9. Self Defense

Front 1

Rationale for Self Defense? (3)

Back 1

(1) Defense based on Necessity

(2) Self - preservation is an innate/inherent in the idea of natural law.

(3) There is no blame because everybody would exhibit the same instinctive response.

Front 2

Rationale: "There is no blame because everybody would exhibit the same instinctive response"

-- Explain Four Traditional Justifications with this idea.

Back 2

(1) No retribution for the person who responds in self defense.

(2) No deterrence since it's instinctual drive. (doesn't stop to think about act)

(3) No need to rehabilitate b/c it was instinct.

(4) No need to incapacitate because it's unlikely that the need to defend oneself again.

Front 3

Self-Defense does not negate ___ ___.

Back 3

Self-Defense does not negate MENS REA.

Front 4

Elements of Self Defense for NON-MPC?

(6)

Back 4

a. D not the aggressor.

b. D believes he faced imminent threat of unlawful force.

c. D’s belief of imminent unlawful threat was reasonable.

d. D believed responsive force was necessary.

e. D’s belief that responsive force was necessary was reasonable.

f. Before using deadly force D retreats

Front 5

The NECESSITY RATIONALE for Self Defense governs the scope of the nature of ____ ____ and the scope of ____.

Back 5

The necessity rationale for Self Defense governs the scope of the nature of imminent threat and the scope of response.

Front 6

Element 1: "D is not the aggressor" (for a perfect self defense offering a complete defense resulting in acquittal)...

What are TWO EXCEPTIONS when D has self defense when he IS the original aggressor?

Back 6

(1) Where the D is the aggressor, but V responds with EXCESSIVE FORCE.

(2) If D was the aggressor, but has withdrawn from the fight and has communicated this withdrawal from V (then he loses the aggressor status)

Front 7

Element:
"f. Before using deadly force D retreats"

this is a disfavored doctrine & not in most jxdns and ONLY APPLIES in _________.

Back 7

Only Applies in DEADLY FORCE CASES.

Front 8

Rationale for Retreat in deadly force cases?

Back 8

Defense based on necessity and Self Defense is not necessary when there are viable avenues of retreat.

Protects Life

Front 9

Anti-Retreat Rule?

Back 9

Promotes Cowardice

Inconsistent with Human Nature.

Front 10

EXCEPTION to the Retreat Rule?

Back 10

CASTLE DOCTRINE: One does not have to retreat in one's own home.

Front 11

Castle Doctrine USUALLY extends to....?

Back 11

usually extends to (no retreat required) in ONES BUSINESS OFFICE.

Front 12

Castle Doctrine SOMETIMES extends to...?

Back 12

sometimes extends to (no retreat required) in ONE'S PRIVATE CLUB.

Front 13

Majority and Minority view for Castle Doctrine & CO-INHABITANTS?

Back 13

Majority: Co inhabitants do NOT have to retreat (Castle applies)

Minority: C-In. DO have to retreat (Castle does not apply)

Front 14

Elements of IMPERFECT SELF DEFENSE? (5)

Back 14

a. D is not the aggressor.

b. D believes imminent threat of unlawful force.

c. D believes response used was necessary

d. No need to establish D’s beliefs are reasonable.

e. Reduces murder to manslaughter.

Front 15

MPC Self Defense [3.04(1)(2)] is limited by...?

Back 15

MPC Self Defense 3.04 is LIMITED BY 3.09.

Front 16

MPC SELF DEFENSE:

Two Elements that define?

Back 16

(1) D believed force used was immediately necessary to protect himself from unlawful force of another

(2) Deadly Force

Front 17

MPC SELF DEFENSE:

Three Instances where DEADLY FORCE is not justified?

Back 17

(a) Not justified unless force needed to protect vs. serious bodily harm, kidnapping, forced sexual intercourse.

(b) Not justified unless force needed to protect vs. serious bodily harm provoked the use of force vs. himself (he was the aggressor)

(c) Not justified if D can retreat.

Front 18

" If D is reckless in coming to these beliefs, he would not have self-defense available in crime of recklessness (same as negligence) "

Back 18

MPC 3.09

Front 19

Why should Battered Spouse Syndrome by RIGIDLY OBJECTIVE?

Back 19

(1) Otherwise leap into anarchy. [Where do you stop?]

(2) Otherwise weakens limitation of defense to necessity.

(3) The V killed b/c of her own psychological condition/fear and not b/c of need to save her life from imminent threat.

(4) D should not be able to avenge past wrongs or avoid hypothetical future wrongs under the disguise of self-defense.

(5) D ought not be acquitted b/c of unattractive victim (total asshole/douchebag)

Front 20

Why should Battered Spouse Syndrome be one of the REASONABLE PRUDENT Battered Spouse?
(People who want a more lenient standard)

Back 20

1. The requirement of "immediacy" as traditionally applied (Stewart) ignores the mere helplessness, meekness, etc. of battered spouse syndrome

2. The standard of real or apparent danger ought to be relaxed in cases of battered spouse syndrome

3. To say D ought to await deadly attack ignores the realities of the battered spouse syndrome.

4. The judge can already take these factors in consideration (size, etc.)

5. Cases where D cannot otherwise escape (objectively b/c the attacker will come after them) and psychologically (the D believes that there is no escape)

Front 21

Three Basic/General Rules/Restrictions for Battered Spouse Syndrome to remember?

Back 21

(1) Threat of violence must be imminent

(2) Cannot kill to avenge past wrong

(3) Cannot kill to protect some hypothetical, future harm.
-- Shouldn't be able to acquite because jury disapproves of total tool/shit stain of a victim.

Front 22

BUT TWO EXCEPTIONS to these general restrictions?

Back 22

(1) There ARE good reasons to believe that spouse CANNOT escape situation (objectively and subjectively/psychologically)

(2) Requirement of imminent danger perhaps should be relaxed in some cases (ex. Hostage Situations)