[author]Liang Zhiping

[content]

The Difficulty of "Insulting Mother": The Relationship between Emotion and Law in China's Social Transformation Period

*Author Liang Zhiping

Researcher at the Institute of Chinese Culture, Chinese Academy of Art

Abstract: The defendant Yu Huan in the "Mother Humiliation Murder Case" was convicted of intentional injury in the first instance and sentenced to life imprisonment. This verdict has sparked strong criticism from the public. The second instance revision of the verdict, which reduced the sentence for Huan due to reasons such as excessive defense and victim's fault, is considered to have achieved good "legal and social effects". This article places this case in the context of Chinese history, culture, and reality, attempting to reveal the difficulties faced by judges in handling the Yu Huan case and their underlying reasons, as well as the limitations of legal response to public opinion. This article mainly revolves around the official and folk versions of the Yu Huan case, which may seem to tell the same story, but their underlying logic is quite different. The second instance judgment of the Yu Huan case is the focus of this article's analysis. This judgment attempts to balance law and public opinion, legal principles and reason, but upon careful observation, there are many confusions, contradictions and confusion in reasoning. In the author's opinion, it has neither truly changed the conservative tradition of the judiciary in applying legitimate defense related laws in the past, nor has it truly responded to public opinion at the level of value justification.

Keywords: Insulting mother; Emotion and law; Human ethics; Excessive defense; The fault of the victim;

1.

At the end of 2016, a murder case was tried in the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province. As a result of the case trial, a young man named Yu Huan was found guilty of intentional injury by the court and was sentenced to life imprisonment on February 17, 2017. A month later, a report of less than four thousand words about the case was published in Southern Weekend, with a short but emotionally impactful title: 'Assassination of the Mother Humiliation'.

The publication of the report immediately caused a sensation, with some important print media and portal websites competing to reprint the article while publishing their own social commentary articles. Social media was also filled with comments and comments from netizens. For a time, this case, which was simplified as a "mother insulting murder case" in circulation, became a hot topic of discussion in different occasions, and the entire social public opinion almost overwhelmingly stood on the side of the defendant, questioning the appropriateness of the court's judgment.

So, what exactly is this case and why is it so exciting? What is the one that can most touch the hearts of the people? What are the reasons why people generally sympathize with the defendant and are dissatisfied with the court ruling?

The following is a brief description of the case:

Su (female) has been repeatedly urged and harassed by debt collectors for owing high interest loans. On the night of June 14, 2016, Du and eleven others went to Su's company again to collect debts, trapping Su and Su Ziyu Huan in the same room. During this period, Du and others subjected Su and Yu to extremely insulting words and mild violence; The police arrived upon receiving the alarm and warned not to assault before leaving; Yu was obstructed in his attempt to escape with the police and was forced to a corner of the room. In a moment of desperation, he picked up a fruit knife on the table and stabbed it indiscriminately, resulting in Du's death, two serious injuries, and one minor injury.

In court, the victim was charged with intentional homicide and demanded that the defendant be sentenced to death and immediately executed, while the prosecutor sought punishment for intentional injury. The lawyer argued that the defendant's defense was excessive and that the punishment should be reduced in accordance with the law. In the end, the court convicted the defendant Yu Huan of intentional injury and sentenced him to life imprisonment, depriving him of political rights for life.

From a legal perspective, beyond the examination of evidence and the determination of facts, the issue at hand in this case seems to be whether the defendant's behavior was intentional injury or excessive self-defense. However, upon further observation, it is not difficult to find that the key to this case lies in whether the defendant's behavior constitutes justifiable defense. According to Article 20 of the Criminal Law, the specific content of the legitimate defense system is as follows:

The act of stopping illegal infringement in order to protect the state, public interests, personal, property, and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing illegal infringement, which causes harm to the perpetrator, constitutes legitimate defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

If the legitimate defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes significant damage, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.

Those who take defensive actions against ongoing violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, and other serious threats to personal safety, causing injury or death to the unlawful infringer, do not constitute excessive defense and shall not be held criminally responsible.

Based on this, if it belongs to legitimate defense, the simple theory of "intentional injury" (not to mention the theory of "intentional homicide") is naturally excluded. On the contrary, using excessive defense as a defense must be based on the premise of determining that their behavior has (legitimate) defensive nature. Not only that, from the perspective of sympathizing with the defendant and questioning the court's judgment, determining that the defendant's actions were legitimate self-defense is also the key to exonerating Yu Huan and exempting him from criminal and civil responsibilities.

Therefore, people can rely on Article 20, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Criminal Law to claim that their actions are legitimate self-defense, and therefore they are not criminally responsible for the damage and injury caused to them, or take a step back and cite paragraph 2 of the same article to claim that their punishment is reduced or exempted on the grounds of excessive self-defense. If this is the basic proposition, the focus of the debate will be on several legal and factual issues. Important legal issues include: the constituent elements of acts of justifiable defense; The definition of "violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety"; How to understand and grasp the "necessary limits" of legitimate defense, and what constitutes "clearly exceeding".

In addition, given the significant changes made to this provision during the 1997 revision of the Criminal Law, it is also important to understand and clarify the legislative intent and relevant judicial policies conveyed by the revision. The important issues in terms of facts include: the illegality and severity of the actions of the debt collector towards Su and the mother and son; Was there an emergency situation that triggered legitimate defense at that time; Whether the actions taken by the defendant comply with the legal requirement of "necessary limits"; What standards need to be used to test whether the defendant's psychological state and subjective judgment at the time of their behavior are reasonable, and so on.

2.

It is interesting that in the heated media comments and public discussions, these issues, especially legal ones, are almost invisible. Although there are many opinions related to facts, they are basically not focused on legitimate defense issues. When this trial moved from the courtroom to society, from professionals to the media and the general public, legal discourse quickly transformed into moral discourse.

In this discourse, as highlighted by the title of the report on the initiator of the Southern Weekend, the "humiliation of the mother" as a factual plot has become the key word of the entire event. This change is profound. In Chinese culture, the image of the mother is full of warmth. The mother is a symbol of love, a model of selflessness, and also an object of filial piety and care for the son of man. 'Insulting the mother' means that all these beautiful values are destroyed in a contemptuous way.

It is worth noting that in this verb object structure consisting of only two characters, the "mother" is a passive, weak, helpless, and even speechless victim, but this helplessness points to another subject, a subject that is blood and flesh connected to the "mother": the "child". Even more so, the word 'insult mother' is first and foremost associated with 'son', and therefore has a complete meaning. Here, the connection between mother and son is not just about bloodline, but first and foremost about human relationships and ethics. So, 'insulting the mother' means that the relationship between mother and son has been severely damaged, which means that the moral obligation of the 'son' suddenly comes, and when faced with this situation, the 'son' experiences extreme anxiety and tension in his heart.

