Research Paper on Criminal Law

Introuction

Self-defense has over time been described in different ways depending on how it was used. However, the most agreed upon definition of the term is the application of defensive force or reasonable force to defend or protect oneself from an attacker or danger in general. Self-defense does not apply to personal protection but also the protection of one's family and loved ones from danger. Whenever a person feels threatened by someone or a situation, the reasonable force that they choose to apply to defend themselves from the assailant is what is recognized by the law as self-defense.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Nevertheless, there are several issues surrounding self-defense as the extent to which it is is used and that why there are several laws that have been implemented over time to govern the term self-defense. Many cases that have been forwarded to courts concerning the issue of self-defense have ended up raising a lot of questions and people who have mastered the criminal laws have also had a hard time trying these cases. The big problem at the end of the day is always whether the use of the defensive force was necessary and whether the person used reasonable force.

In a case where a person murders in pursuit of self-defense, some lawyers may argue that the person is charged with murder. However, the person in hand may claim that they used the gun for the sole purpose of defending themselves and without enough witnesses or evidence, one cannot be so sure of why the person decided to commit murder. Hence some people would argue that the person was a criminal with ulterior motives, while others may say that the person was trying to defend themselves from danger.

These are some of the reasons why the issue of self-defense is such a hot topic and why some laws have been put in place to govern the issue. The following essay, therefore, seeks to explain what the case law reveals that an average citizen can use in terms of self-defense and deadly force, the case law and statutory law behind self-defense and the use of deadly force, how they are all different from the use of force by a law enforcement officer and discuss some of the cases that have brought a serious debate around the issue of self-defense.

The Case Law and Statutory Law

The use of self-defense is centered between two laws, and that is common law and also criminal Law Act 1967. These laws have been put in place over time to try and justify the use of reasonable defensive force rather than it being treated as an excuse by criminals to assault or commit murder. When applying the common law, cases under the self-defense sphere are tried under three categories. There are three instances when a person is allowed to use reasonable force to retaliate and they include; defending oneself from an attack whether direct or prominent, prevent another person from attack or prevent imminent harm to a person and finally the defense of one's property from injury for example if you see someone trying to burn down your house (Leverick, 2007).

However, these laws govern that the person in question uses reasonable force in all three instances because the application of deadly force can be taken as a crime without enough proof and evidence. Reasonable force has sometimes though turned into deadly force, for example in a case where a person tried to get away from danger by merely applying reasonable force but the situation got out of hand, and they ended up killing someone or using deadly force then the defendants in the case would argue that the person used reasonable force and tried to justify it as self-defense. If a jury feels that the person undergoing trial did all they could at the heat of the moment to salvage the situation, then they will try the case as self-defense. But such a claim can only fail if there is the provision of ample evidence that the accused person acted beyond self-defense and went ahead to commit a crime.

A perfect example would be a situation where a person is attacked and they in that situation they can apply very minimal force to get out of danger like merely running for their life or fighting their way out of the position. If this person gets emotional over the assault for example in rape cases and they decide to take a gun or a knife and kill their assailant intentionally, then some courts can rule this as murder and not self-defense. In the eyes of some people, this ordeal is justifiable, and some people may believe that this person only acted in self-defense, however, in the eyes of the law, this person had multiple chances to run away and get out of the situation instead of killing the assailant.

There are some instances where the defendant acts first before they are attacked because they see danger first or the perceive that harm is about to come their way. For example, in an instance where the defendant spots a gun on someone who is not a law enforcement officer, they can opt to run away or defend themselves in whatever way they see fit to stop a crime. If the defendant feels that they are in danger, they can decide to act first before the attacker. Another example is when a person puts up an electric fence, and an assaulter attempts to break in, of the assaulter, is electrocuted to death, then the defendant cannot be blamed as they acted in self-defense and this case is tried as the imminence of the threatened attack (White, Rees, 2014).

When defending one's property, it is rare for deadly force to be applied, most of the time reasonable force is usually used. However, in a case where a robbery has taken place, and the stolen property is worth millions of shillings or is of high value to the defendant, there may be the application of deadly force. In an instance where a thief breaks into one's home and perhaps steals something that is worth more to the defendant than just money, then they may feel obliged to apply whatever means necessary to stop the theft from happening even it means killing the assaulter. In court, the defendant may be tried with murder and not self-defense because the defendant was not in harm's way. Still, thou self-defense applies to protection of property too, and the defendant could be acquitted for that.

