Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:14 pm
Time: 10:14 pm
Results for self-defense
8 results foundAuthor: Cheng, Cheng Title: Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine Summary: Since Florida adopted the first castle doctrine law in 2005, more than 20 other states have passed similar self-defense laws that justify the use of deadly force in a wider set of circumstances. Elements of these laws include removing the duty to retreat in places outside of one’s home, adding a presumption of reasonable belief of imminent harm necessitating a lethal response, and removing civil liability for those acting under the law. This paper examines whether aiding self-defense in this way deters crime or, alternatively, escalates violence. To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that murder and non-negligent manslaughter are increased by 7 to 9 percent. This could represent either increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal situations. Regardless, the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 36p. Source: NBER Working Paper 18134: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2012 at http://www.nber.org/papers/w18134.pdf?new_window=1 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18134.pdf?new_window=1 Shelf Number: 125387 Keywords: Castle DoctrineDeterrenceHomicideLegislationSelf-DefenseViolent Crime |
Author: McClellan, Chandler B. Title: Stand Your Ground Laws and Homicides Summary: Since 2005, eighteen states have passed legislation that has extended the right to self-defense, with no duty to retreat, to places a person has a legal right to be, and several other states are debating to introduce similar legislation. The controversies surrounding these laws have captured the nation’s attention recently. Despite significant implications that they may have on public safety, there has been little empirical investigation of the impact of these laws on crime and victimization. In this paper, we examine how Stand Your Ground laws that extend the right to self-defense to areas outside the home affect homicides using monthly data from the U.S. Vital Statistics. We identify the impact of these laws by exploiting the variation in the effective date of these laws across states. Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.39 and 7.44 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks. Our results are robust to a number of specifications and unlikely to be driven entirely by the killings of assailants. Taken together, our findings raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make America safer. Details: Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: NBER Working Paper No. 18187: Accessed June 26, 2012 at: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w18187?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.nber.org/papers/w18187?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw Shelf Number: 125397 Keywords: HomicidesSelf-DefenseStand Your Ground Laws |
Author: Roth, Lenny Title: Provocation and Self-Defence in Intimate Partner and Sexual Advance Homicides Summary: The partial defence of provocation [2]: Provocation is a partial defence to murder. If the prosecution or jury accepts the defence, it results in a conviction for manslaughter instead of murder. The defence developed in English courts in the 16th and 17th centuries. At that time, the death penalty was mandatory for persons convicted of murder. In addition, it was considered virtuous for a man of honour to respond with controlled violence to certain forms of offensive behaviour. If he overreacted to some degree, but not disproportionately, such overreaction was considered to be natural human frailty. The current statutory version of the defence in NSW applies where: (a) the act causing death was the result of a loss of self-control on the part of the accused that was induced by any conduct of the deceased towards or affecting the accused; and (b) that conduct of the deceased was such as could have induced an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far lost self control as to have formed an intent to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm upon, the deceased. Debate about the provocation defence [3]: Several criticisms have been made about the defence including that provocation and a loss of self-control is an inappropriate basis for a partial defence; that the defence is gender-biased; that the test for the defence is conceptually confused and difficult for juries to understand; and that, as there is no longer a mandatory sentence for murder, provocation should be taken into account in sentencing. Concerns have, in particular, been expressed about the acceptance of the defence in cases where men have killed their female partners; and in cases where men have killed in response to a non-violent sexual advance by a homosexual person. Some argue that the provocation defence should be reformed, and others, that it should be abolished. Arguments for retaining the defence include that provoked killers are not 'murderers'; that juries should decide questions of culpability; that abolishing the defence would lead to increased sentences and uncertainty, and that it would also increase community dissatisfaction with sentencing. Statistics on use of provocation defence [4]: A report by the Judicial Commission of NSW contains data on the use of provocation in NSW in the period from 1990 to 2004. The report found that provocation was raised in 115 cases and it was successful in 75 of these cases. Other findings included that: · there were 11 male offenders that successfully relied on provocation in the context of infidelity or the breakdown of an intimate relationship; · there were 3 