An Empirical Study On Excessive Protection Of Rights And Extortion

With the deepening of the construction of socialist rule of law,more and more citizens can realize that when their rights are damaged,they can use legal weapons to protect their legitimate rights and interests,especially in recent years,there are a series of incidents that seriously infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of citizens,such as the personal and property rights of citizens,food and drug safety,land demolition and so on,which has aroused public opinion's attention.As a result,the number of cases of safeguarding citizens' rights has increased year by year.Excessive protection of rights is a form of safeguarding rights,which should not be recognized as a crime within the scope of the exercise of rights.Defenders are mostly concentrated in three categories: consumers,petitioners and labourers.Through the classification of the group types of defenders,it can be found that there is a restrictive attitude towards the incrimination of excessive rights protection acts with the basis of safeguarding rights in trial practice.However,when the defender's legal consciousness is weak and the means of safeguarding rights are illegal,it belongs to the abuse of rights,and it is recognized as a crime in the theory of criminal law and trial practice.However,in the process of specific determination,there are the following problems,such as cases with similar cases,the three parties of prosecution and trial hold their own opinions when determining the nature of similar cases,resulting in different verdicts of similar cases;in the same case,courts at all levels find that different cases lead to repeated qualitative analysis and serious waste of judicial resources.Due to the damage to the legitimate rights of the right holder,based on the cost and efficiency of safeguarding rights,there may be improper behavior in safeguarding rights,and they will use threats or intimidation to protect their rights to obtain compensation.How to characterize this kind of intimidation in judicial practice? In particular,the criminal law does not make a clear explanation and limit the scope of the meaning of "extortion".Some judicial organs have made judgments but changed their acquittal due to the pressure of public opinion because of the weak identity of the parties after being exposed by the media.it seriously affects the independence and impartiality of the judicial trial.Many cases have attracted people's attention,from the Asustek computer "sky-high price" claim case tothe case of safeguarding the rights of the father of the "stone baby",to the case of farmers in Zhongxiang,Hubei Province,taking off the hat of the suspect,and so on.The occurrence of these cases from conviction to non-crime has undoubtedly increased the emergence of social contradictions,resulting in citizens' misunderstanding of the law,and defenders have a misunderstanding as to whether their actions to safeguard their rights are legal and reasonable.Referring to a large number of studies of foreign trial practice and judicial precedents,the act of excessive protection of rights has different identification standards in different legal system countries,different social backgrounds and the background of the times.However,most countries emphasize the importance of protecting citizens' legitimate property rights,and the cases of excessive protection of rights will increase with the continuous development of social economy.The cases of excessive protection of rights are on the rise in our country,which is not conducive to the stable development of social economy and the construction of relevant property management order in our country.Our country should summarize the experience of other legal system countries and integrate it in our trial practice and theoretical research,comprehensively judge whether the behavior of safeguarding rights is based or not,and whether the amount of claim has become the boundary between crime and non-crime,so as to achieve reasonable judgment,the public rational view of rights claims,reduce the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case,and improve the transparency of judicial justice in order to improve laws and regulations and make the public trust and respect the law.