The problem is that these ethical considerations and psychological impulses seem to have not been given attention and importance in the legal provisions on justifiable defense, which focus on the nature of the actions of all parties and the appropriateness of defensive behavior. The moral motives of the perpetrator are not taken into account, and interpersonal relationships are even less relevant.

On the contrary, from a legal perspective, the existence of interpersonal relationships may actually lead to the perpetrator taking extreme actions and committing crimes (including excessive self-defense). In other words, the fact of "insulting the mother" has no special significance in the law of justifiable defense. To determine whether an act is justifiable defense or whether the defense is "excessive", there is no need to consider personal relationships and moral obligations involved. The terms "myself" and "others" mentioned in Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law are not only neutral, but also homogeneous. In judicial considerations, the weight of personal relationships neither increases nor decreases. This means that the discussion focused on "insulting mothers" has been on the edge of the law or even outside of it from the beginning.

This can be seen clearly from the titles of those editorials, such as "The case of humiliating the mother: the rationale for expecting justice" (www. tempest.com, March 25, 2017), "The case of stabbing the mother": the justice should leave room for human relations "(Beijing News, March 26, 2017)," The case of stabbing the mother "comments more than 100 million, please cherish the" boost "of public opinion to the rule of law" (Beijing News, WeChat official account, March 26, 2017), "The stabbing of the mother who humiliated the mother is sentenced indefinitely: please give citizens the legal justice to overcome evil" (Zhongqing Online, March 2017 27).

The tension between law and morality, law and ethics, law and justice is particularly typical in a commentary article in People's Daily. The commentary titled 'Mother Humiliation Murder Case: How the Law Responds to Ethical Dilemma' (People's Daily Comment WeChat Official Account, March 26, 2017) states:

Although the second instance of this case has not yet been initiated, the controversy in public opinion reveals deeper meanings that cannot be covered by legal provisions. Undoubtedly, this matter raises a question about law and ethics.

The strong reaction of public opinion reminds us to face the ethical situation at the time of this incident and consider more from the perspective of the parties involved. To some extent, it is precisely this ethical context that makes many people not only make their own judgments based on the law when discussing this case.

They may be more concerned about how they can protect their loved ones when they are violated? When great humiliation falls upon oneself or one's loved ones, should one endure the humiliation or stand up against it? How to maintain the dignity of oneself and one's loved ones when in an inescapable predicament?

This comment also mentions the application of the justifiable defense clause in the Criminal Law, but like most other reports and comments, the attention to the law is only fleeting. Because the author realizes that the "ethical context" he emphasizes is not covered by current laws, therefore, to "face up to the ethical context at the time of this incident", one cannot simply "make one's own judgment based on the law".

In a general sense, this conflict between ethics and law is probably a universal experience of mankind, not unique to today's Chinese people. But it is also true that the puzzle we are facing today has extremely profound historical and cultural roots, which is quite Chinese. Therefore, it is not surprising that in this discussion around the "mother humiliation murder case", various stories about ancient Chinese "mother humiliation murder cases" and even filial piety revenge frequently appear on the internet and social media.

3.

Narrowly speaking, the specific context in which a mother is humiliated and killed is different from that of a descendant seeking revenge. The former, where the mother is humiliated and the son kills and humiliates the mother; The latter, where parents are killed by others and children seek revenge through murder. But the principles of the two are the same, as they are both related to filial piety and criminal responsibility, and thus trigger the same ethical and legal conflict. And this situation holds special significance and importance in Chinese history. Because in ancient times, family and state were integrated, and politics was based on ethics. Rulers claim to govern the world with filial piety, therefore advocating filial piety and commending filial piety. Without filial piety, it is considered a crime. However, killing a filial descendant is not easy to deal with.

On the one hand, ritual carries the meaning of revenge, which is required by filial piety; On the other hand, punishment is monopolized by the state and does not allow private hatred and killing among the people. The tension between emotions and laws arose from this and troubled ancient people for over two thousand years. In history, there have been countless cases of filial piety and righteousness killing, but there are no established rules for the punishment of murderers. In principle, when a murderer dies, the law must be enforced. However, when it comes to filial piety and righteousness, the judicial authorities will oscillate between propriety and law, striving for a balance between emotions and law.

It is worth noting that compared to the dilemma and dilemma faced by the judicial authorities, the general public opinion always stands on the side of the avenger. Even if the avenger is ultimately punished, the whole society still regards him as a hero, noble in his righteousness, praised by the local authorities, and recorded by historians. Under the influence of such social psychology and trends, the trend of revenge will naturally not cease due to the lack of leniency in the law. On the contrary, judicial authorities often have to compromise with society, impose mercy beyond the law, and provide leniency to murderers.

Of course, these are all old memories. Modern countries are established by a constitution, with a distinction between family and state. Politics has nothing to do with ethics, and the rule of law replaces the rule of propriety. Revenge is not tolerated by the law, and everyone is equal before the law. Whether it is insulting one's mother or seeking revenge, it only needs to be dealt with according to the law, avoiding the dilemma that once plagued ancient people.

So, how should we explain the various phenomena arising from the "insulting mother murder case"?

Are the reenactments of those ancient stories just some entertaining anecdotes of current events, or do they contain profound meanings that we need to take seriously?

What does the shift of public attention from the legal analysis of justifiable defense to the circumstance of "insulting the mother" in this case mean?

What is the nature of the public emotions aroused by this? What questions do they pose to modern rule of law?

In fact, the tangled relationship between ancient and modern times, as well as between emotions and laws during the transitional period, is not only generated in the present. They have existed for a long time and sometimes are expressed in highly dramatic ways, which is thought-provoking, such as the well-known case of Shi Jianqiao in the Republic of China.

On a certain day in the autumn of 1935, a woman shot and killed former warlord Sun Chuanfang, who was reciting sutras in a Buddhist temple, in front of the public at the Lin Monastery on Nanma Road in Tianjin. This was the infamous case of Shi Jianqiao avenging her father. Coincidentally, three years before this incident, a young man named Zheng Jicheng, also in the name of revenge, publicly assassinated Zhang Zongchang (another warlord) at Jinan Railway Station. From a modern legal perspective, these two murder cases are undoubtedly murder and should be severely punished according to the law. However, at that time, they were both considered as revenge for filial piety and righteousness. Not only did the parties claim this, but the general public also believed it. Zheng and Shi's revenge actions were widely and greatly sympathized with and even praised by the public.

In this context, the result of the judicial trial was that both of them were given light sentences and sentenced to seven years in prison, and were immediately granted amnesty and released from prison. The amnesty orders of both individuals acknowledge that the motive for the murder was filial piety, and that their intentions and emotions are justifiable. Therefore, they are granted amnesty as a gesture of mercy.

