Misplaced Pages

Imperfect self-defense: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:56, 25 January 2010 edit24.68.232.12 (talk) →Controvery← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:15, 13 March 2024 edit undoRodw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers767,676 editsm Disambiguating links to Self Defense (link changed to Self-defense) using DisamAssist. 
(26 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Common law doctrine}}
⚫ '''Imperfect self-defense''' is a ] doctrine of ] recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a ] may mitigate ] or ] imposed for a crime involving the use of ] by claiming, as a partial ], the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack.
{{Use American English|date=November 2020}}


⚫ '''Imperfect self-defense''' is a ] doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a ] may mitigate ] or ] imposed for a crime involving the use of ] by claiming, as a partial ], the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.<ref name="west">{{cite book|title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 9|date=1998|publisher=West|isbn=9780314201669|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j407AQAAIAAJ|accessdate=10 September 2017}} (Self-Defense).</ref>
==Effect==
{{quote|If the defendant's self-defense was imperfect, the self-defense may only reduce the defendant's liability. Imperfect self-defense is self-defense that was arguably necessary but somehow unreasonable. For example, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but that belief was unreasonable, the defendant would have a claim of imperfect self-defense. In some jurisdictions, the successful invocation of such a defense reduces a murder charge to manslaughter. Most jurisdictions do not recognize imperfect self-defense.}}
::<small>—Answers.com</small><ref>. Accessed December 21, 2007.</ref>


* ''']''': A ''perfect'' argument of self-defense proves all elements of self-defense, and results in the defendant's acquittal. If a defendant proves imperfect self-defense, the defendant will be convicted of a lesser homicide charge, such as ].<ref name="west"/>
It may also be used to make a ] to a ].{{Fact|date=December 2007}}
* '''Imperfect self-defense''': The concept of ''imperfect'' self-defense is that, although not all elements of self-defense were proved, extenuating circumstances nonetheless ''partially'' excuse the act that caused death.


==Examples in common law== ==Examples==
The doctrine of imperfect self-defense has been defined as "an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force".<ref>{{cite web|title=State v. Jones, 8 P. 3d 1282, 27 Kan. App. 2d 910 (2000)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15201994062332957609|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> Thus, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but the person's belief was unreasonable, that person would be able to raise imperfect self-defense as a defense to a murder charge.<ref name="west"/>
For example, in the U.S. state of ] a defendant can be convicted of ] but not ] when imperfect self-defense applies.<ref>{{citation | date = August 29, 1996, Decided | title = State v. Humphrey | author = Supreme Court of California | id = 921 P.2d 1; 1996 Cal. LEXIS 4222 }}</ref> <ref>Janet Grumer, ''Note'', Loyola Law Review, Summer 2003, p. 1575, found at . Accessed December 21, 2007.</ref>


⚫ A court in ], held that:
The doctrine of imperfect self-defense recognizes a defendant’s honest but ''unreasonable'' belief that deadly force is needed. An appellate court in ] held that "Imperfect self defense is an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force."<ref>.
⚫ {{quote|When evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect ]....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but '''unreasonable''' belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.}}
</ref>
''State v. Faulkner'', 483 A.2d 759, 769 (Md. 1984).<ref>{{cite web|title=State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759, 769, 301 Md. 482 (Md. 1984)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17158253875987176431|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref>


⚫ ] recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that may mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.<ref>{{cite web|title=Clemency Manual, Appendix 8: Michigan Standard Jury Instructions|url=http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/clemency_mnl/a8.html|website=Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project|publisher=University of Michigan Law School|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref> However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.<ref>{{cite web|title=People v. Deason, 148 Mich. App. 27, 31, 384 N.W.2d 72 (1985)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12817597905673513987|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref>
⚫ Another court, in ], held that:
⚫ {{quote|When evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect ]....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but '''unreasonable''' belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.}}
::<small>—''State v. Faulkner'', 483 A.2d 759,769 (Md. 1984)</small> <ref> </ref>


In the U.S. state of ] a defendant can be convicted of ] but not ] when imperfect self-defense is successfully proven.<ref>{{cite web|title=People v. Humphrey 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 921 P. 2d 1 (1996)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9566017733093582200|website=Google Scholar|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Grumer|first1=Janet|title=IX. Self-Defense|journal=Loyola Law Review|date=2003|volume=36|page=1575|url=http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol36/iss4/9/|accessdate=10 September 2017}}</ref>
⚫ Michigan also recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that can mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.<ref>. Accessed December 21, 2007.</ref> However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.<ref>''People v. Deason'', 148 Mich. App. 27, 31, 384 N.W.2d 72 (1985)</ref>

==Controvery==
Many people believe that imperfect self defence should not be a crime but rather a mistake in judgement about how much force was reasonable. The arguement stems from ones state of mind, if ones intentions are only for the purpose of self defence then the degree of force used should be irrelevant.


==See also== ==See also==
*] *]
*] *]


==References== ==References==
{{Reflist}} {{Reflist}}



⚫ ]
]
]
] ]
⚫ ]

Latest revision as of 11:15, 13 March 2024

Common law doctrine

Imperfect self-defense is a common law doctrine recognized by some jurisdictions whereby a defendant may mitigate punishment or sentencing imposed for a crime involving the use of deadly force by claiming, as a partial affirmative defense, the honest but unreasonable belief that the actions were necessary to counter an attack. Not all jurisdictions accept imperfect self-defense as a basis to reduce a murder charge.

  • Self-defense: A perfect argument of self-defense proves all elements of self-defense, and results in the defendant's acquittal. If a defendant proves imperfect self-defense, the defendant will be convicted of a lesser homicide charge, such as voluntary manslaughter.
  • Imperfect self-defense: The concept of imperfect self-defense is that, although not all elements of self-defense were proved, extenuating circumstances nonetheless partially excuse the act that caused death.

Examples

The doctrine of imperfect self-defense has been defined as "an intentional killing committed with an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances justified deadly force". Thus, if a person had a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, but the person's belief was unreasonable, that person would be able to raise imperfect self-defense as a defense to a murder charge.

A court in Maryland, held that:

When evidence is presented showing the defendant’s subjective belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, the defendant is entitled to a proper instruction on imperfect self defense....The theory underlying the doctrine is that when a defendant uses deadly force with an honest but unreasonable belief that it is necessary to defend himself, the element of malice, necessary for a murder conviction, is lacking.

State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759, 769 (Md. 1984).

Michigan recognizes imperfect self-defense as a qualified defense that may mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. However, the doctrine can only be used where the defendant would have had a right to self-defense but for the fact that the defendant was the initial aggressor.

In the U.S. state of California a defendant can be convicted of manslaughter but not murder when imperfect self-defense is successfully proven.

See also

References

  1. ^ West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Volume 9. West. 1998. ISBN 9780314201669. Retrieved 10 September 2017. (Self-Defense).
  2. "State v. Jones, 8 P. 3d 1282, 27 Kan. App. 2d 910 (2000)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  3. "State v. Faulkner, 483 A.2d 759, 769, 301 Md. 482 (Md. 1984)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  4. "Clemency Manual, Appendix 8: Michigan Standard Jury Instructions". Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project. University of Michigan Law School. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  5. "People v. Deason, 148 Mich. App. 27, 31, 384 N.W.2d 72 (1985)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  6. "People v. Humphrey 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 921 P. 2d 1 (1996)". Google Scholar. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
  7. Grumer, Janet (2003). "IX. Self-Defense". Loyola Law Review. 36: 1575. Retrieved 10 September 2017.
Categories: