A Study On The Problem Of Judicial Cognizance Of The Limits Of Self-defense

Just as defense is a citizen's legal rights,the criminal law protects it,so it is particularly important to fully protect the application of legitimate defense.However,in the judicial practice,the legitimate defense cases from "YuHuan case" to "Yu Haiming case" not only caused widespread public discussion but also brought great test to the judicial organs.In the final analysis,there are still many differences in the identification of legitimate defense limits.In order to study the problems and solutions to the determination of legitimate defense limits in China's judicial practice,this paper starts with typical cases,using case analysis methods,empirical analysis methods,comparative analysis methods,text interpretation methods and other research methods,first through the defense limits in judicial practice.The current situation of the identification is analyzed,and the common problems in the case of determining the legitimate defense limit in judicial practice are summarized,and the reasons are reflected.Finally,the realistic environment in the judicial practice of our country is considered,and the improvement suggestions for the judicial determination of the legitimate defense limit are put forward.The paper first compares two typical cases of"Yu Huan case" and "Yu Haiming case".Briefly introduce the basic situation of the two cases,further analyze the differences of opinions of the parties,and then summarize the focus of the disputes in the two cases,and find that the main reason lies in the certain doubts about the determination of the legitimate defense limit in judicial practice,even though the theoretical circles The issue of defence boundaries has been extensively discussed,but the determination of the limits of legitimate defense has never resulted in a uniform and operationally achievable standard.The paper then analyzes and summarizes the problems in the determination of defense limits in judicial practice.This part searches about 100 judgments through the China Judgment Document Network and summarizes the empirical data compiled by some scholars.It finds that the thresholds of the final defense cases are high and the judicial personnel often find problems in the case of legitimate defense cases.Some fail.Judging a series of acts such as unlawful infringement as a whole,failing to take into account the particularity of persistent unlawful infringement;some have determined that the mode of thinking is imprisoned in "results-behavior" and even pay too much attention to the role of defense results in determining legitimate defense;Some understanding of the theory of defense limits is directly biased;some habits are used to damage the static position to evaluate defense behavior.The paper then rethinks the reasons for the existence of defense limits in judicial practice.Combining with the reality of the judicial environment in China and the provisions of the legitimate defense legislation,it analyzes the crux of the problems that cause the legitimate defense limit in judicial practice.It is found that on the one hand,there are some shortcomings in the judicial personnel in China,on the other hand,China's theoretical standards on defense limits are also Has a certain degree of ambiguity and complexity.Finally,the paper puts forward suggestions for improving the judicial determination of legitimate defense limits.First of all,the judiciary should take the principle of seeking truth from facts as the starting point,establish a correct concept of justice,abandon the traditional conservative mode of thinking,and then clarify the general ideas and standards for the judgment of legitimate defense limits in judicial practice.In addition,this article attempts to defend the limits of each keyword.A reasonable and clear explanation will help the judicial personnel to accurately understand and apply the provisions of the defense limit.Finally,the judicial organs'judicial interpretation and jurisprudence will also have important guiding and guiding effects on the determination of the defense limit cases.