This director is vindictive.

Chapter 193: Bright daylight is just ahead; proceed fearlessly!
This court hearing can be described as thoroughly enjoyable.

The key point is that, in the eyes of the audience, it looks incredibly professional and amazing!
Of course, the courtroom trials in the movie are made to resemble formal courtroom trials as closely as possible.

However, since it's not a real case but a storyline, it's bound to have flaws.

But that doesn't matter at all.

Importantly, the lawyer played by Fan Binbin had the upper hand in this battle, and his arguments were well-reasoned and he handled the situation with ease.

They refuted the prosecutor's claims step by step, and not through sophistry, but through reasoned arguments and evidence.

There are laws to follow!
After the court adjourned, the presiding judge and two judges left.

The camera panned to the back, showing not only the members of the panel of judges, but also a whole host of other people.

Clearly, this case is too big and too sensitive, and even the panel of judges dared not make a conclusion easily.

One of the older judges spoke up: "If it were me, I would still consider it excessive self-defense, because... three people died!"

Another judge countered, "But the defense lawyer's judicial interpretation proves that Yu Hao's actions were indeed legitimate self-defense, and it's a perfect judicial interpretation! We can't be afraid to rule just because there's no precedent; that would be unfair to the defendant!"

“I agree! Whichever side is right should be ruled on directly! If we dare not rule, then we will never have any precedents to refer to!” one of the judges said excitedly.

"Killing three people in self-defense, although the judicial interpretation is reasonable, has too great an impact! That's why I suggest we request guidance from the Supreme People's Procuratorate!" the presiding judge finally said.

Chen Mo still arranged this plot.

It also tells the audience that sometimes, some things are really not that easy!
Judges are human, and presiding judges are human. As human beings, they cannot maintain the most rational and objective state like machines or AI.

This also tells the audience that cases of self-defense, especially this kind of case, are extraordinary.

Of course, Chen Mo also had his own selfish motives.

Closer to home.

The film returns to the courtroom scene.

Both sides made their final statements.

First, the prosecutor said: "Your Honor, we believe that Yu Hao's actions have completely exceeded the scope of legitimate self-defense. His excessive self-defense has resulted in the deaths of three people. Although these three people were debt collectors and their actions were illegal, they are also human beings. Before their rights are taken away, they also have human rights!"
The law strives for equality before the law. While these three individuals committed heinous crimes, they did not deserve the death penalty. Their crimes should be tried by the courts, not by Yu Hao personally carrying out his personal punishment! Therefore, I implore the presiding judge and the panel of judges to severely punish Yu Hao for his clearly vengeful actions, in order to uphold the fairness and justice of the law!

Next comes the final statement from the defense lawyer, played by Fan Binbin.

"Your Honor, I partially agree with what the prosecutor just said. The law does indeed strive for equality for all, but!"

In this incident, as an absolutely vulnerable group, did Yu Hao's family receive legal protection?

They obeyed the law, but in order to make a living, they fell into the trap of usury, pushing this family into the abyss. They never thought of hurting others, so why did they have to suffer this pain?

Ladies and gentlemen, why has this case caused such a sensation? Why is everyone so concerned about Yu Hao? Why are people speaking out for him? Isn't it because Zhou Xiong and his accomplices went too far in this case, instilling a chilling fear in the general public?
There are countless ordinary people like Yu Hao across the country. If they were to encounter the infringement of someone like Zhou Xiong, and they could not take up arms to resist and protect their rights, then that would be a tragedy for the law!

In this case, what can my client, Yu Hao, do? What should he do?
All he could do was resist! This time, his resistance was to deter the criminals. Note that his original intention was never to harm anyone, but to protect them. His original intention was to protect his mother and sister from being bullied. But if he had to bear the punishment for this, then from now on, who would dare to resist?
The law strives for equality for all, and the spirit of the rule of law should be: the law cannot yield to illegality!
Who is breaking the law? Undoubtedly, it is Zhou Xiong and others who are breaking the law!
My client, Yu Hao, resisted violence in a manner that fully met the criteria for legitimate self-defense. If this level of resistance can be judged as excessive self-defense resulting in death, then does the law require him to swallow all the humiliation?

Is the law yielding to illegality, or is it indirectly protecting criminal gangs like Zhou Xiong?

Since the law is fair, and as my defense lawyer, I have already provided a judicial interpretation of legitimate self-defense, then the law should give my client, Yu Hao, justice!
This is true fairness and justice in law!

This statement was absolutely deafening!
A thunderous applause even spontaneously erupted in the theater!
This applause was spontaneous, simply because of the statement: "The law cannot yield to illegality!"

Finally, when the presiding judge announced, "Both sides have finished their final statements, and the trial will now proceed with the verdict!"

"Everyone rise, the presiding judge will read the verdict!"

Everyone in the courtroom stood up.

The entire courtroom was completely silent; you could even hear your own heartbeat.