male offenders that successfully relied on provocation in the context of an alleged violent confrontation with his female partner; · there were 11 offenders who successfully relied on provocation in the context of an alleged homosexual advance; and · there were 10 cases where a woman successfully relied on provocation after killing her violent male partner. Kate Fitz-Gibbon conducted a review of convictions for manslaughter on the basis of provocation in the NSW Supreme Court in the period from January 2005 to December 2012. This review identified 15 cases where the provocation defence was successful. It was noted that five of these cases involved a non-violent confrontation. In three of these cases the victim was the current or estranged female partner of the male defendant; and in two of these cases, the killing resulted from an allegation of infidelity by the defendant. Recent provocation defence cases in NSW [5]: A recent provocation defence case is Singh v R. In that case, Mr Singh had moved to Australia on a spousal visa, his wife having already moved to Australia on a study visa. Their relationship began to deteriorate from the time of his arrival in Australia. During an argument, Mr Singh killed his wife, strangling her and cutting her throat at least eight times with a Stanley knife. According to the offender, during their confrontation, his wife had slapped him several times, and told him that she had never loved him, that she only loved another man, and that she would make sure he was kicked out of the country. The offender was charged with murder but the jury convicted him of manslaughter on the basis of provocation. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. Provocation reform proposals in NSW [6]: In 1997, the NSW Law Reform Commission published a report on provocation, which recommended retaining the defence but reformulating it. The Commission rejected the option of specifically excluding the operation of the defence in cases where men killed female partners after a relationship breakdown, or in cases of killings in response to homosexual advances. It also rejected the option of removing the “loss of self-control” requirement in the defence to make it more available to women who kill their violent partners. In 1998, a Working Party published its report on killings in response to homosexual advances, which recommended amending the defence. The recommendations that were made by the Commission and the Working Party have not been implemented. Provocation reforms in other States [7]: In 2003, Tasmania became the first Australian jurisdiction to abolish the provocation defence. Since then, two other States have also abolished the defence: Victoria in 2005 and Western Australia in 2008. In Queensland, the defence was recently amended to reduce the scope of it being available to those who kill out of sexual possessiveness or jealousy. The Queensland Law Reform Commission had recommended amending, rather than abolishing, the defence but the mandatory life sentence for murder weighed heavily in coming to this conclusion. The Queensland Government has recently stated that, at this stage, it will not amend the defence to expressly exclude cases involving non-violent sexual advances. This is a reform that has been enacted in the ACT and Northern Territory. Provocation reforms in other countries [8]: The defence of provocation was abolished in New Zealand in 2009. In the United Kingdom, provocation was replaced in 2009 with a new partial defence known as "loss of control". This defence only applies if the defendant's loss of self-control had a "qualifying trigger". One of the triggers is that the loss of self-control was attributable to a thing done or said which constituted circumstances of an extremely grave character; and which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being wronged. However, "the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded". The other trigger is if the defendant's loss of self-control was due to the defendant's fear of serious violence from the victim or another person. In 2009, the Law Reform Commission of Ireland recommended retaining but reformulating the partial defence. Self-defence and excessive self-defence [9]: The defence of self-defence is a complete defence to murder. If the jury accepts the defence it results in an acquittal. Previously, the defence was defined by the common law. In 2001, the defence was codified in legislation in NSW. The defence applies if: (a) a person believed that their conduct was necessary to defend themself or another person; and (b) the person's conduct was a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them. In 2001, the partial defence of excessive self-defence was also reintroduced in NSW (as with the defence of provocation, this partial defence reduces murder to manslaughter). The partial defence of excessive self-defence applies if a person believed that their conduct was necessary to defend themself but this conduct was not to a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them. Self-defence and women who kill their violent partners [10]: Longstanding concerns have been held about the difficulties women face in relying on self-defence when they have killed male partners in the context of a prolonged period of domestic violence and for reasons of self-preservation. The difficulties have arisen, in part, because of the traditional association of self-defence with a one-off spontaneous encounter, such as a pub brawl. The legal test for self-defence has evolved over time and may be broad enough to accommodate women's experiences. The current provision does not require that the threat be imminent or that the response be proportionate. However, the