Martini Defence Of Property

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

In the case of Loureen from “POOF!,” I do believe that her actions were justified for a number of reasons. First of all, her husband abused her terribly, illustrated when Florence recalls that Samuel, Loureen’s husband, nearly took her eye out just for changing the TV channel. Now, many people would say that if one is in an abusive relationship, the victim always has the option of escaping said relationship. However, many victims of domestic abuse may be dependent on their counterparts, as Loureen was with Samuel, so escaping was never an option because she would have been unable to support herself and her friends, who are also victims of domestic abuse, would be unable to help her while they are in their own extreme situations. In addition,

The Law Commission had proposed removing the loss of control criteria completely. This was because it was recognised that women in abusive relationships may kill from a combination of anger fear, frustration and a sense of desperation. The government decided not to follow this proposal. D must prove loss of self-control. The only concession is that loss of control need not be sudden. It is probable that some abused women will not be able to use the defence.

When prosecuting criminal domestic violence cases too many officers constructed their entire case only on statements made by the victim. However, “victims of domestic violence are more likely than victims of other violent crime to recant or refuse to cooperate in prosecutorial efforts” (Breitenbach, 2008, p. 1256). Officers must consider that victims of domestic violence may refuse to testify because of fear of retaliation, intimidation, financial dependence, emotional attachment, and/or because they reunited with the batterer. If the victim refused to testify during court, their statement against the abuser becomes hearsay evidence. Several recent cases have had a huge influence on how those statements and hearsay evidence may be

N., Tomsich, E., Gover, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2016)). As Mrs. Whitfield was going through college she would have various flash backs of her childhood. 25% of women and 15% of men have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) before the age of 25. It was often said that college students who have been involved in DV struggles academically, transfer institutions, or just drop out completely. Mrs. Whitfield would be labeled as a victim-offender because she was once a victim and now she is the offender. “Research on the victim-offender overlap observes this trend across delinquency, property crimes, and violent offenses, with the relationship between victimization and offending being strongest for violent crimes, particularly homicide” (Jennings et al., 2012). This would explain why Mrs. Whitfield had expressed that she killed her ex-husband because she caught him cheating and it was with a white woman. She witnessed her mother killing her father because he had cheated on her with a colleague. It has been shown in a study that females were offending equal to or greater than males. Physical maltreatment increases the risk for violence later on in life. Children who have witness and/or experienced the direct benefits of

In Lavallee, the accused was exonerated at trial of murder by a judge and jury. She had murdered her husband after a disagreement. Their association incorporated physical violence and continuous squabbles. The then Justice (Wilson) mandated a rethinking of the ordinary man principle in the framework of female violence. She stated, "If it strains credulity to imagine what the 'ordinary man' would do in the position of a battered spouse, it is probably because men do not typically find themselves in that situation. Some women do, however 4. Via Walker's criteria for the battered woman syndrome, Justice Wilson made obvious how a battered woman

Because woman strike back at their abusers; battered woman’s syndrome has been used in courts as a plea when their actions were believed to be in self-defense (Hodell et. al, 2011). And when a battered woman kills her abuser, they must convince a jury of the rationality of her lethal actions to successfully advance a plea of self-defense (Schuller et al., 2004). When jurors believe that under the given circumstances a defendant’s behavior was justified under the law a jury can find a defendant not guilty by reason of self-defense (Hodell et al., 2011). Recent research in case’s of self-defense suggest that when using the battered women’s syndrome certain characteristics of the defendant could interfere with the accused sentencing (Russell, Ragatz, & Kraus, 2012).

In a myriad of the states, Castle Doctrine is self-defense in many instances. One example is when Joe Horn, a 61-year-old retiree,

The law today is far too lenient upon men who abuse and kill their wives and claim ‘provocation’ to lessen the charge. Women are constantly beaten by their partners and some kept prisoners in their own home and eventually killed. In the case R.v. Thornton the defendant was a battered wife who killed her husband. Her husband after threatening her, the husband fell asleep, she went to the kitchen and returned with a knife stabbing him while he was asleep.

On the other hand, she started to eat less, and used more medications that were out of date, as she needed to cope with emotional, and physical hurt from her husband. She lost interest in life, therefore became withdrawn. Provided that, she was also intimidated, and harassed. For example, her husband threatened to not let her see their child, therefore abusers threaten the victim, her husband would also prevent other individual’s from visiting the house.

In any scenario involving repeated domestic violence, the victim of the abuse ought to have the right to defend himself from his oppressor. Is the victim supposed to allow his abuser to violate his rights because he must be cautious not to harm his oppressor? Of course not! In cases of domestic violence the victims must have the right of self-defense. Victims of domestic violence very frequently lose their lives. According to The Domestic Violence Network, "A recently published study of murder-homicides in North Carolina between 1988 and 1992 reported that in 86 percent of the cases the woman was murdered by her current or former partner. 18 Of those women who experienced a history of domestic violence, nearly half had previously sought legal protection from the murderer through an arrest warrant or restraining order. l9 Moreover, in nearly half those cases, the injuries extended to the woman's children, or those of the murderer." 20 Clearly victims' of domestic violence

Although, when people think of self defense they tend to think that means killing someone if they were to break into their home, but the castle doctrine specifies that, a person may not use deadly force upon another person unless: he or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson or any forcible felony (Senate). You may use excessive force if a person who illegally enters, remains after illegally entering, or attempts to illegally enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle legally occupied by such person. A resident does not have to retreat from his or her home or vehicle when a burglar is breaking and entering.

On the original hearing, Ahluwalia was convicted of murder as the law on provocation required the loss of self control to be immediate, not premeditated and this may have been the case as the defendant waited for her husband to sleep before murdering him. However, the law has since developed and provocation now recognises 'battered woman's syndrome' and the slow burn effect it may cause. If this is the case, then surely a defendant in such a situation cannot face the full wrath of 'fault' when much of what surrounded the killing was not out of their choice. Even though the actus reus and mens rea in this case, and also similar cases of R v Duffy 1949 and R v Thornton 1992, were present, the law's introduction of a Domestic Violence Bill is perhaps confirmation that the concept of fault can only be appropriately applied when the full circumstances are looked at. This signifies the importance of defences, as it is here that the law can decide whether or not a person is to blame for their actions and to what extent it was their fault that the actus reus and mens rea were

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.

This theory believes that an individual will choose criminal behavior by “free will” after weighing out the rewards and benefits verses the consequences or punishment for their behavior (Gosselin, 2005). In essence, the abuser will choose domestic violence as a means to the end since they feel control and domination is necessary in order to coexist within personal relationships. On the other hand, if the offender believes the risks outweigh the ability achieve personal gain, control, or satisfaction, he or she may choose not to commit the abuse (Schacter, et al., 2009). I believe this theory explains the restraint an abuser displays when they carefully select the type of abuse administered to their victims and the length of time they choose to enact the abuse. Most abusers will not openly abuse their victims in front of others in order to deter detection. Detection is not an option for most abusers, since they are familiar with the consequences of their actions.