Self Defence Evaluation Flashcards
Pre-emptive strike
Interpreted too widely - defendant can attack first to prevent imminent attack, but unfair/morally wrong decisions made - BECKFORD. Jury must decide whether force was necessary - hard to tell unless they witnessed it 1st hand = inconsistent/unfair decisions
All or nothing
If some force needed, but defendant went “too far” = no defence at all = murder = life sentence. Not fair to ask defendants to think logically when faced with threat to life/safety - MARTIN. But - level of prison time reflected in sentence
Mistake
Good to allow defendant to avoid punishment due to genuine mistake - WILLIAMS. However, as above - interpreted too widely - BECKFORD. HARRY STANLEY - shot dead by police who thought he was an Irish terrorist and had a gun in a plastic bag. Table leg. No one has been prosecuted
Homeowners (1)
CRIME AND COURTS ACT 2013 - degree of force will be reasonable unless it’s ‘grossly disproportionate’ - excessive force can be used. COLLINS - law supports view that homeowners have moral right to defend property.
Homeowners (2) Burglars
Unfair to burglars - contravenes right to life. However - are burglars getting what they deserve? Should homeowners do all they can to protect themselves and property?
Homeowners (3) Inconsistent
Inconsistent- shop owner who’s confronted by an intruder may use disproportionate force to defend himself and potentially his family who may be living upstairs, but this doesn’t apply to a customer in the shop who uses force against the intruder
Defendant’s characteristics (1)
Objective test - characteristics not taken into account when deciding if necessary to use force/if force used was reasonable.
MARTIN/CAIRNS - both suffered conditions which mean they perceive danger differently.
Defendant’s characteristics (2) mentally ill
Unfair to sentence mentally ill people on the same comparison to those who aren’t suffering. However - diminished responsibility somewhat rectifies this problem
