Every nation is built on laws. The law usually punishes a person guilty of a crime, to some extent. However, in some instances, a crime can be justified. Although not often, a defendant might have broken the law because of an unavoidable situation. The situation can be categorized under the types of justification defenses. The outcome of the case can be positively affected. The kinds of justification defenses are duress, self-defense, defending others against harm, necessity, and protecting your property. If one believes that they were justified to commit a particular crime and are charged with a felony and misdemeanor, they are advised to hire a criminal defense attorney. In this paper, we will outline the self-defense justification.
Self-defense justification is widespread. In essence, if a defendant can prove they committed the crime while acting on self-defense, they can be acquitted. The case, however, has to meet a certain standard. The defendants have to prove that their lives were in danger. They also have to prove that the situation forced them to apply the amount of force used and nothing more. Self-defense law is complicated. Due to the complications, rules have been developed to determine the situations that justify self-defense. It also defines the amount of force to be applied by the victim for protection. The exact rules differ from states, but the tendency to consider is similar (Lee, 2018).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
If the threat is imminent, self-defense is only justified if the force was used to respond to an imminent threat. The danger can be in any form as long as it places a person in immediate harm. Verbal offense without a physical risk cannot justify using force. The end of the threat means that using power is not justified for self-defense. For instance, if someone is assaulting a victim and then ends the attack and shows that he is no longer violent, then this indicates the end of a threat. The use of force by the defendant against the assailant would then be considered as an act of retaliation and not of self-defense.
If the fear of harm is reasonable, self-defense is considered reasonable if the assailant did not mean harm to the aggrieved. The discussion in such conditions is whether any thoughtful individual is aware of the immediate danger in a similar circumstance. The idea of a reasonable individual is a legal thought that has a different translation. Still, the judicial system is the one to determine whether the use of force was justified. For instance, imagine two people walking past each other in a path. One of them notices a bee hovering over the head of the other and decides to take a swing at the insect. Unfortunately, the other one sees a hand swinging towards his head and hits it away. This is often considered as assault; however, the court will consider it justified for the person to react to the other’s swinging of the hand towards his face. He was justified to conclude that the danger he faced was imminent and could use force for their self-defense despite the other person meaning no harm and was even offering help (Steinhoff, 2017)
Picture a person waiting for a colleague outside a restaurant. When the colleague gets there, he walks towards him holding his hand out for a handshake. However, the other one waiting for him fears that his colleague means to attack, despite that the fear seems not reasonable. He throws a punch on his colleague’s face to avoid the threat. Despite that the person will still be criminally charged, the severity of his charges or the punishment could be reduced.
The imperfect self-defense instance considers that the person could have a reasonable fear of an imminent danger that is impartially unreasonable. If one applies force for self-defense, the situation is regarded as 'imperfect self-defense.’ The case does not prevent a person from charges, but it can lessen them and the penalties. Not all states approve this type of self-defense.
The law of self-defense demands that how one responds, should match the degree of threat at hand. This means that it can only apply force to eliminate risk. If a deadly weapon is involved in the danger, the person in defense can equally use a deadly force to neutralize the threat. However, if only a minor force is employed in danger, and the defendant uses a deadly weapon and causes physical harm or death, this argument will not work as self-defense(Lee, 2018).
“ Duty to retreat” was required by fundamental self-defense laws. The person under threat is necessary to attempt to avoid the danger before using force. Despite that, some states have removed this law; others still demand that the person has to try and prevent the situation before using deadly force. Contrastingly, many states have passed into law a bill that removes the “duty to retreat.” This rule justified self-defense even when the person did not attempt to avoid the threat. This rule is common in situations where non-lethal force is applied. Despite that some states demand a person to avoid threat before using force, all states allow the use of deadly force if under threat by someone who entered their homes. The rule gives authority to defend homes by lethal force.
People vs. Carole King
The PEOPLE of the State of California as the Plaintiff & Respondent, Vs. Carole KING- Defendant & Appellant. Mrs. King was charged with possessing a restricted hazardous drug for intention to sell (Health & Saf.Code, 11911). Her motion was denied after a hearing. She thereafter forwarded her case on the trial of a preliminary hearing and testified at the action to subdue. The court found her guilty of a lesser offense of possessing a hazardous, restricted drug (Health & Saf.Code, 11910). Mrs. King exercised her entitlement to appeal (Pen.Code, § 1538.5(m)). She questioned the order that denied her a motion to repress evidence. She contested that the evidence was acquired by violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of search and seizure.
The attorney general urged the court to sustain the search arguing that it was crucial for a lawful arrest. Despite the legal arrest, the search could not be justified. In the case, the arrest came after the search making the forth rule clearer when the time and place of arrest and search differed. The court affirmed the judgment against King.
Acers vs. the United States
Acer, the defendant, was facing charges of assaulting with the intention to kill by hitting Mr. Owens with a stone on the head. Acer argued that he acted in self-defense after a dispute and was afraid to be murdered by Owen. After a review of the judge’s directions on the issues, the Supreme Court found them right. A stone can be considered a dangerous weapon, depending on how it was used. An act of self-defense has to be founded on imminent danger, and if need be, under the foundation of a “reasonable” claim of immediate threat.
The defense claimed that the judge’s instructions could have hatched the mythical belief that only under a vital attack can one use deadly force. The court reviewed the instructions and found them taken wholly and without limiting self-defense to cases with life danger.
References
FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved November 2, 2019, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1827455.html.
Lee, H. (2018). A new societal self-defense theory of punishment—the rights-protection theory. Philosophia : Philosophical Quarterly of Israel, 46 (2), 337-353. doi:10.1007/s11406-017-9931-z
Steinhoff, U. (2017). Proportionality in self-defense. The Journal of Ethics : An International Philosophical Review, 21 (3), 263-289. doi:10.1007/s10892-017-9244-2
The Self-Defense Cases: (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm.