Indeed, the final outcome of the Zheng and Shi cases was not a matter of course, but rather the result of the interaction of various complex factors and forces under specific social conditions. Nevertheless, through its complex appearance, we can still see that there was indeed a sympathy and even approval for the act of filial piety and revenge in society at that time, and this sentiment and its expression form were deeply rooted in Chinese history and culture, forming a tradition of its own. Modern revolutions and social changes have not eliminated this tradition, but have changed the conditions under which it expresses itself.

In China in the 1930s, the study of classics had long been abolished, and ritual education was no longer the highest criterion for determining the legitimacy of behavior. Instead, modern legal concepts and a set of Western style legal systems had taken shape. However, Zheng and Shi still presented themselves as avengers, and the public responded with warm sympathy. Faced with the public opinion of Chi Yong, the ruling party was in a dilemma, and their dilemma was not far from ancient times. In the end, the judge who independently exercised the power of trial granted a lenient sentence to the defendant in the first case, and the government of the Republic of China issued a special pardon in accordance with the constitution. Through this series of modern legal operations, public opinion and sentiment have been responded to, and the tension between ancient sentiment and law has been alleviated as a result.

4.

Naturally, in terms of the case, the Yu Huan case is very different from revenge cases in history. Not to mention, nearly a century after the implementation of the plan, the times have changed and people's hearts have changed. Today's social situation in China is not only vastly different from the Ming and Qing dynasties, but also incomparable to the Republican era. Despite this, through the tumultuous social reality, the concerns and emotions expressed by people today regarding the "insulting mother murder case" clearly make us feel a certain living tradition that has lasted for a long time and become increasingly new. Now let's go back to the case of "insulting mother and killing" and see how it was initially presented to readers:

After insulting, slapping, and covering his mouth with his shoes for an hour, Du Zhihao took off his pants and used extreme means to insult Su Yinxia in front of her son Yu Huan.

The hurried police officers were unable to stop the humiliation. In a moment of desperation, 22-year-old Yu Huan pulled out a fruit knife and stabbed it indiscriminately, injuring four people. Du Zhihao, who was stabbed, drove himself to seek medical treatment, but died of shock due to excessive blood loss.

The bloody incident occurred on April 14, 2016, due to violent debt collection. Female entrepreneur Su Yinxia once borrowed 1.35 million yuan from real estate company owner Wu Xuezhan, with a monthly interest rate of 10%. After paying the principal and interest of 1.84 million yuan and a property worth 700000 yuan, the debt cannot be fully repaid.

Nearly four months later, Wu Xuezhan was arrested by the Liaocheng police for involvement in organized crime. Du Zhihao is one of the members of Wu Xuezhan's black organization. Before being stabbed, he was suspected of driving a 14-year-old female student to death and escaping.

On February 17, 2017, the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province, sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury in the first instance.

Although the opening paragraph of 'The Assassination of the Mother' is less than three hundred words, it is remarkable. The author is skilled in rhetoric, with language full of hints that evoke associations in readers' minds. The article begins with 'insulting mother'. The first paragraph shows a scene of "humiliation", with a mix of reality and virtuality, which is appalling; The phrase 'insulting with extreme means' is vague and stimulates readers' imagination; And the dash that appeared at this moment was used perfectly, almost causing a breakdown.

In fact, Yu Huan, who witnessed his mother being humiliated on the spot, did indeed collapse. At this critical moment, the hurried police officers failed to stop the humiliation, which became the last straw that overwhelmed the camel and directly led to the tragedy.

Next, the author uses a cold string of numbers to outline the grim face of illegal high interest loans for readers, and then mentions the black background of creditors and debt collectors. Among them, the section about the deceased Du, who was suspected of driving a car to kill a 14-year-old female student and escaping before being stabbed, immediately drew attention. The bloody case arose from violent debt collection. When the black and evil forces appeared and Yu Huan and her son suffered humiliation, public power was "absent" and the law was not well concealed. In this specific situation, Yu Huan "stood up against violence" and stabbed to death those who insulted their mothers, not only revealing the true nature of a man, but also eliminating harm for the people and achieving justice.

The problem is that the law does not see it that way. On February 17, 2017, the Intermediate People's Court of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province, sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury in the first instance. The final sentence has the most plain tone, but it hits the heart. What kind of judgment is this? What law? What justice? People still vividly remember the Deng Yujiao case, Lei Yang case, Hu Ge case, and Nie Shubin case, and now there is the addition of the "insulting mother murder case". Like the Zheng and Shi cases in the past and many other hot cases today, the concerns expressed by people actually have implications beyond individual cases, and the reason why these cases are famous for a while also reflects complex social situations.

However, just like the Zheng and Shi cases back then, the reason why the "insulting mother murder case" stirred up the public eye was due to the tension and entanglement in the relationship between love and law. In fact, not only did the initial report on this case, 'The Assassination of the Mother Humiliation', focus on the word 'emotion', but the subsequent public opinion mainly revolved around the relationship between emotion and law.

5.

The Chinese character for "emotion" can be said to have a rich connotation, referring to both objective situations and subjective emotions. Human emotions are rich and diverse, often arising from specific situations and changing with the context. If these changes are based on what is commonly referred to as human nature, then they are human nature. Behavior that does not violate common sense is reasonable; Reasonable and justifiable; Legitimate behavior means gaining the understanding and sympathy of others.

Cover people with the same heart and reason. In abstract terms, this kind of human shared heart and principle originates from heaven and is innate; It is presented in a specific time and space, presenting itself in the form of customs and traditions, and serving the people's sentiment; And when expressed in one matter, one case, and expressed as public opinion, it is public opinion.

The various elements contained in the word 'emotion' mentioned above can be seen and fully explored in reports and discussions related to the Huan case. It is precisely by extracting and focusing on the "insulting mother" plot in the Huan case, carefully sorting out the case and presenting it with hints and associations, especially through the detailed and vivid description of the specific situation in which the defendant Yu Huan is located, that the reporter successfully arouses readers' indignation towards the heinous act of "insulting mother", and correspondingly, great sympathy for Huan's "stabbing and killing the insulting mother" behavior.

In subsequent discussions and comments, these situational elements are repeatedly mentioned and emphasized, and the passion that dominates the act of pleasure is endowed with the noble qualities of "resisting violence" and "saving mothers", and even elevated to the level of human nature, natural law, and natural law. According to this understanding, "emotion" is not only an external fact that empirical law must face but sometimes difficult to absorb, but also a higher norm that it must respect or even obey.

The traditional view holds that law is nothing more than human emotions, and among the so-called heavenly principles, national laws, and human emotions, "emotion" is one of them. In accordance with the laws of heaven, the only way to do good is to balance emotions and laws, which can be called a good judgment. This set of words is certainly outdated, but it has not completely lost its effectiveness, only changed the rhetoric. For example, the emphasis on the "mass line" in general, the use of "public outrage" in criminal judgments, and the emphasis on "social effects" in the application of the law, while "striving to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case" is the latest authoritative statement.