Yu Hao's mother and sister clasped hands, looking at Yu Hao with deep concern as he awaited his verdict.

Yu Hao was trembling with nervousness!
Everyone held their breath.

At the same time, everyone at the premiere was moved by this scene, and everyone held their breath.

The presiding judge glanced at the documents and then announced the verdict: "The reason for this case is that the appellant was dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and filed an appeal. This hearing is the second-instance proceedings!"

"After deliberation and judgment by the collegial panel"

"The first-instance judgment is hereby overturned. Yu Hao's actions constitute legitimate self-defense, and he bears no criminal responsibility. He is innocent and released in court!"

boom!
When the words "Not guilty, released in court" rang out, they resounded like thunder in the minds of those who were watching.

Suddenly, the entire premiere venue erupted in applause once again!
Although this is just a movie, and the trial depicted is merely part of the plot.

That's not reality!

But at this moment, everyone's applause was expressing their own thoughts and feelings!

Clearly, this is the kind of verdict everyone wants to see.

At this point, the climax of the movie has passed, but another case, the school bullying case, is not yet over.

However, the female lawyer played by Fan Binbin has unwavering confidence in the case.

Chen Mo had considered saving the climax of the trial for last, but ultimately decided against it.

Instead, they left the case to exonerate Mu Jun until the very end.

And leave this case blank.

No judgment was rendered!

In fact, this arrangement does not conform to the conventional formula of film.

However, in order to more realistically demonstrate the impact of this case on other subsequent cases, Chen Mo ultimately made this arrangement.

In fact, it is also to make everyone understand that once such a case is broken, its impact on other "legitimate self-defense" cases in the future will be enormous.

The subsequent trials of the school bullying case were equally exciting, though of course, they were far less impressive than the trial of the mother-insulting case.

However, during the trial, the female lawyer played by Fan Binbin raised the same argument as in the case of the mother-insulting case—continuous assault!
Throughout the bullying process, Wang Hao was subjected to continuous abuse.

However, unlike other cases, this one also brought up the concept of "psychological harm"!

This had serious consequences, and Wang Hao developed depression as a result.

Of course, compared to the previous case of insulting one's mother, this case is relatively less complicated.

The last case Chen Mo left was the "Good Samaritan" case! That is, the female lawyer played by Fan Binbin has been trying to help Mu Jun overturn his case.

However, this case was ultimately left unresolved, with no conclusion given.

The movie ended.

Applause erupted again at the premiere.

Although the film is not perfect and certainly has flaws, it is already quite satisfactory for a film of this genre.

The same is true.

Shortly after the premiere of "Article 20", it was officially released to the public.

And the comments quickly followed.

"This world may not belong to idealists, but it certainly cannot be without them! Although the movie has some idealism, it does educate the public about the law."

"The trial of the case of the mother's insult was brilliant, but in reality, there are still many difficulties. However, I must say that the audience spontaneously applauded many times during the movie, which is enough!"

"Regarding legitimate self-defense, we can only judge the legitimacy and sufficiency of the defense from the perspective of the parties involved, and we cannot conduct a rational analysis from a third-person perspective. Laws originate from people from the very beginning. In order to protect people's legitimate rights and interests, human emotions should also be considered in the implementation and application of laws. Otherwise, what's the point of prosecutors and judges? We might as well just use AI and computers to adjudicate cases."

Therefore, the film's stance is certainly biased, but it portrays the roles of prosecutors, presiding judges, and lawyers very well.

That meeting of the council was so real!

The prosecutor's and lawyer's words were both thought-provoking!

"Legal education doesn't preach. It explains what constitutes legitimate self-defense and what constitutes excessive self-defense. In particular, the interpretation of court trials and legal transitions is thrilling to watch, and it also helps us understand what constitutes unlawful infringement, continuous unlawful infringement, psychological harm, and so on."

As far as I can remember, this is the first time a domestic film has so vividly centered around the theme of "self-defense" in a group drama. It's very realistic. Even if you do the right thing, you may still break the law. But if you ignore justice and human suffering just to uphold the authority of the law, then who would want to go to court?

The director left the final act of heroism ambiguous, but the lawyer played by Fan Binbin's line in court—"The law should make the cost of crime higher for bad people, not for good people. The law should provide a strong shield for the brave and kind!"—was incredibly memorable!

"There are very few slice-of-life scenes; the cases take up the majority of the film. However, considering the film's title, 'Article 20,' it does present three different cases in their entirety, explaining what self-defense is and why it has been hidden for so many years. I really learned a lot!"

"The law should increase the cost of crime for bad people, not the cost of seeking justice for good people. The fact that a film like this can be made and released is already a huge step forward, and a pretty good one at that!"

"During the movie, I really felt the same way because my own child was also bullied at school, but there was really no solution."

Film critic Zhou Xiaobin also wrote a long review immediately.

"From the perspective of commercial films, Article 20 is actually not up to standard."

