On The Self-defense Of Self-defense In British And American Criminal Law

Justifiable defense is recognized as a defense in the academic circles of criminal law and judicial practice.The British and American criminal laws generally divide the system of justifiable defense into three or four types,among which the type of defense of defense itself occupies the first place in the framework of justifiable defense because the legal interest of protection is of incomparable importance.However,China’s criminal law system is more inclined to follow the relevant experience of the civil law system,which not only fails to make a detailed distinction on the application of justifiable defense,but also differs greatly from the general theory of criminal constitution in the criminal law of the United Kingdom and the United States.As a result,China lacks the motivation to study the defense causes of British and American criminal law,and pays less attention to the independent classification of defense itself under justifiable defense.In view of the system of justifiable defense in China is too general,the boundary of the establishment of various elements is not clear,the understanding and application of legal provisions are still controversial;However,according to the different interests of the protection law,the British and American criminal laws specify justifiable defense accordingly.The establishment requirements of different types of defense are different,and even the terms used for the same type of defense should be discussed in different circumstances.The more specific the rules are,the less likely it is to be wrongly judged.To defend itself deep insight into the key problem of justifiable defense,from nature to justify positioning based on the constitutive requirements of this a few aspects,especially from the summary to the constitutive requirements of extracting useful experience,so as to the improvement of the system of justifiable defense theory and provide certain reference,thus unified justifiable defence case referee standard,reduce the number of different connection with the given phenomenon,improve the level of judicial justice.The study of anything is based on understanding its concept and understanding its position.Since China’s criminal law does not have the concept of self defense,we should first focus on the concept of self defense and justifiable defense to clarify and relationship.After explaining the most basic problems,we will enlarge our attention to the system of defense,and define the defense itself in the framework of legitimate causes rather than forgivable causes,and further elaborate the legitimate basis of this legal positioning.Of course,the main focus of the pen and ink on the defense of their own form of justifiable defense establishment requirements.British and American criminal law generally divides the defense itself into several parts: the necessity principle,the urgency principle,the proportionality principle and the avoidance principle.In order to provide a more intuitive reference for China’s criminal law,this paper,based on the rules and habits of the five constitutive elements of China’s justifiable defense system,summarizes the above sections of the British and American criminal law,and studies them in the traditional order of the five conditions of subjective limitation of the object of cause and time.For example,the research on the justification of self-defense of battered women can provide valuable solutions to the frequent domestic violence cases in China.As a useful reference provided by the principle of avoidance,it requires defenders to avoid when they can avoid it safely.Supporting justice rather than yielding to injustice does not mean encouraging active confrontation with escalation contradictions.Based on the principle of avoidance,a new analysis of the four major anti-killing cases of justifiable defense in China is made.In a word,we should evaluate the identification of justifiable defense from a dialectical point of view.We should flexibly apply the establishment conditions of justifiable defense and avoid restricting the scope of defense identification.Moreover,we should not overcorrect and unilaterally pursue the absolutism of the right and wrong camp,thus completely ignoring the basic rights and interests of the illegal infringers.