In the comments about the "insulting mother murder case", the most quoted sentence is this one. However, the term "fairness and justice" referred to here does not come from empirical law, but from the "common sense of the people" and "public opinion", and from the "human ethics" and "humanistic care" conveyed by "public opinion" and "public sentiment". In the eyes of commentators, these "common human emotions" and "ethical reasoning" embody "simple justice". They may seem outside the law, but in fact constitute the "spirit of law" and are truly "legal justice".

Public opinion is surging, and relevant departments at all levels are responding quickly. On March 26th, when public opinion was high, the Shandong Provincial High People's Court disclosed that it had accepted Yu Huan's appeal on the 24th, and the collegiate bench is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the case file. The Supreme People's Procuratorate announced that it will send personnel to Shandong to conduct a comprehensive review of the facts and evidence of the case, and investigate police misconduct and other behaviors reported by the media.

The People's Procuratorate of Shandong Province announced through its official Weibo account that it will immediately dispatch staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the case and legally investigate and determine the nature of Yu Huan's behavior that is of public concern. The Public Security Department of Shandong Province also announced through its official Weibo account that a working group has been dispatched to verify the handling of police and cases. According to Liaocheng News Network, a working group has been established in Liaocheng City to conduct a comprehensive investigation into issues such as police inaction, high interest loans, and involvement in organized crime related to the case. On the same day, there were also reports that all 10 debt collectors in the Yu Huan case, except for the deceased Du, had been arrested and the case was transferred to the procuratorate for examination and prosecution.

All of this is unusual, but also expected. With such a foundation, it is foreseeable that the development of the Yu Huan case will move in a direction favorable to the appellant.

On May 27th, the second trial of the Yu Huan case was held in the Shandong Provincial High People's Court. In court, the prosecutor dispatched by the provincial procuratorate stated that this was a "defensive injury case" and that "the first instance prosecution and judgment did not fully determine the facts and there were errors in the application of the law". Yu Huan's behavior constitutes excessive self-defense. It was originally a claim made by Yu Huan's defense lawyer in the first instance that was not accepted by the court, and it was also the essence of Yu Huan's appeal. Now, the prosecutor appearing in the second instance has affirmed this and provided detailed arguments based on the case and evidence. Based on this viewpoint, the prosecutor finally suggested that the second instance court should reduce or exempt the punishment in accordance with Article 20 (2) of the Criminal Law on excessive defense. This lengthy court opinion was sincere and well reasoned, and received high praise after its publication. In fact, it set the tone for the decision of the second trial.

On June 23, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province made a final judgment, ruling that Yu Huan's behavior was excessive self-defense and committing the crime of intentional injury, sentencing him to five years in prison.

6.

In theory, there should be more than one possibility for the outcome of the second instance of the Yu Huan case. Because, even from a professional perspective, the nature of Yu Huan's behavior is highly controversial. Several criminologists believe that Yu Huan's behavior should be regarded as justifiable defense, rather than excessive defense, let alone pure intentional injury. Taking a step back, even if it is determined that their behavior constitutes excessive self-defense, the punishment can be lighter, such as imprisonment for less than five years, probation, or even exemption from punishment.

However, the current results are not surprising either.

Procuratorates and courts at all levels have always been conservative in determining whether an act constitutes justifiable defense and whether the defense is excessive. Interestingly, it is precisely this place that involves the definition and distribution of state power and individual rights. On the one hand, it is prone to tension and conflict between the government and the people, and between the law and public opinion. On the other hand, it also provides a flexible mechanism for the law to respond to public opinion. The Yu Huan case is one example, as was the Deng Yujiao case a few years ago. Comparing these two cases can help us better understand this point.

Both the Yu and Deng cases involved insult and infringement, resulting in the death or injury of the perpetrator. The defendants were ultimately convicted of excessive self-defense and intentional injury, and were sentenced according to Article 20 (2) of the Criminal Law. And most importantly, like the Yu Huan case, the Deng case has also stirred up public opinion and caused a sensation, stirring up heated emotions among the people. At that time, the public opinion almost overwhelmingly sympathized with the defendant Deng Yujiao, hailed her as a heroic woman who fought against violence, and rallied in support, thus making the judicial institution face tremendous pressure from public opinion from the beginning and unable to proceed cautiously. In the end, the court ruled that Deng Yujiao was guilty of intentional injury, but she was a partially criminally responsible person with circumstances such as excessive self-defense and surrender (adopting the opinion of the prosecution), and should be exempt from criminal punishment (adopting the opinion of the defense).

Although the defense of Deng's innocence based on legitimate defense was ultimately not accepted by the court, the court's ruling of "exemption from criminal punishment" still satisfied the majority of people. Deng Yujiao herself was even surprised by the verdict, so she immediately expressed "obedience to the judgment" after the first instance judgment.

The court is clearly satisfied with such legal and social effects. In the White Paper "Annual Report on the Work of the People's Courts (2009)" published that year, the Supreme People's Court specifically mentioned a group of cases with significant social impact, including the Deng case. It believed that through the handling of these cases, the people's courts "properly tried hot cases of public opinion concern, responded to social concerns, and enhanced judicial credibility", and "achieved good legal and social effects".

So, what are the legal and social effects of the Yu Huan case?

Judging solely from the verdict, the Yu Huan case is much heavier than the Deng case, but that does not mean that the judges of the two courts hold different standards when measuring and determining issues of justifiable defense, nor does it mean that "public opinion" was not taken seriously in the Huan case. After all, the "damage result" caused by Yu Huan is more serious, and unlike Deng Yujiao, Yu Huan is not a partially criminally responsible person and has not been identified as having "surrendered" circumstances. On the contrary, Yu Huan was sentenced to life imprisonment in the first instance, and in the second instance, reasons such as excessive self-defense were introduced. Article 20 (2) of the Criminal Law was applied, and the sentence was changed to five years' imprisonment. The stark contrast between the two made the interaction between the judicial institutions and public opinion more prominent.

In fact, compared to the Deng case, the judicial institution's response to public opinion in the Yu Huan case was not only more proactive, but also more conscious and proactive. In his impressive appearance in court, the prosecutor of the second instance of the Yu Huan case specifically devoted a section to discussing the relationship between the judiciary and public opinion, stating that public opinion supervision is one of the important channels connecting the judiciary and the public, and also an important guarantee for their positive interaction. Therefore, the procuratorial organs attach great importance to the "value demands of the public for justice behind public opinion", and at the same time "uphold an objective and impartial stance, adhere to the law and conscience, based on facts, guided by the law, and fulfill supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the law". This opinion even affirms the value of handling cases with "reason", stating that it has "restored the truth of the case with evidence, distinguished the nature of the case and the application of the law with legal principles and reason, and believes that Yu Huan will eventually receive a fair judgment".

