Interpretation of self-defense should reflect the spirit of law: China Daily editorial

Where to draw the line between justifiable self-defense and excesses committed in the name of self-defense often makes both prosecutors and judges indecisive, although the Criminal Law includes a clause that defines both.

That perhaps explains why the clause has been nicknamed "sleeping legal code". It has not been applied in many cases where it was needed the most to protect the rights of those who have caused injury to or even the death of the assailant.

Now the Supreme People's Court has released a document saying it will soon issue a detailed interpretation of the clause defining justifiable self-defense, which will make it clear how such cases should be dealt with.

The response of the majority of internet users to an incident that took place late last month shows how many people want the justifiable self-defense clause to be used to protect the rights of a person facing a violent assailant. When a car swerved into a narrow lane barred for four-wheelers in Kunshan, Jiangsu province, late last month and almost ran over a bicycle, a row erupted between the bike-rider and the car driver. In a fit of rage, the driver pulled out a long knife from his car and charged at the bike-rider but stumbled and fell on ground, with the knife flying out of his hand. The bike-rider picked up the knife and stabbed the driver to death.

Many people on social media said the bike-rider's action was justifiable self-defense, so he should be free from criminal liability. Eventually, the local procuratorate decided to not incriminate him.

The netizens' dissatisfaction in this case was with the legal code on justifiable self-defense and its application to criminal cases.

Justifiable self-defense and the use of excessive force in self-defense need to be so defined that those whose life or safety is in danger can use enough self-defense methods to protect themselves rather than refraining them from doing so.

But this spirit has been found wanting in many cases, which has made many believe that excessive self-defense instead has become a shield to protect criminals while the justifiable self-defense definition has not been applied to cases where it was needed the most.

The Supreme People's Court document emphasizes that the new interpretation will encourage people to protect themselves against attackers. If so, the long overdue interpretation will undoubtedly be welcomed by prosecutors and judges, as well as by the public, not least because it will reflect the spirit of rule of law.