Defensive Homicide Essay

Under protective homicide in the crimes act (2005), A psyche who, by his or her conduct, kills an different person in circumstances that, barely for section 9AC, would defecate slaying, is inculpatory of an indict fitted offence ( justificatory homicide) and apt to direct 3 imprisonment (20 years maximum) if he or she did non accommodate reasonable curtilage for the belief referred to in that section.Explain the practice of law of egotism defence in relation to homicide cases The law of self defence in relation to homicide case are that a person is non vicious of wrap up if he or she carries out the conduct that would former(a)wise constitute murder while accept the conduct to be necessary to preserve himself or herself or another person from the infliction of death or really serious injury.In regard to an Alternative verdict of antitank homicide on charge for murder, If on the trial of a person for murder the jury are not satisfied that he or she is blameable of m urder but are satisfied that he or she is conscience-smitten of an offence against section 9AD ( en garde homicide), the jury may acquit the accuse of murder and find him or her guilty of defensive homicide and he or she is liable to punishment accordingly.The reasons why the defence of provocation was abolished in capital of Seychelles in 2005. The reason as to why the defense of provocation was abolished in Victoria in 2005 was because it was a recommendation by the Victorian Law put right Commission in a review of defenses to homicide. Reasons as to why it was in review in the first place was because it promoted a culture of blaming the dupe and had no place in a modern society, also it had served to let off male craze against women.Provocation was abolished because the Victorian offshootislature deliberated it was outdated and no life ample reflected the norms of modern society. Specifically, it was no longer appropriate for the criminal law to have a defense available th at for all intents and purposes condoned male hysteria against women and blamed the female dupe for her own fate. Other reason as why it was abolished was that it shouldnt be used for an individual loss of ownership is an inappropriate basis for a partial efencepeople should be able to control their impulses, even when angry, gender biased, privileges a loss of self-control as a basis for a defence, the test for provocation is conceptually confused, entangled and difficult for juries to understand and apply, is an anomalyit is not a defence to every crime other than murder and is an anachronismas we no longer have a mandatory sentence for murder, provocation should be interpreted into account at sentencing as it is for all other offences.Do you believe the objectives of the Government when it introduced this crime have been afterwards achieved in court cases? feature the majority of men convicted of defensive homicide have been males killing other men). tinge to TWO (2) Victor ian cases which have applied the offence of defensive homicide. I do not believe that the objectives of the government when it introduced this crime haven been subsequently achieved in court cases. The government introduce this law with the intention to be a reform of the law when nearlyone had a genuine indigence of self-defence but the change to the law has failed to work as intend and instead appears to be being used by offenders to escape expert responsibility where they deserve to be convicted of murder.The law of Defensive homicide is intended to be applied in cases where people kill to withstand themselves or others such as victims of prolonged domestic violence. Instead males are killing other males and are using the defence homicide charge to get a cast down sentence. single case is R v metalworker 2008 VSC 87 (1 April 2008), the victim and the offender had a conflict at a party that they both(prenominal) attended, the victim left then returned in aggressive state. A constrict ensued and the offender stabbed the victim.The Victim was also using a knife against the offender. Mr Smith apologyded guilty to defensive homicide and was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and non-parole of 5 years. The other case is R v Edwards 2008 VSC 297 (13 August 2008), the victim initially be to hit the offender with a table leg. The offender grabbed the table leg and hit the victim in the head also used shabu bottles as well. The Attack continued after victim was unconscious and occurred in presence of offenders son and victims partner.Mr Edwards pleaded guilty to defensive homicide and was sentenced to 9. 5 years imprisonment and non-parole of 7. 5 years. Describe somewhat criticisms that have been made of defensive homicide. Some criticisms that could be made against defensive homicide could be that defensive homicide is being misused on the basis that it has been used almost exclusively by men who kill other men, and not for those for whom it was intend ed. Defensive homicide was introduced as a safety net for women who kill their fierce abusers once provocation was abolished.The law is meant to protect battered women being handle by brutal men. Defensive homicide applies when an accused believed although unreasonably that they needed to defend themselves or another person using force, and this resulted in the victims death. The offence may therefore be proved when a victim has behaved in a way, such as adornting or threatening to commit an act of violence, which led the offender to unreasonably believe that lethal violence was necessary to defend themselves.However, in six of the 16 guilty plea convictions, it appears there was no prior uncivilised exchange (physical or verbal) amongst the victim and offender. So they are using this defense but in the outline of defensive homicide it states that when a person kills another while believing the conduct was necessary to defend themselves or another from death or really serious injury where they did not have reasonable grounds for this belief, but they arent having to show that they were in fright of their life.Also not having to go to court and pleading out the case is another criticism, so for an accused to plead guilty to defensive homicide, the prosecution must see to it to withdraw any other homicide-related charges, including murder. The decision to enter and accept a guilty plea has been made by the prosecution and the accused only. As a consequence, the public is left to trust that these parties have upheld the same discriminative principles that would apply to a conviction after trial.Your reflections on whether or not defensive homicide should be abolished and whether you believe further reform is needed in this area I dont believe that defensive homicide should be abolished because if it was to be abolished would the law adapt and deal with cases that have a long term family violence which this law was attended to apply to. Maybe defensive hom icide should only be limited to serious family violence. The law is there for a safety net for women who kill violent partners who have been violently abusing their teammate for an extend period of time and not for males to kill other males.One in five Victorian women report being physically or sexually abused by an intimate partner at some time in their life and if the law was to be abolished maybe the victims would find as if no one understands what they are going thru or bring off to. And by doing that more women might stay in a violent relationship and more women might end up dying. The law of defensive homicide needs to be reform if it is to be kept because it has become a blur so to speak, it has failed to realise its intended purpose.