The relevant parts of the court's final judgment almost fully accepted the prosecutor's appearance opinion, while also giving more play to the "reasonableness" mentioned in the opinion. This is not only reflected in the judgment's explicit mention of the "fair and just concept of the people" as an important consideration in the judgment, but also in its positive response to the "humiliation of the mother" situation, which is the intersection of "legal principle" and "reason" in the Yu Huan case, and is also the focus of the case.

7.

As mentioned earlier, since the Yu Huan case entered the public eye, it has appeared as a legal edge or even beyond the law. In a simplified and highly moralized expression, whether it is the case of "stabbing and killing someone who insulted their mother" or the case of "insulting and killing their mother", the core of the Yu Huan case is "insulting their mother". According to this interpretation, 'insulting one's mother' is the cause of murder, and murder is the result of 'insulting one's mother'. The first issue that the law needs to deal with is a bottom line issue related to human ethics. Unfortunately, such a significant issue was lightly overlooked in the first instance verdict. It is precisely this attitude and handling of the law that has angered the entire society, making the tension between law and ethics, national law and public sentiment particularly prominent. As a result, there has been a series of interactions between the government and the people, until the second trial was revised. The question is, in order to confront the theme of "insulting mothers" and effectively respond to public opinion, how much room is there in the current law to expand? To put it more directly, to what extent can the existence of the fact of "insulting one's mother" become a legal basis for reducing or exempting one's criminal liability and punishment?

Focusing on the severity and existence of criminal liability, the determination of the nature of Yu Huan's behavior is undoubtedly crucial. To solve this problem, the most fundamental step is to determine whether his behavior has the nature of legitimate defense. In fact, in the first and second trials of the Yu Huan case, the arguments between the prosecution and defense were conducted within the range of "intentional injury - excessive defense/intentional injury - justifiable defense".

We can see that during the first trial, Yu Huan's defense lawyer argued for excessive self-defense, but when the situation reversed and the second trial approached, his defense stance changed to advocating that his actions were legitimate self-defense. However, it is intriguing that the reason for the establishment of justifiable defense is that the illegal infringement committed by the debt collector is equivalent to "robbery" - one of the statutory reasons for the establishment of special defense, and has nothing to do with "insulting the mother".

Indeed, the illegal acts that can be subject to special defense listed in Article 20, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law are limited to ongoing violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, and other serious threats to personal safety. They are not related to insult, nor are they related to the specific ethical meaning of "insulting mothers". So, how should the court respond to public opinion and handle situations of "insulting mothers"? The second instance verdict gave us an answer:

This court believes that the appellant Yu Huan's stabbing and stabbing of Du Zhihao and four others with a knife constitutes stopping the ongoing illegal infringement, and his behavior has a defensive nature; Their defensive behavior resulted in one death, two serious injuries, and one minor injury, which clearly exceeded the necessary limit and caused significant damage, constituting the crime of intentional injury and shall bear criminal responsibility in accordance with the law. Considering that Yu Huan's behavior constitutes excessive self-defense, and that she was able to truthfully confess her main crimes after being arrested, and that the victim committed serious offenses such as insulting Yu Huan's mother through malicious means, Yu Huan's punishment should be reduced in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the victim's act of insulting Yu Huan's mother through malicious means constitutes a "serious fault" and is included in the discretionary "circumstances" for mitigating Yu Huan's punishment. The plot of 'insulting the mother' was introduced into sentencing considerations in this way. However, we must also acknowledge that handling the situation of "insulting the mother" in this way is not a pioneering move by the second instance court. Viewing 'insulting mother' as the fault of the victim, and therefore imposing a lenient punishment on Huan, the first instance has already been completed.

So, what is the novelty of reiterating this point in the second instance? The more important question related to this is, what is the intention of continuing to claim "victim's fault" in an intentional injury case that was ultimately changed to excessive self-defense? What other role can this claim play in reducing or exempting the defendant's punishment? In the section of the judgment on the discretion of punishment, the judge provided a detailed discussion on the circumstances of "insulting the mother" and its legal significance

Yu Huan and her mother Su Yinxia have been repeatedly pressured, harassed, and insulted in recent days, which inevitably led to fear, anger, and other factors when Yu Huan carried out defensive actions. This court accepts the appeal and defense opinions of Huan and her defense counsel, such as the serious fault of the victim in this case and the excessive sentencing of the original verdict.

On the day of the incident, the victim Du Zhihao publicly insulted his mother Su Yinxia by exposing his genitals in front of Yu Huan. Although there had been about twenty minutes since Yu Huan's defensive actions, Yu Huan's stabbing and stabbing of Du Zhihao and others inevitably carried the emotion of revenge against Du Zhihao for insulting his mother. Therefore, in the discretion of punishment, it should be considered as a favorable circumstance for Huan. Du Zhihao's behavior of insulting his mother is seriously illegal and violates human ethics, and should be punished and condemned. However, Yu Huan caused one death, two serious injuries, and one minor injury while carrying out defensive actions, and one of the seriously injured was stabbed in the back by Yu Huan holding a knife, indicating that the defense was clearly excessive. The personal freedom and dignity of Yu Huan and her mother Su Yinxia should be protected by law, but Yu Huan's defensive behavior exceeds the limits allowed by law and should also bear criminal responsibility according to law. Identifying Yu Huan's behavior as excessive self-defense and constituting the crime of intentional injury is not only a strict judicial requirement, but also in line with the people's concept of fairness and justice.

Unlike the vague and understated mention of the victim's fault in the first instance, the second instance judgment deliberately highlighted the circumstance of "insulting the mother". Not only did it escalate the act of "insulting the mother of Huan with malicious means" to the "serious fault" of the victim, but it also clearly stated that such behavior "seriously violates the law and blasphemes human relations, and should be punished and condemned". Moreover, it affirmed Huan's "revenge" sentiment and believed that it should be considered as a "favorable circumstance" in sentencing. In this way, the second instance verdict attempts to respond positively to public opinion, reconcile legal principles and reason, and lay the necessary groundwork for the legitimacy of the subsequent guilty verdict. However, handling the situation of "insulting the mother" in this way also brings several problems.

8.

Firstly, while emphasizing the "fault" nature of the "insulting mother" behavior, the judge actually excluded this behavior from the category of "unlawful infringement" that is at least related to legitimate defense. However, the act of "insulting the mother" in the Yu Huan case, even if not viewed from the perspective of public morality, is suspected of a serious crime. The harm caused to both Yu's mother and Yu Huan himself by this crime is serious enough to justify the legitimacy of defensive actions. In light of this, the second instance judgment treats the act of "insulting the mother" solely as the victim's fault, which is difficult to satisfy even in legal terms, let alone a reasonable response to public opinion.

