Elemental Intelligent Trial Model for Justifiable Defense Cases

Clearly defining the limits of defense to awaken the 'dormant' system of justifiable defense is crucial for addressing the significant challenge in judicial practice: the difficulty in recognizing and the rigidity in applying defense. Through on-site visits to 27 courts and procuratorates in 11 provinces, the research identified four core challenges in judicial practice: rigid standards for recognition; the significant drawbacks of result-oriented theories; a large number of non-statutory factors influencing individual case judgments; and the lack of a unified standard for determining limits, with significant differences in the elements of judgment among the 27 courts. Quantitative research plays a crucial supporting role in qualitative research. Based on this, the concept of quantitative research is proposed, using the Logistic model and the CART algorithm to systematically identify numerous non-statutory factors. By processing 507 data sets from the Judgments Online and extensive judicial field research materials, a model database is established, summarizing and categorizing 21 elements across three major dimensions for determining defense limits. The AIS-ISS score, the degree of bodily harm score, and other quantification rules are used to assess the consequences of damage. The Logistic model and decision tree model are employed to measure the frequency of defense limit-related elements in individual cases. An innovative comprehensive quantification model is constructed to obtain the adjudication weights of each factor, forming a scoring system for the determination of justifiable defense limits. The data results confirm the conclusions of the preliminary research, indicating that the 9 widely applied practical elements are not explicitly defined statutory elements. Due to the high risk of defensive weapons, the rigid element of over-defense is prevalent in practice. Based on the model data, a defense limit judgment mechanism is established, along with legal principles and rules for this mechanism, to address the challenges of preliminary research. By qualitatively assessing the situation between defense and infringement, specific case facts are identified for each element's judgment. The comparative scoring criteria derived from the comprehensive quantitative model are used to assist in the' defense-infringement' comparison results. The weight order and ratio scoring of 21 defense limit elements are defined according to the variable ranking scoring table. This process involves identifying and evaluating each element, achieving a comparative and strength comparison of the defense and infringement sides, providing a scientific and convenient tool for judicial authorities in case adjudication.