In addition to that, there are some circumstances where the defendant may feel or sense that they are in danger and they choose to act before something terrible happens to them. This, however, may backfire as the potential assaulter may turn ground and claim that the defendant attacked them out of nowhere. In this case, the defendant would have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that something terrible was about to happen before they acted or the defendant may face a long time in jail.

Finally, there is a law that encourages people not to flee a dangerous situation but instead stay and defend themselves. This law has been commonly referred to as "Right to stand your ground," as advocated by the state of Oklahoma. When a person sees that their property is in danger or their loved one is in danger, they should not run away, but instead, they should stick around and try within the best of their ability to defend themselves and the others and their property if they are in a position to do that.

Justifiable Application of Self-defense, what is Allowed and What is not

The laws governing self-defense vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most cases, everyone who is charged with a crime is entitled to claim self-defense unless there are the reason, proof, and evidence to show that they acted on their own free will. Hence with everyone being allowed to this right, then the issue of self-defense has become a sensitive issue. At the end of the day the laws surrounding self-defense are governed using the following conditions; whether the threat was imminent, whether the level of fear for the assault or harm was reasonable, imperfect self-defense, proportional response, duty to retreat, stand your ground and castle doctrine.

The laws governing self-defense only recognize reasonable force as the precise self-defense mechanism and in some jurisdictions use of deadly force is treated as a crime even though it was justifiable. However, there is no weighing scale when it comes to reasonable effect. Therefore, how much force used is judged based on the circumstance of the situation especially when it comes to how much force the defendant used against the assaulter. It is therefore concluded that a defendant who uses force not matching the assaulter's force is likely to be accused of committing a crime (Gillespie, 1989).

This varies from actually murdering self-defense to just a mere retaliation that did not match the assaulters or attackers force and means. For example, when a thief comes to one's house and uses a club to threaten the owners of the house and the owner of the house decides to pull out a gun and shoot the assaulter, then that is taken as a crime. As unfair as that may seem, those are the laws that are used when trying most of the self-defense cases in as much as the extent of the trial would vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Therefore, the average citizen is only supposed to use equal force to retaliate against an attack for it to qualify as self-defense. This then means that if the assaulter's plan was or is to kill the defendant, then it will be justifiable in court if the defendant shot the assaulter first as long as there is the provision of enough proof then the case would be tried as a self-defense case.

The Difference From a Law Enforcement Officer

There is the amount of force that is applied by an average civilian when they are attacked or assaulted, and there is what qualifies as self-defense. However, those laws do not imply to law enforcement officers like the police. First of all, their primary work is to maintain law and order according to the constitution. Hence in a situation where there is a robbery, and they intervene, and the robbers refuse to stand down, then they are allowed to use brutal force to put the assaulters down. However, a police officer cannot shoot an attacker for merely carrying a club stick around; they need to retaliate with equal force to ensure that they contain the assaulter without killing them.

However, if the attacker refuses, by all means, to stand down and threatens the lives of ordinary civilians, then it is justifiable to put the assaulter down by all means necessary. Taking a close look at it, the laws that govern the law enforcers do not differ hugely from the ones that govern the ordinary citizen. This is because the law enforcer is supposed to use equal or minimal force to contain an attacker and not just shooting them down as they please.

Several cases have been brought to courts, where people claim police brutality and use of excessive force to contain a situation. There are some cases where very petty offenders have ended paying the price with their lives other than merely being arrested and tried for their mistakes. The police officers who have been found guilty of police brutality have been charged with murder or crimes they committed because the law does not allow them to behave in such a manner.

Supreme Court Cases Examples

Several cases have been brought forth to courts from all ranks to try cases of self-defense. The most highlighted and extreme cases have made their way to the supreme court for trial. Various amendments have been made to the self-defense laws over time, which help the courts try these cases better mostly from previous examples.

The case of Brown v. The United States was among the circumstances that made headlines regarding self-defense laws. The accused was Brown, and he was on trial for the murder of Hermes. However, Brown argued that he acted in self-defense even though he was being tried for murder. The accused, Brown had shot and killed Hermes by firing four times. Bro...