Secondly, because deliberately defining the act of "insulting the mother" as the fault of the victim, the judge had to separate the "insulting the mother" circumstances from the entire incident when describing the case, and correspondingly, had to artificially separate the actions of all parties involved in the case. This approach not only contradicts the practice of the second instance court treating the debtor's illegal behavior as a continuous and complete process in order to correct the problem of incomplete factual determination in the first instance judgment, but also creates a series of confusion and chaos in legal reasoning.

For example, the judgment specifically mentioned that there was a gap of "about twenty minutes" between the victim Du "publicly insulting his mother Su Yinxia by exposing her genitals in front of Yu Huan" and "Yu Huan's defensive behavior". The implicit logic here is that these "twenty minutes" separated two different types of behavior: the one that occurred earlier was the victim's fault ("insulting her mother"), and the one that occurred later was "unlawful infringement".

For the latter, Yu Huan implemented a "defensive action", while for the former, it was a "retaliation". The question is, in the Yu Huan case, how should we identify and distinguish the nature of Yu Huan's behavior when the two behaviors that the judge distinguished occurred at the same time, and the person targeted by Yu Huan's behavior, Du, was both a "mother abuser" and the primary perpetrator of "illegal infringement"?

One option is to consider Yu Huan's behavior as "retaliation", which highlights the fault of the victim and provides a legal basis for reducing punishment. However, considering the actual situation of the Yu Huan case, it is too far fetched to consider it as "retaliation" and ignores the defensive factors in the case, which is also difficult to satisfy the "people" and therefore not taken by the court. Another option is to view Yu Huan's behavior as a defense against unlawful infringement, which is actually the basic stance of the second instance judgment. However, if the perpetrator's "revenge" emotions are not taken into account at the same time, it seems that there is no fault on the part of the victim - "insulting the mother" - and it also shows insufficient consideration for public opinion.

The ideal solution would be to mix and stack "retaliation" with "defense", while distinguishing between primary and secondary, avoiding strange and contradictory expressions such as "retaliatory defense" or "defense with both retaliation". So we saw this wording in the main text of the judgment: 'When Yu Huan stabbed Du Zhihao and others, it was inevitable that he had the emotion of retaliating against Du Zhihao for insulting his mother.'.

But according to the context, 'Yu Huan stabs Du Zhihao and others' means' Yu Huan engages in defensive behavior'. Although the judge deliberately avoided the term 'defensive behavior' here and instead used 'stabbing', and downgraded 'revenge' from 'behavior' to 'emotion', he still cannot escape the dilemma of categorizing sexual behavior.

The problem goes beyond that. The judge continued to point out that Yu Huan's revenge on Du Zhihao for insulting his mother should be considered as a favorable circumstance in the sentencing decision. For ordinary Chinese readers, this statement sounds somewhat ironic. Because in common usage, the Chinese word 'revenge' carries some negative connotations, especially when juxtaposed with concepts such as' justifiable 'and' defense '. How can a behavior with negative connotations bring benefits to a behavior with positive connotations instead of offsetting or even reducing them?

In real life, when a person is defending themselves against illegal infringement, any "revenge" mentality and emotion can become a cause for their behavior to spiral out of control, leading to excessive defense and constituting a crime. It is obviously more reasonable to understand and explain the impact of "revenge" emotions on Yu Huan in this way. In order to reconcile the law with public opinion, the judge also said, "Du Zhihao's behavior of insulting his mother is seriously illegal and blasphemous, and should be punished and condemned. However, when Yu Huan carried out defensive actions... the defense was clearly excessive

Here, the accusation and condemnation of Du's "insulting behavior towards her mother" seem to provide the legitimacy that the "people" believe in for Yu Huan's behavior. However, the logic of this sentence is clearly untenable, because the word "but" before it refers to the victim's fault, and after it refers to a defensive behavior against illegal infringement. Connecting the two paragraphs with the word "but" is equivalent to saying that Yu Huan's defensive behavior (against illegal infringement) is a punishment (revenge) for Du's insulting behavior towards her mother (fault).

Next, in order to demonstrate that Yu Huan's defensive behavior clearly exceeded the necessary limits, the judge unexpectedly pulled out a retaliatory plot, and the effect was even more bizarre: "Yu Huan defended himself with a knife to leave the reception room while the police were still investigating and the police car was flashing its lights. He stabbed and wounded multiple people to get rid of the other party's encirclement, and except for Du Zhihao, the other three did not commit any act of insulting Yu Huan's mother

The police came and left, and Yu Huan and her son were hindered from escaping with the police. Yu Huan was forcefully pushed to the corner by a group of adult men, and had no way to retreat. This is precisely the outbreak point that broke through the crisis and made Yu Huan fight to the death for defense. At this tipping point, Yu Huan faced some despairing and collapsing illegal infringement, and his defense target was anyone who approached him and posed a direct threat to him. Except for Du Zhihao, these words turned the other three into unrelated innocent victims.

It seems that what Yu Huan did was not to defend against the ongoing illegal infringement, but to retaliate against the 'mother abuser' and injure innocent people in anger. So, just as the two different types of legal relationships referred to before and after the word 'but' are confused, the two different legal contexts referred to before and after the word 'and' are also confused together. This logical confusion and rough reasoning are astonishing.

9.

The second instance judgment of the Yu Huan case, in dealing with the situation of "insulting the mother", neglected one aspect and neglected the other, which was technically due to improper handling of the relationship between "victim's fault" and "excessive defense". Assuming that Yu Huan stabbed Du to death just to avenge his shame of "insulting his mother", it can be argued that he committed murder with righteous indignation. In that case, the fault of the victim can be a reason for reducing their punishment. Assuming that Yu Huan stabbed Du to death due to excessive defense, even if there is no "insulting mother" circumstance, it can still have the effect of reducing his punishment. In this regard, although the first instance judgment of the Yu Huan case had issues such as improper application of the law, its use of the victim's fault argument was logically clear and flawless.

The current problem is that, on the one hand, the first instance denies the existence of "unlawful infringement in the sense of legitimate defense" and the sentencing is excessively heavy, which has become a target of public criticism; The second instance revision of the verdict acknowledges that Yu Huan's actions have the nature of legitimate defense and both legal and policy legitimacy, which is inevitable. On the other hand, making sufficient efforts to address the issue of "victim's fault", responding to public opinion, and condemning those who "insult their mother" can help calm public opinion. This requires judges to emphasize and make full use of both the grounds for reducing punishment, namely "victim's fault" and "excessive defense". But these two reasons have different natures and target different situations.

If placed in the same context, "fault" may be "absorbed" by "unlawful infringement", and the punishment reduction effect caused by "excessive defense" may also "cover" the results caused by "victim fault". The second instance judge in the Yu Huan case was driven by practical policy considerations and wanted to adhere to political correctness under the constraints of existing laws. He not only upheld the law, but also took into account public opinion. It is inevitable that he would lose sight of one aspect and retreat without basis. From a legal perspective alone, the judgment he made is far from perfect.

