Are emotions and law really contradictory? How do you look at love and law?

Fa cannot be controlled by individual emotions, and Fa is the consensus of people based on common emotions. It is to regulate people's emotions, so in front of the law, there must be a rational side. It is necessary to have a conscience that will be touched and have good legal literacy.

As a lawyer, we should take the law as the criterion and look at social issues from the perspective of the law. Give up your children's affection. Hehe.

Take the law as the principle and the situation as the basis.

Law and human affection are two different conceptsSome people think that the law is ruthless and there is no human feeling, then this kind of thinking is too absolute.

The relationship between law and human affection is not completely contradictory, nor is it a black and white relationship.

Law is formed in the process of social and economic development, and in the process of social development, there are always some unruly people and things that need something to restrain them, and this forms the law.

There are also people who say that the law is nothing more than human feelings. The law is a standardized human affection, a universal binding human affection for the purpose of maintaining the steady development of society.

The law is the product of the development of human society, but once the law is formed, it cannot be changed at will because of human feelings, it has become a system, a rule, a norm, everyone must abide by it, and it cannot be surpassed by human feelings.

On the other hand, while abiding by the law, we must also respect human feelings, so that the society can have warmth everywhere.

Therefore, the relationship between law and human affection is not contradictory, nor is it a complementary relationship, but both have their specific form and value.

There is an old Chinese saying that the law does not tolerate mercy, which means that the law is very important and cannot be constrained by emotion.

First, we are a country under the rule of law, and governing the country according to the law is the foundation of our country, so the law is sacred and inviolable, and emotions cannot be greater than the law.

Second, the law exists objectively, and emotions are active, if the feelings are greater than the law, then there is no fairness at all, and the society will be chaotic.

Third, emotions are irrational and constantly changing, and what changes cannot override what is unchanging.

Love is greater than the law, the law is greater than the law, the statement is actually not quite right, not very objective, all of them only express the relationship between the love and the law from a certain angle, but there is no comprehensive and objective expression of the relationship between the two, especially when the reader does not enter the context of the expressor, it will be understood as "the law is always greater than the feeling" or "the love is always greater than the law", and the love and the law are absolutely opposed. In general, love and law are actually mutually understanding, absorbing each other, and developing each other, taking theft as an example, stealing is morally a villain's behavior, the gentleman is shameless, has been morally condemned, and is legally prohibited by administrative law and criminal law, and the two understand each other; Theft by relatives is morally shameful and in accordance with the provisions of the criminal law, but it can also be punished.

However, if we insist on ranking law and emotion and governing the country according to law, we can only say that law precedes emotion, and the basis for this proposition is that law can be used by emotion, or that law leaves room for the application of morality. The law delimits the sphere of inviolable law within a certain scope, but it also delimits a certain scope to grant the rule of reason. For example, in the criminal law, an inviolable field is given in the criminal law as to whether it is enough to commit a crime, but it leaves room for reasonableness for the culpability after the crime, and the exemption of guilt, the reduction of guilt, and the light responsibility of guilt are all concrete manifestations.

And if there is a conflict between law and situation, it must be that law is greater than situation, because within the scope of legal adjustment, it can only be bound by the will of law, and reason must be transformed into legal reason before it can be accepted by law, otherwise the direct application of reason will impact the basic rules of social governance in a modern country ruled by law and enter the rule of man.

The occurrence of the Lu Yong case cited by the subject has indeed caused a certain dilemma in the criminal law and impacted the legitimacy of the criminal law, and the professional point is expressed as "the conflict between the formal logic and the substantive judgment of the application of the criminal law". After quietly talking about such a criminal dilemma, we do not directly apply the reason, but consider why it is not justified to do so, and how to amend the legal theory to make such a thing legitimate. Reasonableness is a kind of value orientation, a kind of guiding light, which provides the goal of substantive justice for the formal justice of jurisprudence, but reasonableness is always an auxiliary role, and we can only turn reasonableness into legal reason to exonerate Lu Yong, which is what we often call substantive explanation, purpose interpretation, and interpretation of the law with emotion.

As for the statement of the public security that the subject is angry about, in fact, as a law enforcement officer, he does not have a large understanding of legal principles, because, note, he is not a judicial person! He doesn't need to think about whether a person is guilty of a crime or not! He is not a judge or a prosecutor, he only needs to consider that a person's behavior may constitute a crime, and if it may constitute a crime, he will arrest it, and whether it really constitutes a crime will be handed over to the procuratorial organ for inspection and investigation, which is his institutional function.