The most outstanding part was the courtroom battle between the prosecution and the defense in the case of the mother's insult, which was exhilarating and full of back-and-forth exchanges!

If we follow the typical formula of commercial films, placing this segment at the end would definitely be the most effective.

While watching the movie, I couldn't help but wonder, Chen Mo is one of the most sought-after directors right now, and he has also made movies like "Dying to Survive". Doesn't he understand this?
the answer is negative!

He definitely knows, he knows better than we do!
But why arrange the plot this way?

It wasn't until I finished reading that I understood the deeper meaning behind this plot arrangement.

All I can say is that they really put a lot of thought into it.

Do you remember the joint meeting held by the collegial panel after the trial of the case of the woman who insulted her mother?

It really shows in a very realistic way why Article 20, the legal provision for legitimate self-defense, has been hidden for so long.
The judge's words were very realistic. Three lives lost, and ruling it as self-defense would have a huge impact! Moreover, there were no precedents to refer to, so even if the judge knew that the defense lawyer's judicial interpretation was perfect and reasonable, he still dared not make that ruling!
In reality, this is also the case. In fact, when I first saw a case of killing three people, I also thought that although the death sentence was somewhat unacceptable, it was a reasonable judgment!
You see, we all sympathize with Yu Hao, but we don't think his death sentence is too harsh.

Why? Because of three lives lost!

We have always held the belief that "the dead are the greatest" and "human life is of paramount importance"!

A life for a life—that's only right!

However, after the lawyer explained the law point by point, we realized that we really didn't understand the law!

Looking back, why was this case placed in the first half of the second half? It was a well-intentioned decision!
Because of the precedent! Once this case is adjudicated, it will inevitably become a guiding case for legitimate self-defense, so that other judges will no longer be hesitant to adjudicate similar cases.

Because there are precedents to follow! Don't blame the judges for "not daring" to act, because they are human too! They also have concerns and considerations!

At the same time, this arrangement also tells the audience how significant and important this first case is!

This also affected school bullying cases; the claim of persistent harm, which was previously raised, was quickly accepted by the court in this case.

I think this is probably one of Chen Mo's beautiful aspirations when making this movie.

The case of the mother-insulting woman in the movie is very different from the real case and is much bolder, but the judicial interpretation is really too perfect.

It's hard to believe that this idea came from a movie!
Perhaps the director wanted to express his aspirations through these examples, hoping that such representative guiding cases would appear in reality soon!
The final case in the movie, a case of heroism, is also a source of pain for countless people.

Since the "to help or not to help" incident, acts of bravery have become an extremely sensitive term for many people. Mentioning acts of bravery will make people laugh and ask if you own a mine.
In the film, Mu Jun, when so many people were watching but only pointing and whispering and no one stepped forward to help, chose to step forward. But what was the result?
The result was excessive self-defense, intentional injury, and a prison sentence!
This outcome is undoubtedly heartbreaking!

The silence in this scene is left blank, which I think is also a beautiful vision of the director. In cases of legitimate self-defense, the real-life case of the mother-insulting case, the second instance reversal is already a huge step forward, so what about acts of bravery?
This is another old topic, but a new direction!
The law should not yield to illegality; it should make the cost of crime higher for bad people, not make the cost of crime higher for good people.

The law is not omnipotent, but it can empower the weak at the most crucial moments.

The cases of insulting one's mother, acts of bravery, and fighting back against school bullying are truly carefully selected, each one undoubtedly touching a raw nerve with everyone!

I hope there will be more and more movies like this, and I hope this movie can, like "Dying to Survive," push things in a positive direction!
It's worth mentioning the characters in the movie.

Fan Binbin plays a female lawyer, Zhao Liying plays a prosecutor, and there are several public prosecutors and judges in the case.

Humans have seven emotions and six desires, and the movie also shows this. Actually, at the beginning, I was very worried that this movie would be made into a mainstream, glorious and righteous movie.

But it didn't turn out that way.

The film portrays the prosecutor in the case of the mother's insult in a very objective and realistic way.

It neither beautifies nor uglifies.

He showed sympathy for Yu Hao, but at the same time he was also responsible for his job.

He had his own ideas. Although those people were criminals and suspected of committing crimes, they also had human rights!
That's absolutely right!
Just as lawyers defend murderers, so do prosecutors.

Because they also have this right.

The judges, too, were not portrayed as perfect figures of virtue and righteousness. Instead, through a meeting, their true nature was revealed to everyone.

They also have concerns, they also have personal feelings; they are not AI and cannot be completely objective.

But this is the truth!
Article 20 of the Criminal Law, at that time, was gentle, like a mother's voice, holding your frightened hand and soothing your trembling. Yes, the law has always been there, and it always will be. Perhaps sometimes it strays from the right path, sometimes it gets blocked by mud and sand, but its ceaseless flow always moves forward. The dawn is just ahead; please move forward fearlessly, even though the road to finding legal truth will never be smooth.

(End of this chapter)