However, the official view on this is different. After the announcement of the second instance judgment of the Yu Huan case, the Vice President of the Supreme People's Court wrote an article discussing the legal issues of justifiable defense, stating that the second instance judgment "effectively adhered to the principles of legal equality and judicial neutrality, fully took into account the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of victims and defendants, and set a new benchmark and model for the judicial organs to correctly apply the justifiable defense system in accordance with the law.

It is worth noting that although the Huan case breaks the topic, the article discusses general issues on how to understand and apply the legitimate defense system. Its insights are positive, reasonable, and practical, which can help us review the handling of the Huan case by the second instance court.

10.

Although the verdict of the Huan case in the second trial is clear and affirmative, Shen Wen's attitude towards the public is quite rational and gentle. He only stated that the case has been judged in the second trial and "the dust has settled. Regardless of everyone's opinion, I hope everyone can respect the judgment made by the judicial organs in accordance with the law". The article correctly points out that in terms of specific legal application, the legitimate defense system is the core of the Yu Huan case, but at the same time acknowledges that "how to correctly apply the legitimate defense system and ensure the organic unity of the legal and social effects of judicial judgments is an important issue facing current criminal trial work.

The main problem is that although the 1997 revision of the Criminal Law aimed to "strengthen the right to self-defense and encourage the public to implement self-defense," in practice, the judicial organs "still tend to be conservative in the application of the self-defense system, and dare not or are not good at applying the self-defense system." As a result, some scholars have criticized that the provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Law on self-defense, especially the third paragraph on undue defense, are to some extent in a "dormant" state and have not played their due role. Shen Wen mainly focuses on this issue, not only analyzing the causes of this problem, but also discussing issues such as legislative intent, institutional functions, principles of legal application, and relevant judicial policy considerations.

Shen Wen believes that justifiable defense is not only a right granted to citizens by law, but also a positive means of combating and stopping crime. In order for this weapon to be effective, the law cannot define justifiable defense as the last resort taken by the defender, and requires that all means be exhausted before implementing justifiable defense. On the contrary, the law allows citizens to actively exercise this right, allowing legitimate defense to cause certain damage to the personal, property, and other rights of the unlawful infringer, and even to cause injury or death to the unlawful infringer.

Correspondingly, in the judicial process, the judge should "appropriately relax the defense limit conditions", "fully consider the specific circumstances of the case when determining justifiable defense, especially when judging the defense limit conditions, and put oneself in the shoes of the justifiable defender, rather than being too demanding of the justifiable defender", "consider the judicial application of the justifiable defense system based on common sense and circumstances", and even "consider considerations that are beneficial to the defender". Requesting defenders to carry out actions that precisely stop unlawful infringement in isolated and highly tense situations not only violates common sense and common sense, but also goes against basic legal principles

In addition, even if it is determined that the defense was excessive, the discretion of 'reducing or exempting punishment' should be fully utilized. Obviously, the first instance verdict of the Yu Huan case is a typical example of Shen Wen's criticism of "not daring or not being good at applying the legitimate defense system". So, based on the principles, methods, and standards suggested by Shen Wen, is the second instance verdict of the Yu Huan case perfect and exemplary? Not to mention the various issues in the legal reasoning of the second instance judgment mentioned earlier in this article, the fact that Yu Huan was sentenced to five years in prison is not without controversy.

Indeed, compared to a life sentence in a first instance judgment, a five-year sentence can be considered a significant reduction. However, compared to conditions such as probation and exemption from punishment (not to mention a verdict of not guilty), a five-year sentence cannot be considered light. And between the severity and severity, it depends on how the judge judges and measures the degree of excessive defense, as well as how the judge judges and measures the severity of the illegal infringement and its relationship with the damage caused by the defensive behavior.

In the past, when judges judged such issues, they often approached these factors from the perspective of hindsight and observation, and rarely imagined how ordinary people would feel, judge, and react in such situations based on "common sense and circumstances" as Shen Wen requested. Unfortunately, the second instance verdict of the Yu Huan case did not exert any effort in this regard. Therefore, in the face of a group of debt collectors' "pressure, harassment, and insults", Yu Huan's "causing one death, two serious injuries, and one minor injury" became indisputable evidence of his "obviously excessive defense".

This is a common outcome oriented thinking among people. According to this thinking, unless there are a limited number of violent crimes such as murder, robbery, rape, etc. that are subject to special defense as stipulated by law, if a defensive behavior "causes significant damage", it must be "clearly beyond the necessary limit". In this way, subjective factors such as the feelings, judgments, and psychology of the defender in danger are greatly ignored. If this traditional analytical approach remains unchanged, it may be difficult to truly change the situation pointed out by Shen Wen in judicial practice where the legitimate defense system is not dared or poorly applied.

In this regard, the second instance judgment of the Yu Huan case demonstrates not so much a breakthrough in the conservative model of the original legitimate defense system, but rather a more conscious application of its own flexible mechanism within the framework of this model to meet the important political, legal, and social needs of the present.

11.

The legitimate defense system involves citizens' self-help and the definition of national public rights and individual private rights. Originally sensitive, the "humiliation of the mother" in the Yu Huan case involves a major issue of human ethics, which is of particular concern to the public. As a result, improper handling in the first instance led to public outrage and a pool of public opinion like a mountain falling into a sea. In the face of this situation, the court must act cautiously, carefully review the negligence of the first instance, and listen to public opinion, striving to balance the situation and law within the existing system in the second instance judgment. This kind of thinking and orientation not only follows the tradition of distance, but also has a politically correct nature in the present.

The political correctness here, in addition to general requirements such as discipline, obedience, consistency, and conformity, is most closely related to the judiciary, which is to maintain social stability; Adhere to the combination of governing the country by law and governing the country by virtue, embody moral concepts through the rule of law, and nourish the spirit of the rule of law through morality; Strive to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case. Based on this, the second instance revision of the Yu Huan case can be said to be almost without suspense from the beginning.

However, this does not mean that the judiciary should blindly "accommodate" public opinion and lose its own position. In the handling of the Huan case, the will of the state must maintain an absolute dominant position as usual, which is the first meaning of emphasizing the "rule of law consciousness". Of course, law is also a specialized field with its own set of concepts, terminology, methods, and theories. The handling of the Yu Huan case will ultimately be accomplished through this special mechanism. So there was a series of debates and reasoning in French around the nature of pleasure behavior.

In the first instance of the Yu Huan case, he was convicted of intentional injury. Where should the second instance verdict be changed? Just Cause? Or was it too much defense? If it is self-defense, Yu Huan is innocent. If it is due to excessive defense, the original verdict of intentional injury shall still be established, but the punishment may be reduced at discretion. In this case, if we simply focus on legal principles, it can be examined whether Yu Huanzhi's defensive behavior was excessive. However, in reality, excessive defense is almost the only option for the second instance court.

