The Defense Of Self Defense

In addition, there are also many defenses that are sexually based, such as battered women’s syndrome, in which a woman is abused by her spouse so much that she ends up killing him because she finds that there is absolutely no other alternative, and nobody to talk to or get help from. Another defense is sexual abuse syndrome, which can also be linked to rape trauma syndrome, which was discovered in 1974. This defense claims that sexual abuse

Define self-defense? Self-defense is when someone protects them self from harm way. In the novel of The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton, Johnny Cade has been carrying a concealed weapon on him everytime he went outside. When he and Ponyboy Curtis walk down the streets they were ambushed by Socs. When Bob, the reason why Johnny is carrying a weapon, decides to drown his friend, out of self-defense Johnny stabbed Bob. Johnny was still innocent because he stabbed Bob due to self-defense, to scare off the other Soc, and to save Ponyboy from drowning.

The article “Shootings Test Limits of New Self-Defense Law” by Ralph Blumenthal tells the story of Joe Horn, a man in Texas, who shot two men in what he claimed was self-defense under the recently instated “castle doctrine.”

Other than a bodyguard or a law enforcement officer at one's side twenty-four hours a day, the most effective deterrent to criminal attack is the criminal's fear that the prospective victim is armed and prepared to defend themselves (Nisbet 14). Courts have ruled that there is no constitutional fight to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen, which means that police have no duty to protect the individual citizen (Long 55).

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).

Stand your Ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense without the duty to retreat when faced with a reasonable perceived threat. When Stand your Ground laws were advocated in Florida and other states, their proponents marketed them as a reestablishment of a natural right, arguing “the duty to retreat has not always been a part of the common law”. The historical context may be misleading, allowing self-defense only when reasonably necessary, and a duty to retreat when attacked outside one’s home. The National Rifle Association seek to influence the Stand your Ground Law as a away for people to protect themselves. Though opponents who were against this law worried it would encourage the use of deadly force. For example, a 2004 case James Workman, a seventy-seven year old retiree who was sleeping in his RV, where an intruder busted into the trailer. James shot the intruder and had to wait months for the verdict. Prosecutors then decided the shots he

However, it could be argued that offenders may abuse this defence as a means of having their sentence reduced. A problem with the use of this defence by offenders is that their victim is not present to dispute their version of events. Unless there are witnesses to the events that take place it is difficult to refute the statements of the offender that they were provoked. The defence may also (in the absence of the victim) denigrate the character of the victim in their attempts to paint him/her as someone who is highly likely to cause a loss of control by an ordinary person. In criminal cases the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and in the absence of a witness to the crime it is difficult to prove that the offender was not provoked such that an ordinary person would lose control and in turn form the intent to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.

“The lawful defense of such person or of another, when the person using force reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

Defense of others is when someone uses reasonable force to protect another person or property from harm. This defense is used when an individual steps in to keep the victim from being injured, or to keep property from being injured, destroyed or stolen. Reasonable force is also a key element of this defense.

As a result, some academics and legal commentators believe that the defence of loss of control should be abolished, including Professor Jeremy Horder. He argued that killing in anger is no more worthy of a defence than killing as a result of greed or envy. (Jeremy Horder Provocation and Responsibility (1992, OUP). But we must not allow our emotions to over-ride our legal reasoning. Taking into consideration the mandatory life sentencing for murder, defendants with mitigating circumstances to kill will be unfairly locked away for life if defence for loss of control is abolished.

As written in the article “Self-Defense Laws: Should States Expand Self-Defense Laws to Legally Protect the Use of Deadly Force, Even in Public Places?” “Those new laws have caused a stir among many gun control advocates, who argue that they will create a "Wild West" mentality in which people will settle disputes with gunfire and bloodshed” (Self-Defense). They may not totally be wrong. All it could take for someone is a wrong action or few choice words, and a person with a short fuse could be set off. This type of action is not right and is not justifiable by any means; It should strictly be only used in a life-or-death situation. Not because someone called somebody else

Eagen was in a situation where his instructor, and possibly other students, were in danger. Each state and the federal government allow for the right to self-defense. However, states have developed rules which define when self-defense is allowed. Factors that must be examined are the imminent nature of the threat, reasonable nature of the threat, proportional response, duty to retreat versus stand your ground, and beyond.

In order for the Battered Woman Syndrome claim to be used expert testimony is essential. This is needed in order to give matter to the argument that justifies what the woman did. It is also needed because there needs to be an explanation of the Syndrome to juries, in away they can understand. Learned helplessness and other scientific knowledge need to be explained in order for the jury to understand. To understand what the woman is going through, what she was thinking at the time she committed the crime, and that she did it (murder her abuser) it because she honestly felt that it was the only solution in getting the “cycle of violence”. First, the women must show that she is able to prove either through her own testimony or through the testimony of other witnesses that she is a “battered woman”. She must then provide proof that the expert who she has chosen is qualified in the field. Some think that the defense based on Battered Woman Syndrome is an insanity defense, because of the experts who are brought in to explain the characteristics of the syndrome, psychologists or psychiatrists. Also because the word “syndrome” is often used to describe mental illnesses. “First her husband, now the courts”, is what one of the signs read at a march during

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.

Provocation is a defence which reduces the offence of murder to manslaughter. Even though there may be an intent to kill it can be deemed that, in some circumstances, it is not appropriate to be classified as murder. It is not saying the killing is justified or excused. What it is saying is that the circumstances, the response (which resulted in the killing) is within the normal range of behaviour of what can be expected of the ordinary person and that it represents an acknowledgement of human frailty. This is the traditional view of the law.[1] When the penalty for murder was death, often provocation was a way of reducing the punishment from the death penalty to life imprisonment. In jurisdictions where there