Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Failed Promises: Stand Your Ground's Removal Of Imminence Leads To Inconsistent Application And Decreased Safety, Nichole Hamsher
Failed Promises: Stand Your Ground's Removal Of Imminence Leads To Inconsistent Application And Decreased Safety, Nichole Hamsher
Akron Law Review
Self-defense, while universally recognized as a natural human right, embodies a complex set of scenarios that hinges on the level, place, and imminence of a threat to life. The modern expansion of self-defense laws, namely Stand Your Ground, allows for a wholly subjective anticipation of a threat by removing the duty to retreat, and withdraws both criminal and civil accountability. Such expansion has not afforded increased protection to those who need to use force in self-defense, such as domestic abuse victims, nor has it lowered crime rates, but actually works against such victims and increased homicide rates while not deterring …
Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law, Randy R. Koenders
Shifting The Burden Of Proving Self-Defense - With Analysis Of Related Ohio Law, Randy R. Koenders
Akron Law Review
Senate Bill Number 42 was introduced into the Ohio General Assembly on February 1, 1977. The bill provides that while the burden of proof for all elements of the criminal offense with which an individual is charged rests upon the prosecution, the burden of proof for affirmative defenses rests upon the defendant, and he must prove his affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Because the bill raises serious questions concerning placing the burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defenses generally, and self-defense in particular, on the defendant, a study of the law and policy involved in shifting …
The Relevance Of Culpability To The Punishment And Prevention Of Crime, R. J. Spjut
The Relevance Of Culpability To The Punishment And Prevention Of Crime, R. J. Spjut
Akron Law Review
It follows that if a legal system may fairly punish only a person who culpably violated the law, a preventive restraint like self-defense is also fair only when it is used against a person whose offense or imminent offense is culpable. Such measures as punishment and prevention are justified because "a person who violates the order of fairness, which can be described as a system of rights,forfeits certain of his own rights." The forfeiture theory implicitly associates A's loss of rights with his deserts and suggests some analogy with punishment. Finnis' argument both makes explicit the analogy and shifts attention …
State V. Stewart: Self-Defense And Battered Women: Reasonable Perception Of Danger Or License To Kill, Barbara A. Venesy
State V. Stewart: Self-Defense And Battered Women: Reasonable Perception Of Danger Or License To Kill, Barbara A. Venesy
Akron Law Review
First, this Note explores the criminal justice system's ineffective response to wife abuse, the law of self-defense, and the impact of battered woman syndrome on the doctrine of self-defense. Then, the Note evaluates the Kansas court's denial of self-defense instructions in view of its previous holdings on quantity of evidence and imminent danger. The remainder of the Note analyzes the unfounded fear that the battered woman syndrome could become an independent form of self-defense and sanction unnecessary self-help. The Note concludes that successful use of battered woman syndrome testimony ensures the woman's right to act in self-defense and restricts only …