavior,as an objective and important justification,faces different treatments from legislative gaps and judicial practices.Self-rescue actors may be guilty of lack of legislation,or anger and anger,and it is difficult to grasp the limits of self-rescue behavior.Self-rescue behavior is inevitably over-exciting or even extreme.The theoretical circles have less research on the criminal law boundary of self-rescue behavior.Judicial practice is either wrong to characterize self-rescue behavior as legitimate defense,or stipulates the sentence without mentioning self-rescue behavior,ignoring the legal rights of self-rescue actors.To this end,the paper selected six typical cases,through the comparison and analysis of the case and the results of the referee,summed up the judicial dilemma caused by self-rescue behavior,and based on the existing problems to carry out theoretical analysis and put forward specific recommendations.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the main body is divided into four parts:The first part is an empirical analysis of the dilemma of self-help behavior.By comparing the basic case of similar cases,the reasons and results of the referee,and the main differences of the existing differences,it is found that: First,the self-rescue behavior is easily confused with the legitimate defense,and the self-rescue behavior is generally neglected.Second,the judgment of whether the self-rescue behavior exceeds the limit is more subjective.Without the guidance of the theory,the self-rescue behavior is easy to fall into the blame of the result.Third,the conviction and sentencing of self-help is not appropriate,causing various disputes and doubts.The second part is the distinction between self-help behavior and legitimate defense.Self-rescue behavior should be based on the social equivalent theory as the basis for eliminating illegality.Self-rescue behavior is divided into five components.First,there must be objectively illegal violations of legitimate rights and interests.Second,there must be urgency in time and space.Third,the subject can only be a person whose rights have been impaired or a third person based on entrustment,guardianship and joint relations;fourthly,subjectively,there must be self-help intentions,self-help awareness and self-help purposes;fifth,self-rescue behavior must not exceed the limit..Based on the conditions for theestablishment of self-rescue behavior,it is found that there is a clear distinction between it and legitimate defense,and it focuses on the distinction between urgency and time.Justifiable defense has the urgency of infringement,while self-rescue behavior has the urgency of preserving the restoration of legal benefits in the case of difficulty in obtaining public assistance;the end time of illegal defense is based on the completion of the act,and the illegal infringement The result of the cessation or illegal infringement has already appeared.The implementation of defensive behavior can no longer prevent the occurrence of the infringement result or recover the loss.The result of not implementing the defensive behavior will not further expand.More than this moment is the beginning of self-help behavior.The third part is the determination of the limits of self-help behavior.Self-rescue behavior should be necessary and consistent,and the rights to be preserved in self-rescue behavior should be roughly balanced with the legal benefits of infringement.First of all,the limits of self-rescue behavior are stricter than legitimate defenses.If you can achieve the goal through lighter behavior,you can't use heavier behaviors.You can't harm people by means of damages.The behavior of things should not be significantly exceeded.The necessary limits,the conduct of human beings,including restrictions on personal freedom and the exclusion of damage,whether or not to allow the use of lethal tools should be determined on a case-by-case basis,but not beyond the variability of the damage.Secondly,the result of self-rescue behavior should be equal to the loss and cause as little loss as possible.If it is more necessary than the legal benefit of the preservation or damage to a third party other than the unlawful infringement,it is self-help and should be timely.Perform the accompanying obligations.Thirdly,starting from the causal relationship,the author judges the self-rescue behavior but the result is not excessive and the behavior is not excessive,but the result is too much.The judgment of causality under the influence of intervention factors should be based on specific analysis.Drawing on the theory of objective imputation,scientifically and rationally analyze the responsibility of self-rescue actors.Finally,the subjective sin of self-help has included intentionality and negligence.The fourth part is the determination of criminal responsibility for self-help.Self-rescue When it is stated that the perpetrator has exceeded the limit requirement in self-rescue,he has already left the legitimacy of self-help behavior and should be included in the crime of crime.However,self-rescue behavior needs to consider the victim's fault when convicting and sentenced.The victim firstly carried out the injuring behavior for the purpose of crime,whichled to the subsequent self-help behavior.If the victim's previous behavior reaches the criminal behavior,it is a crime.If the general illegal behavior is at least a major fault.Self-rescue should be comprehensively grasped from the subjective and objective aspects and then qualitatively.Self-help should be treated as an independent sentencing case.It should be a lenient punishment for reducing or exempting punishment.