Moral Pressure and Judicial Response Behind Criminal Justice: A Quasinatural Experiment Based on Justifiable Self-Defense Trials in China

Moral judgment is an integral part of judicial adjudication. If courts disregard the moral concerns of the public, their judgments can easily spark moral controversy. This article examines the moral considerations underlying judicial adjudication, analyzing the moral pressures on justice, the ways justice responds, and the boundaries between moral considerations and legal rules. In China, moral disputes are particularly pronounced in cases involving justifiable self-defense. This article conducts a quasinatural experiment using such cases as samples. The findings are as follows: First, there is a phenomenon known as the “result-only theory” in the trials of justifiable self-defense in China, which significantly contributes to the controversy in these cases. Second, in response to the moral pressures surrounding self-defense, the judiciary has begun to address moral claims, often employing a consequentialist approach. Third, while legal rules fundamentally determine the nature of legal reasoning in justifiable self-defense trials, moral considerations mainly guide the severity of the sentencing outcomes. Additionally, we must be aware of the potential risks associated with judicial responses to moral demands and seek ways to mediate these risks throughout the process.