Recently, I watched a movie called "Secret Visitor", and due to the professional sensitivity of legal professionals, I began to think about an interesting plot in it: the male host's son died in a school bus accident, and the school bus driver was found to have no legal responsibility after trial. The male host couldn't accept this reality, so he took the school bus driver who had been in a coma for a long time to his basement. When the driver woke up, he told him that he was wanted for legal responsibility for the car accident. The driver was afraid of going to jail, so he asked the host to take him in. The host agreed to let him stay in the basement, but made him think about turning himself in. The male host collected all the TV and newspapers at home, keeping the driver informed of the outside situation. In this way, the driver has been cheated and spent three years in the basement of the man's house until he learned the truth later.

The driver has been found innocent and could have had a normal life and breathed freely after waking up from a coma. However, the male host was wanted for deceiving him and urging him to surrender due to hatred. Although the male host did not restrict his personal freedom, and the driver could choose to leave the basement, the male host's lies led the driver to voluntarily hide in the basement for fear of prison.

Does the man's behavior constitute a crime of illegal detention?

To analyze whether the male host is guilty, I think two issues should be addressed first:

1、 Does the driver stay in the basement for three years have a causal relationship with the behavior of the male host

The male host did not let the driver stay in the basement, but urged him to surrender. The male owner thought that as long as the driver surrendered himself and pleaded guilty, the judicial authority could convict him. Obviously, this is a misunderstanding, and I won't discuss it in detail here. Staying in the basement is a voluntary act of the driver, and it is a plea to the male host for admission. The male host reluctantly agrees, and the male host often urges him to surrender.

The plot of "Secret Visitor"

On the surface, the driver's presence in the basement is voluntary. But who wants to stay in the basement for three years instead of living a free and normal life? The male host deceived the driver with a wanted person, causing fear for the driver. The driver has also weighed the pros and cons and believes that staying in the basement is better than going to jail. This is a helpless choice, not a voluntary choice with free will.

Who caused the driver to misunderstand? What does the driver have to choose to hide in the basement? Obviously, all this comes from the lie of the male host! It is precisely because of the lie of the male owner that completely changes the understanding of the driver, causing the driver to hide in the basement for the purpose of avoiding legal punishment, completely losing his personal freedom. Moreover, the male host does not install a TV or buy newspapers in his home, which gives the driver no opportunity to understand the real situation outside and is constantly deceived by this lie. Without the behavior of the male owner lying, there would be no result of the driver losing his personal freedom. Therefore, there is a causal relationship between the driver's loss of personal freedom and the cheating behavior of the male host.

2、 Can deception become a criminal means of illegal detention

Our common crime of illegal detention is to deprive victims of their personal freedom by means of violence or coercion, and it is rare to find such a peaceful way of deception. Does a lie deprive someone of their personal freedom for three years constitute a crime of illegal detention?

The plot of "Secret Visitor"

First, let's take a look at the provisions of the articles. Article 238 of the Criminal Law stipulates that "Whoever unlawfully detains another person or unlawfully deprives him of his personal freedom by any other means shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, public surveillance, or deprivation of political rights. If there are circumstances of assault or insult, he shall be given a heavier punishment." From the perspective of the legal provisions, there are no specific requirements for criminal means. Among them, "illegally depriving others of their personal freedom by other means" is a highly inclusive provision that provides an open and broad understanding of the criminal means of illegal detention. Moreover, beating and insulting are circumstances of heavier punishment, further confirming that violent means such as beating are not the "standard" for the crime of illegal detention. Therefore, the legal provisions do not exclude deception as a criminal means of illegal detention.

Secondly, from the perspective of legislative purposes, the legal benefit protected by the crime of illegal detention is human freedom of movement, and any person who illegally deprives others of their personal freedom should be subject to criminal punishment. In the vast world, which encompasses everything, there are not only coercive means such as violence or coercion that can deprive one of one's personal freedom. Like other means, it is even easier to achieve the effect of deprivation of personal freedom. Therefore, legislation that does not restrict the means of detention is precisely a comprehensive protection of personal freedom based on a full understanding of social reality.

The plot of "Secret Visitor"

While pondering whether the plot of this movie constitutes a crime, I am also pondering the solidification of my legal thinking. We are all accustomed to illegal detention methods such as violence or coercion, and have deep-rooted stereotypes about a certain crime. We have a stereotyped or stereotyped understanding of a certain crime in our minds. When encountering a new situation, the first reaction is negative. However, when we re analyze and judge in combination with the law, we find that legislators do not restrict our thinking, but rather we restrict ourselves. The longer and more experienced you are in legal work, the easier it is to be trapped by inherent experience and stop thinking and solving problems retroactively. Just as some old lawyers always analyze cases based on experience, comparing and predicting current cases based on a certain case they have handled. To put it bluntly, this is a manifestation of rigid thinking, lack of learning, and lack of progress.

As I approach the end of my 20 years of legal work, this article is a reminder to myself that I should always maintain my desire for employment, exploration spirit, and tireless learning, so that I can always maintain active thinking and inexhaustible motivation.

(The pictures in this article are from the internet, for reference only!)