This is because, firstly, if Yu Huan is acquitted in the second instance on the grounds of legitimate defense, it not only completely overturns the first instance judgment, but also deviates significantly from the usual practice of the court in handling legitimate defense matters. The shock is too great, which may undermine judicial authority, be detrimental to the unity and stability of the "political and legal team", and also to social stability. Moreover, there is already controversy over whether Yu Huan's defensive behavior was excessive, and simply stating it as legitimate defense may not necessarily convince people.

More importantly, determining the Yu Huan case as a legitimate defense may disrupt the existing distribution of public and private rights, expand the scope of individual autonomy, involve a wide range of issues, and have serious consequences. The conservatism of the judiciary in dealing with legitimate defense matters in the past may be fundamentally related to this. On the contrary, if the argument of excessive defense is used, it can not only avoid various potential risks that may arise from a verdict of not guilty, ensure political correctness, but also justify the argument in legal terms. After all, there are many factors to consider when determining whether a defensive behavior is excessive, and there is a great deal of discretion.

Moreover, although the determination of excessive defense implies the conviction of the crime, as a statutory mitigating circumstance, it can result in a reduction or even exemption of punishment. Such a broad sentencing range not only allows the defender to maximize their interests, but also provides the greatest convenience for the judge to achieve specific policy goals in individual cases. And this means that, as long as used properly, guilty verdicts of excessive defense can play the greatest role in easing conflicts between the state and society, public and private rights, reconciling the will of the law with public opinion, legal principles with reason, and so on. The verdict in the Deng Yujiao case played such a role, and the same goes for the Yu Huan case. That is also why they are all regarded as examples of achieving good legal and social effects.

However, based on the analysis presented in this article, we will also find that "better legal and social effects" not only conceal many issues in legal application, but also contain several unspoken premises. Ultimately, the scope of personal autonomy that legitimate defense can accommodate, as well as the legal space for expressing emotions and feelings, are ultimately subject to political considerations. For example, in the field of criminal law, interpersonal relationships have never been a positive value and consideration that is given weight. The concealment, sheltering, substitution, and perjury of crimes between relatives are severely punished.

Correspondingly, 'killing relatives with righteousness' is regarded as a civic duty and a fundamental principle for individuals to express their loyalty to the country. Indeed, compared to the era where "class" was used to determine kinship, today's society has become more normal, and the expression and value of human natural emotions have been more recognized. However, the character of "six relatives not recognized" in contemporary Chinese law remains largely unchanged, and laws with this character still leave little room for "human feelings".

12.

As we have seen, the Yu Huan case has had two versions from the beginning: one is the legal version and the other is the public version. These two versions seem to tell the same story, but the logic behind them is quite different. In the eyes of the law, it refers to various legal elements ranging from intentional homicide, intentional injury to justifiable defense, and in the eyes of the public, this is known as a "case of maternal humiliation murder". In this case, Du sexually insulted his mother in front of Yu Huanzhi in front of everyone's eyes, and this alone is enough to justify Huan's murder.

But in the eyes of the law, "insulting the mother" is only a circumstance of the case, and the "fault" of a victim is not even "unlawful infringement in the sense of legitimate defense" (this also applies to the second instance judgment). Here, the legal and rational meanings of the act of "insulting the mother" are completely different. According to legal principles, "insulting one's mother" is just one part of the entire case, and it is a "fault" that should be condemned. One is the psychological stimulation that led to Yu Huan's crime, and the other is the reason why the judge reduced the consideration of punishment for Yu Huan. According to reason, what Du did was a result of both human and divine anger, and was not tolerated by heaven. It was natural for him to stab and kill someone who insulted his mother, and it was in line with human emotions. Even if their behavior is indeed inappropriate in law, judges should give maximum sympathy and leniency when convicting and sentencing.

Obviously, these two versions require a certain degree of integration in order to find the middle ground between emotions and laws. The first instance judge (including the prosecutor) in the Yu Huan case followed the old practice and downplayed the serious offense of "insulting the mother" that could not be forgiven, and sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment "leniently" due to the fault of the victim, thus offending public anger. The second instance judge (including the prosecutor) changed his stance and determined that Yu Huan's behavior was excessive self-defense. He deliberately used the plot of "insulting her mother" to respond to public opinion, and ultimately sentenced Yu Huan to five years in prison. Some people believe that this verdict reflects the perfect combination of law and emotion.

Indeed, after the announcement of the second instance verdict in the Yu Huan case, public opinion remained calm, but this does not mean that the public's rational demands have been fully and reasonably responded to. The focus of the Yu Huan case lies in how the law determines the nature of Yu Huan's actions; In terms of reason, it is the weight that the law gives to ethical considerations when dealing with the incident of "stabbing and insulting the mother". If we only look at the outcome, the commutation brought about by the second instance revision of the Yu Huan case is consistent with the expectations of the "people", but that does not mean that their "concept of fairness and justice" can be automatically realized as a result. After all, the concept of 'fairness and justice' focuses not only on the outcome, but also on the rationale for achieving it.

The law ultimately determined that Yu Huan's actions were defensive, which is undoubtedly correct. The judge's opinion that his defensive behavior "clearly exceeded the necessary limits" is controversial. In this situation, even if the judgment of excessive defense is established, Yu Huan should still be "mitigated or exempted from punishment" according to the law, let alone the circumstance of "insulting the mother".

Assuming there is no "insulting mother" situation in the Yu Huan case, or if the "insulting mother" situation has nothing to do with sex, should Yu Huan be sentenced to a punishment higher than five years of imprisonment? Logically, it seems to be so. So, how many more years should we have? Because it is hypothetical and because we do not know the internal deliberation process of the court, we cannot be certain that a "serious mistake" such as "insulting the mother" can withstand several years of imprisonment in the Yu Huan case. However, one thing is certain, that is, the gap between love and law is still difficult to bridge here.

From a purely legal perspective, it is not entirely unreasonable to consider Yu Huan's actions as legitimate self-defense. Taking a step back, even if it is excessive defense, Yu Huan can still receive other punishments below five years of imprisonment or even exemption from punishment. If that's the case, the rendering of the "insulting mother" plot in the second instance verdict of the Yu Huan case is probably mainly a gesture of responding to and appeasing public opinion, with more symbolic significance. Unless, unless the second instance judge creatively interprets the "humiliation of the mother" in the Yu Huan case as a truly serious illegal infringement, one that may exempt the "stabbing the mother" from punishment even if it is not sufficient to prove justifiable defense, based on legal principles and reason, history and reality, culture and law. We already know that this did not actually happen; In the context of reality that we have analyzed, this is actually impossible to happen.