Before writing the outline of the paper, we must first determine the argument of the paper, and then we will demonstrate it around the argument.

Abstract: Self-defense is a legitimate act given to citizens by law when the interests of the state, the public and others are illegally violated. In order to avoid its abuse, strict conditions are set for its application, and special defense is set for violent crimes in order to protect citizens' personal safety. On justifiable defense.

Keywords: justifiable defense, special defense

I the concept of self-defence

Self-defense is one of the legitimate acts, which refers to the act of stopping illegal infringement in order to protect the state, the public, oneself or others' personal, property and other rights from ongoing illegal infringement. If it causes damage to the illegal infringer, it belongs to legitimate defense and does not bear criminal responsibility. Self-defense is one of the reasons to prevent breaking the law in criminal law theory. (Chinese criminal law scholars call this kind of behavior that conforms to the constitutive requirements of crime in form and does not have social harm or criminal illegality in essence. Eliminate harmful behaviors? 、? Rule out illegal sex? Or? Rule out criminal behavior? . However, the actor's self-defense behavior shall not obviously exceed the necessary limit.

Two. Conditions for the establishment of justifiable defense

In order to avoid justifiable defense being used as an excuse to exempt from criminal responsibility, the establishment of justifiable defense is strictly restricted. It includes cause conditions, time conditions, object conditions, subjective conditions and restrictive conditions. Only the time conditions and limit conditions of self-defense are analyzed here.

(1) time condition. Self-defense can only be carried out against the ongoing illegal infringement, the legal paper "On Self-defense". The so-called ongoing means that the illegal infringement is in an ongoing state that has begun but not yet ended.

(1) There is a great controversy about the beginning of illegal infringement in China's theoretical and practical circles, and there are mainly the following four viewpoints:

1. Enter the infringement site. According to this theory, when the infringer enters the infringement scene, the illegal infringement has already begun.

2. Start talking. This theory holds that the beginning of illegal infringement is illegal? Start? Self-defense is carried out at the beginning of unlawful infringement.

3. Face the danger theory. According to this theory, the beginning of illegal infringement should mean that the legitimate rights and interests have directly faced the danger of illegal infringement. There are two specific situations: first, illegal infringement has been carried out, and legitimate rights and interests are being illegally infringed; Second, the implementation of illegal infringement is imminent, and legitimate rights and interests will suffer illegal infringement.

4. Summarize. According to this theory, illegal infringement should generally start as the beginning of illegal infringement, but when the real threat of illegal infringement is very obvious and the result of endangering society will happen immediately without proper defense, it should also be considered that illegal infringement has begun.

The above four viewpoints are the most comprehensive, closest to the legislative purpose of self-defense, and most conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.

(2) The illegal infringement is not over yet, and it should be analyzed in practice. It can be that the illegal infringement is in progress, or that the behavior has ended and the dangerous state caused by it continues. However, in some cases, although the dangerous state caused by unlawful infringement is still going on, it should be regarded as the end of unlawful infringement if it cannot be ruled out by justifiable defense.

The end of justifiable defense can be that the illegal infringer automatically stops or cannot continue, or that the illegal infringement has been completed and the losses caused by the illegal infringement cannot be recovered in time. It is not appropriate to defend before or after the illegal infringement has begun.

(2) Limit conditions. It means that self-defense cannot obviously exceed the necessary limit, causing great damage to the illegal infringer. What is the necessary limit, there are three views:

1. Basic adaptation theory. It is believed that the necessary limit of so-called justifiable defense is the nature of defensive behavior and illegal infringement.

The means, intensity and consequences should be basically adapted.

2. it needs to be said. It is considered that the necessary limit of justifiable defense is necessary for defenders to stop illegal infringement.

As long as the damage is necessary to stop the illegal infringement, it is not enough to stop the illegal infringement. Even if the defense exceeds the possible damage caused by the other side in intensity and consequences, it cannot be considered as exceeding the necessary limit of legitimate defense.

3. Very good. It is believed that the necessary limit of justifiable defense should be based on the necessity of stopping illegal infringement in principle.

Accurate, at the same time, there is not much difference between defensive behavior and illegal infringement in means and intensity.

Among the above three viewpoints, the basic adaptation theory puts forward the characteristics of necessary limits, that is, it recognizes that adaptation is not equal to Jedi and can be surpassed, but at the same time it emphasizes that it cannot be surpassed obviously, and the gap is too large. This theory is conducive to ensuring the exercise of citizens' legitimate defense rights and preventing defenders from abusing their rights, so it is reasonable. However, only the objective characteristics such as the nature and intensity of defense and infringement are weighed, and the subjective purpose of the defender is not investigated. Therefore, the lack of investigation may lead to the situation that is basically compatible with illegal infringement but there is no need to stop illegal infringement as legitimate defense, thus inappropriately expanding the scope of legitimate defense. On the other hand, the theory of objective needs takes what the defender needs to stop illegal infringement as the necessary limit, emphasizes the legitimacy of the defense purpose, and thus grasps the necessary limit of understanding.

[ 1][2]

;