application of the defence in this context is still problematic because these continue to be significant factors in determining whether the defence has been made out. In response to the difficulties that women have faced in relying on self-defence, defence lawyers have attempted to call expert evidence showing that a woman who killed her abusive partner was suffering from "battered woman syndrome". One part of this "syndrome" is that women find it difficult to break out of a cycle of violence because of "learned helplessness". In the 1998 decision of Osland v The Queen, the High Court affirmed that this evidence was admissible but Justice Kirby noted that the syndrome was controversial. More recently, reliance on the battered woman syndrome has been criticised, and researchers have called for an acceptance of expert evidence which places greater emphasis on the social realities of a woman's situation and which reflects the current state of knowledge about the dynamics of abusive relationships. The reintroduction of the partial defence of excessive self-defence may assist women who have killed their abusive partner but who cannot satisfy all of the elements of self-defence. However, a concern has been raised that the availability of this defence may prevent women from being acquitted on the basis of self-defence, due to the existence of an 'easy' middle option. A Judicial Commission of NSW study on partial defences found that between 2002 and June 2005, two women had successfully relied on the partial defence of excessive self-defence after killing their male partners. In both cases, the woman was under attack when she killed her partner. Self-defence reforms in other States [11]: Since 1987, most Australian jurisdictions have enacted new statutory provisions on the complete defence of self-defence. Some jurisdictions have also reintroduced the partial defence of excessive self defence. This paper focused on developments in three States: Victoria, Western Australia, and Queensland. Victoria (in 2005) and Western Australia (in 2008) both enacted new provisions on the complete defence of self-defence and they also both reintroduced the partial defence of excessive self-defence (in Victoria, this was achieved by enacting a new provision on "defensive homicide"). Victoria also introduced special provisions that apply when family violence is alleged. The provisions state that a person may have reasonable grounds for believing that their conduct was necessary to defend themself even if they were responding to harm that was not immediate, or their response involved the use of excessive force. The provisions also set out a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of evidence that might be relevant to determining whether the person had the requisite belief and whether there were reasonable grounds for the belief. The way in which the defensive homicide provision has operated in Victoria (being mainly used by men) has attracted criticism and it is currently under review. In Queensland, the provisions on self-defence have not been reformed but in 2011 a new partial defence to homicide was enacted: "killing for preservation in an abusive relationship". This implemented, in part, the recommendations by two academics, who were commissioned by the Attorney-General in 2009 to consider the development of a separate defence for battered persons who kill their abusers. The report by the academics noted that there was a strong preference from within the legal community for a separate defence rather than for reform of the general law of self-defence. The report also noted that there was insufficient support for a separate complete defence. Commentators have been critical of the new partial defence which, they say, is very similar to the defence of self-defence but leads to a different result. Self-defence reports in other countries [12]: There have been no legislative reforms to self-defence in other countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. Of these countries, only in New Zealand and Ireland has the relevant law reform commission considered the issue of self-defence for women who kill their violent partners. In 2001, the New Zealand Law Reform Commission recommended amending the law of self-defence to make it clear that there can be situations in which the use of force is reasonable where the danger is not imminent but is inevitable. A 2009 report by the Law Reform Commission of Ireland did not recommend any major reforms. National report on legal responses to family violence [13]: In October 2010, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the NSW Law Reform Commission jointly published a comprehensive report on family violence. One section of the report examined defences to homicide, including provocation and self-defence. The report made some general recommendations including: that governments should ensure that defences to homicide accommodate the experiences of family violence victims who kill; that governments should review their defences; and also that legislation should provide guidance about the potential relevance of family-violence related evidence in the context of a defence to homicide (along the lines of the Victorian model). Details: Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Research Services, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper No 5/2012: Accessed August 11, 2012 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf Shelf Number: 125970 Keywords: HomicidesIntimate Partner Violence (Australia)Provocation, Criminal LawRapeSelf-DefenseSexual Violence |
