| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | |
A Battered Woman | |
<
< | Limitations on punishment and availability of excuse, which should provide key safeguards in the criminal system, can instead pose major obstacles to the administration of justice. The decision in _State v. Norman_ illustrates two problems: first, a logical problem with implications of principle and rationale, and second, a problem of unjustified punishment. In Norman, the defendant was a victim with battered woman syndrome, who had experienced years of physical abuse by her husband, the victim. The abuse culminated in a severe beating that led her to cause the police, who refused to arrest him unless she filed a complaint, which she was too scared to do. She tried to kill herself, and when paramedics came to her aid, her husband intervened, insisting that they let her die. The defendant tried to sign up for welfare (so she would no longer have to prostitute herself, which her husband forced her to do), and endured beating and cigarette burns at her husband’s hands. The defendant then shot her sleeping husband to death. On appeal, the court decided that she was not entitled to a jury charge of self defense. | >
> | Limitations on punishment and availability of excuse, which should provide key safeguards in the criminal system, can instead pose major obstacles to the administration of justice. The decision in _State v. Norman_ illustrates two problems: first, a logical problem with implications of principle and rationale; and second, a problem of unjustified punishment. In Norman, the defendant suffered battered woman syndrome, resulting from years of physical abuse by her husband, the deceased. The abuse culminated in a severe beating that led her to call the police, who refused to arrest the husband unless she filed a complaint. She feared her husband so much that she was too afraid to do so. So She attempted suicide instead. When paramedics came to her aid, her husband intervened, insisting that they let her die. The defendant tried to sign up for welfare (her husband forced her into prostituion and she desperately wanted to get out), and endured beating and cigarette burns at her husband’s hands. The defendant then shot her sleeping husband to death. On appeal, the court rejected her claim of self defense. | | | A Logical Problem | |
<
< | In North Carolina, a defendant may have a jury consider acquittal on the grounds of perfect self defense when, at the time of the killing, it appeared to the defendant and she believed it to be necessary to kill the victim to save herself from “imminent death or great bodily harm.” The court, however, found that no such imminence was present, such that the defendant had no defense. The opinion also provided a definition of “imminent” as a term indicating “immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.” The decision, then, in endorsing this definition, espoused an interpretation that focused on the danger being instantly met. Strange, then, that the opinion then went on to focus on the nature of the danger being instant in fact. It would make more sense, if “imminent” is to be defined by how instantly a danger must be responded to, that a standard of granting the self defense excuse would then focus on the defendant, and her perception of the necessity of her own imminent action, rather than the temporal closeness of the dangerous attack. Rather than focus on what actions he would take at that particular moment, the inquiry should be into the immediate necessity of the defendant’s actions. The question should have at least gone to the jury, who could have found that the defendant believed her instantaneous action was needed to meet the danger her victim presented. While this standard would not extend the defense to any defendant who thought that death was inevitable at some indeterminate future point, it would extend it to those for whom the necessity to act in that moment was essential for survival. | >
> | In North Carolina, a jury may acquit a defendant on the grounds of perfect self defense when, at the time of the killing, the defendant believed that it was necessary to kill the victim to save herself from “imminent death or great bodily harm.” The court, however, found that no such imminence was present. Thus the defendant had no defense. The opinion also defined “imminent” as “immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.” The decision, then, in endorsing this definition, espoused an interpretation that focused on the danger being instantly met; however, the opinion strangely focused on the nature of the danger being instant in fact. A more sensible approach in granting the self defense, if “imminent” is to be defined by how instantly a danger must be responded to, is to focus on the defendant. The inquiry should be into the defendant's perception of the necessity of her own imminent action, rather than the actions that the husband would take at that particular moment. The question should have at least gone to the jury, who could have found that the defendant believed her instantaneous action was necessary to meet the danger the abusive husband presented. While this standard would not extend the defense to any defendant who thought that death was inevitable at some indeterminate future point, it would extend it to those for whom the necessity to act in that moment was essential for survival. | | | A Problem of Underlying Principle |
|