Just when the presiding judge thought that Meng Guangda had finished speaking and reminded him, Lao Meng spoke again: "2. Defendant Gao Peili meets the conditions for applying a suspended sentence.

First, from the analysis of the subjective malice of the defendant Gao Peili's crime in this case, the reason for her intentional homicide was that she could not tolerate the victim's long-term abuse and domestic violence, out of long-term grievances and fear that she might be abused and violent again in the future, her subjective malice was much smaller than that of ordinary homicide, and the victim was seriously at fault.

Second, the defendant Gao Peili had the circumstance of voluntary surrender. Voluntary surrender itself is a statutory mitigating or mitigating circumstance. Defendant Gao Peili is less harmful to society and personally dangerous, and the use of a suspended sentence against her will no longer endanger society.

In addition, Gao Peili's behavior has been forgiven by society and sympathized with by public opinion. The local government, the women's federation, and more than 700 people demanded a lighter punishment for Gao Peili.

Third, the defendant Gao Peili still has a minor child who needs to be taken care of, and her son has congenital heart disease and needs to be taken care of.

To sum up, the defender recommended that the defendant Gao Peili be sentenced to three years imprisonment with a suspended sentence, and implored the court to adopt the defender's opinion. Complete. ”

Meng Guangda's defense was so impassioned that after he finished speaking, his heart could not calm down for a long time.

"The prosecutor may respond to the defender's arguments." The presiding judge said.

"Presiding Judge and Judge: With regard to the defense of the defender, we express the following views:

The prosecutor believes that there is no clear provision in the current law and judicial interpretation on how to determine that the circumstances in this case are relatively minor, and that although the victim was at fault, the defendant killed the victim by hammering him while he was sleeping, and the means were cruel, and it is not appropriate to determine that his conduct was 'less serious'. Complete. ”

The female prosecutor is also very entangled, emotionally speaking, she is very sympathetic to the defendant, and she is also sorry for the domestic violence suffered by the defendant for a long time, but intellectually speaking, her duty is to have to do so.

"The defender can respond to the prosecutor's comments." The presiding judge said.

"Based on the prosecutor's defense and response, the defense issued the following defense opinions:

At present, the current effective laws and judicial interpretations do not have clear provisions on how to determine the 'minor circumstances' in this case.

However, in this case, the victim was obviously seriously at fault, and there is a legal basis for making the 'victim's serious fault' a 'minor circumstance' for the crime of intentional homicide.

In the criminal law theories of Western countries, there are 'sharing of responsibility' and 'condemnation of deprecation'. The "theory of allocation of responsibility" holds that in some crimes, the victim's wrongful behavior makes the occurrence of the crime or the harmful consequences of the crime not entirely attributable to the defendant.

The "reduction of condemnation theory" holds that in some crimes, "the victim's conduct prior to the commission of the crime, whether or not it should be condemned, as long as the act prompts the defendant's violent response, then the defendant's condemnation should be appropriately reduced."

In relevant judicial interpretation documents, the victim's fault has been clearly regarded as an important consideration in sentencing, especially in the crime of intentional homicide, the victim's fault is listed as a sentencing circumstance on the same position as the statutory mitigating circumstances.

On 27 October 1999, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Minutes of the National Symposium on the Court's Work on Maintaining Rural Stability in Criminal Trials," which stipulates that whether or not to impose the death penalty for intentional homicide should be based not only on whether the death of the victim was caused, but also on the full extent of the case. The application of the death penalty to crimes of intentional homicide caused by the intensification of civil conflicts such as marriage, family, and neighborhood disputes must be extremely cautious, and should be distinguished from other cases of intentional homicide that occur in society that seriously endanger public order. Where the victim's side is clearly at fault or bears direct responsibility for the intensification of the conflict, or where the defendant has legally-prescribed mitigating circumstances, the death penalty should generally not be given for immediate execution.

Article 18 of the Several Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Providing Judicial Safeguards for the Construction of a Harmonious Socialist Society of January 15, 2007 clearly stipulates that,...... In cases arising from the wrongful conduct of the injured party, the death penalty should be used with caution and immediately carried out.

To sum up, the defender believes that the defendant in this case has suffered domestic abuse for a long time, and the existing medical records can reach more than half a foot thick and lasted for four years, and if it were not for the economic conditions of the victim's family, the defendant's diagnosis certificate would be more.

This shows the long-term and cruelty of the victim's domestic violence against the defendant, which also directly led to the occurrence of the defendant's abuse and murder.

Although there are no clear provisions in the law and judicial interpretations, the applicable legal provisions of the dogma are not suitable in this case, and the defender believes that the defendant's conduct should be a 'less serious' circumstance in the crime of intentional homicide. I implore the court to apply a suspended sentence to the defendant in accordance with the law. Complete. When Meng Guangda responded, he kept suppressing the indignation in his heart.

……

Because the case of Gao Peili's abuse and murder of her husband has attracted widespread attention from the public, not only the media at the trial today, but also the court invited representatives of RD and ZX members to participate in the hearing.

Before the trial, Meng Guangda had already been notified, asking him to pay attention to his language and emotions when speaking, and Wan Kefa and Fang Yi also chatted with him for more than half an hour.

Meng Guangda is not a hairy young man, and he understands what this means, so he has been relatively restrained when expressing his defense opinions, and has revised his defense opinions.

After the trial of the case, the collegial panel did not announce the verdict on the same day, but chose to announce the verdict on a later date.

Because the case was sensitive and the verdict had not yet been pronounced, Meng Guangda returned to the law firm immediately after leaving the court and did not accept any interviews.

"Master, I always feel that your speech today seems to be a little bit off." Yu Wendong sat on the workstation and asked in a low voice.

Meng Guangda was stunned for a moment, and then smiled, he understood that what Yu Wendong said was not that the defense opinions were incomplete, but that the overall meaning was almost meaningful, and it was difficult to find out if he didn't understand Meng Guangda's defense style.

"Yuwen, sometimes, we can't always take care of ourselves...... In fact, it is good to achieve the effect. Meng Guangda glanced at him meaningfully.

Yu Wendong thought about it and seemed to understand why Boss Wan and Boss Fang chatted with Meng Guangda for more than half an hour before the trial, because he was afraid that the master would say hi and open fire, which would affect the trial of the entire case.

"I have previously studied foreign cases related to 'battered woman syndrome', which can exist as a cause of guilt in the judicial practice of the beautiful country, and the defense lawyer will use this theory to support the abused woman's husband-killing behavior to constitute legitimate defense, and can also claim the defense of mental disorder on this basis, so as to make a defense opinion in favor of the defendant.

But we can't do it here, sometimes the problem is not in the legal terms, but in the case. Meng Guangda said this, pointing to his head.