家庭暴力幸存者使用暴力抵抗的新自卫框架

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Vanessa Bettinson, Nicola Wake
{"title":"家庭暴力幸存者使用暴力抵抗的新自卫框架","authors":"Vanessa Bettinson, Nicola Wake","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article criticises the government's rejection of proposals by the Prison Reform Trust that would have extended self‐defence in householder cases to victims/survivors of domestic abuse. The authors argue that the Prison Reform Trust proposals should be enacted, and further supported by novel complementary reform of the option to retreat, and the exclusion of intoxicated mistaken belief in self‐defence claims. Specifically, the authors advance a statutory rebuttable presumption regarding the option to retreat in cases involving domestic abuse, namely, an assumption that the victim/survivor was not realistically able to retreat safely, unless it is proven otherwise. The authors also examine the appropriateness of the policy decision to exclude intoxicated mistaken belief in all self‐defence cases and advocate for its removal. It should be replaced with a requirement that all mistaken beliefs must be reasonable regardless of the presence of intoxication. Procedural recommendations are also advanced, including amendment of the Crown Court Compendium to include judicial directions on self‐defence which adopt a social entrapment approach in domestic abuse cases, and supported by the admissibility of non‐medical expert evidence on the nature and impact of coercive control.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A New Self‐defence Framework for Domestic Abuse Survivors Who Use Violent Resistance in Response\",\"authors\":\"Vanessa Bettinson, Nicola Wake\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12837\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article criticises the government's rejection of proposals by the Prison Reform Trust that would have extended self‐defence in householder cases to victims/survivors of domestic abuse. The authors argue that the Prison Reform Trust proposals should be enacted, and further supported by novel complementary reform of the option to retreat, and the exclusion of intoxicated mistaken belief in self‐defence claims. Specifically, the authors advance a statutory rebuttable presumption regarding the option to retreat in cases involving domestic abuse, namely, an assumption that the victim/survivor was not realistically able to retreat safely, unless it is proven otherwise. The authors also examine the appropriateness of the policy decision to exclude intoxicated mistaken belief in all self‐defence cases and advocate for its removal. It should be replaced with a requirement that all mistaken beliefs must be reasonable regardless of the presence of intoxication. Procedural recommendations are also advanced, including amendment of the Crown Court Compendium to include judicial directions on self‐defence which adopt a social entrapment approach in domestic abuse cases, and supported by the admissibility of non‐medical expert evidence on the nature and impact of coercive control.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12837\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12837","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批评政府拒绝监狱改革信托基金的建议,该建议将家庭暴力案件中的自卫扩展到受害者/幸存者。作者认为,监狱改革信托基金的建议应该颁布,并进一步支持对撤退选项进行新的补充改革,并排除对自卫主张的错误信念。具体而言,提交人提出了一项法定的可反驳的关于在涉及家庭虐待的案件中可选择撤退的推定,即假设受害者/幸存者实际上不可能安全撤退,除非证明不是这样。作者还审查了在所有自卫案件中排除醉酒错误信念的政策决定的适当性,并主张将其删除。它应该被一项要求取代,即所有错误的信念必须是合理的,无论是否存在中毒。还提出了程序性建议,包括修订《刑事法院纲要》,纳入关于自卫的司法指示,这些指示在家庭虐待案件中采用社会诱捕方法,并以关于强制控制的性质和影响的非医学专家证据的可采性作为支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A New Self‐defence Framework for Domestic Abuse Survivors Who Use Violent Resistance in Response
This article criticises the government's rejection of proposals by the Prison Reform Trust that would have extended self‐defence in householder cases to victims/survivors of domestic abuse. The authors argue that the Prison Reform Trust proposals should be enacted, and further supported by novel complementary reform of the option to retreat, and the exclusion of intoxicated mistaken belief in self‐defence claims. Specifically, the authors advance a statutory rebuttable presumption regarding the option to retreat in cases involving domestic abuse, namely, an assumption that the victim/survivor was not realistically able to retreat safely, unless it is proven otherwise. The authors also examine the appropriateness of the policy decision to exclude intoxicated mistaken belief in all self‐defence cases and advocate for its removal. It should be replaced with a requirement that all mistaken beliefs must be reasonable regardless of the presence of intoxication. Procedural recommendations are also advanced, including amendment of the Crown Court Compendium to include judicial directions on self‐defence which adopt a social entrapment approach in domestic abuse cases, and supported by the admissibility of non‐medical expert evidence on the nature and impact of coercive control.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信