Author: Florida Stand Youth Ground Task Force Title: Final Report to Governors Task Force Summary: In the years since passage of the drastic revisions to Chapter 776 of the Florida Statute regarding the use of force in self-defense, Floridians have grappled with the tragic consequences of a arguably, ambiguous law which has shown demonstrable confusion within and among police departments, prosecuting offices and the courts. While commonly referred to as the “Stand Your Ground” law, the statutes have not simply helped law abiding citizens protect themselves from attack, but instead, have often been used as cover for the perpetrators of crimes. Each day that goes by without legislative action places innocent lives at stake. While the focus on public safety and the previously well-established principles of self defense are paramount to the Task Force’s review, the evaluation is also concerned with preventing operation of a system tantamount to lawlessness, where any person can, within a matter of seconds, render himself investigator, judge, jury and executioner, all in one. In a civilized society, governing institutions must provide all Floridians with grounds for confidence in the justice system. The work of the Task Force is geared to avoid extreme pendulum shifts, and to ensure the balance which provides all persons in Florida assurance in their safety and the rule of law. The Task Force’s recommendations are arranged in the following order: recommendation unanimously agreed to, consensus recommendations - which had significant debate and dissention, and one discussion item. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Stand Your Ground Task Force, 2012. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed March 5, 2013 at: http://senatorchrissmith.com/standyourground/finalreport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://senatorchrissmith.com/standyourground/finalreport.pdf Shelf Number: 127832 Keywords: HomicidesSelf-DefenseStand Your Ground Laws (Florida, U.S.) |
Author: Florida. Governor's Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection Title: Report of the Governor's Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection Summary: The Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection was established by Governor Rick Scott on March 22, 2012. Governor Scott appointed Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll as Chairwoman and Reverend R.B. Holmes, Jr. as Vice Chairman. The 19 member Task Force was comprised of a diverse group of people from across the state. The Task Force held public hearings, took public testimonies, solicited ideas, reviewed all matters related to the rights of Floridians to feel safe and secure in the state, and drafted a report to present to the Governor and the Legislature. After holding seven public meetings across the state, hearing from a broad array of relevant subject matter experts, and considering 16,603 pieces of correspondence, 711 phone calls, 64 comment cards, 160 public comments at Task Force meetings, and over 30 documents, the Task Force recommends the following: 1. The Task Force concurs with the core belief that all persons, regardless of citizenship status, have a right to feel safe and secure in our state. To that end, all persons who are conducting themselves in a lawful manner have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be. 2. The Task Force recommends the Legislature examine the term “unlawful activity” as used in Chapter 776, Florida Statutes and provide a statutory definition to provide clarity to all persons, regardless of citizenship status, and to law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the judiciary.* *Discussed definition of “unlawful activity” to give guiding language to the courts to ensure uniform application of the law with the intent to protect the innocent person. a) Task Force member State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle proposed the definition of “unlawful activity” should exclude noncriminal violations as defined in Section 775.08(3), Florida Statutes. b) Task Force member Judge Krista Marx proposed that the definition should include temporal proximity of the unlawful activity to the use of force. c) Task Force member Public Defender Stacy Scott proposed that the definition of “unlawful activity” should exclude some county and municipal ordinance violations. d) Task Force member Edna Canino proposed that the definition exclude citizenship status. The Task Force heard a number of examples related to the definition of “unlawful activity” used in Chapter 776, Florida Statutes. Questions were raised including whether the term applied to all unlawful activity including misdemeanors, ordinances, and minor traffic violations. Without a clear definition of the term “unlawful activity” the potential for inconsistent application of the law across the state may occur. Details: Tallahassee: Governor's Office, 2013. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Citizen-Safety-and-Protection-Task-Force-Report-FINAL.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Citizen-Safety-and-Protection-Task-Force-Report-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 127998 Keywords: Guns (Florida, U.S.)Self-DefenseStand Your Ground Laws |
Author: American Bar Association. National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws Title: A Review of the Preliminary Report & Recommendations Summary: In 2013, the National Task Force on Stand Your Ground Laws was convened by the American Bar Association entities identified below, to review and analyze the recently enacted Stand Your Ground laws in multiple states and their impact on public safety and the criminal justice system. The ABA sponsors of the Task Force include the Coalition on Racial & Ethnic Justice, the Center for Racial and Ethnic Diversity, the Commission of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession, Council for Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Educational Pipeline, the Section on Individual Rights & Responsibilities, the Criminal Justice Section, the Young Lawyer's Division, the Standing Committee on Gun Violence, and the Commission on Youth at Risk. The Task Force members are a diverse array of leaders from law enforcement, government, public and private criminal attorneys, public and private health, academic experts, and other legal and social science experts. Further, the Task Force's membership includes appointees from the above co-sponsoring ABA entities and strategic partners, including the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Urban Institute, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children. Additionally, the Task Force has an Advisory Committee of leading academic and other legal and social science experts as well as victims' rights advocates. The Task Force has conducted a comprehensive legal and multidisciplinary analysis of the impact of the Stand Your Ground laws, which have substantially expanded the bounds of self-defense law in over half of the jurisdictions in the United States. The study detailed herein is national in its scope and assess the utility of previous, current, and future laws in the area of self-defense across the United States. In examining and reporting on the potential effects Stand Your Ground laws may have on public safety, individual liberties, and the criminal justice system, the Task Force has: 1. Examined the provisions of Stand Your Ground statutes and analyzed the potential for their misapplication and their risk of injustice from multiple perspectives, e.g. the individual's right to exercise self-defense, the victim's rights, and of the rights of the criminally accused. 2. Analyzed the degree to which racial or ethnic bias impacts Stand Your Ground laws. Particular attention was paid to the role implicit bias. First, the analysis focuses on how implicit bias may impact the perception of a deadly threat as well as the ultimate use of deadly force. Second, it looks at how implicit bias impacts the investigation, prosecution, immunity, and final determination of which homicides are justified. 3. Examined the effect that the surge of new Stand Your Ground laws had on crime control objectives and public safety. 4. Reviewed law enforcement policy, administrative guidelines, statutes, and judicial rulings regarding the investigation and prosecution of Stand Your Ground cases. 5. Conducted a series of regional public hearings to learn about community awareness, perceptions of equality in enforcement and application, opinions concerning the utility of the laws, and reactions to individualized experiences involving interactions with Stand Your Ground laws. 6. Prepared a final report and recommendations. Details: American Bar Association, 2014. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 9, 2014 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/racial_ethnic_justice/aba_natl_task_force_on_syg_laws_preliminary_report_program_book.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/racial_ethnic_justice/aba_natl_task_force_on_syg_laws_preliminary_report_program_book.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 133195 Keywords: Crime ControlGun Control PolicyGun ViolenceGuns (U.S.)HomicidePublic SafetySelf-DefenseStand Your Ground Laws |
Author: Pittell, Harlan Title: "Stand your ground" laws and the demand for legal firearms Summary: Since 2005, 23 states have passed Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws: allowing a person to use deadly force in self-defense, even in situations where one can safely flee from an assailant. This study investigates whether SYG laws increased the demand for firearms by using data on background checks for firearms purchases as a proxy for the demand for legal firearms. Results from three alternative difference in differences estimates provide evidence that the passage of SYG laws generally led to an increase in the demand for legal firearms. Details: Ithaca, NY: Department of Policy Analysis & Management Cornell University, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Analysis & Management Honors Thesis: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: https://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/36335/2/Pittell_Thesis.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/36335/2/Pittell_Thesis.pdf Shelf Number: 135273 Keywords: Gun-Related ViolenceGunsHomicides (U.S.)Self-DefenseStand Your Ground Laws |
Author: Violence Policy Center Title: Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use: An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data Summary: In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR). That same year, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides tallied in the SHR. In 2012, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 32 criminal homicides . And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives ended in gun suicides or unintentional shootings that year. This report analyzes, on both the national and state levels, the use of firearms in justifiable homicides. It also details, using the best data available on the national level, the total number of times guns are used for self-defense by the victims of both attempted and completed violent crimes and property crimes whether or not the use of the gun by the victim resulted in a fatality. Details: Washington, DC: VPC, 2015. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2016 at: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf Shelf Number: 139937 Keywords: Crime StatisticsFirearmsGun-Related ViolenceHomicidesSelf-Defense |