Criminal Law 11th Edition by Joel Samaha - Test Bank

Criminal Law 11th Edition by Joel Samaha – Test Bank

 

Instant Download – Complete Test Bank With Answers

 

 

Sample Questions Are Posted Below

 

CHAPTER 5

Defenses to Criminal Liability: Justifications

 

MULTIPLE CHOICE

 

1. A defense in which the defendant accepts responsibility for the act but claims what they did was right is called

a.	justification.
b.	excuse.
c.	rationalization.
d.	claim of right.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.154             OBJ:   1,2

 

2. A defense in which the defendant admits the act but claims that, under the circumstances, they aren’t legally responsible is called

a.	justification.
b.	excuse.
c.	claim of right.
d.	mitigating condition.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p. 154            OBJ:   2

 

3. Circumstances that convince fact finders that defendants don’t deserve the maximum penalty for the crime they’re convicted of are called

a.	perfect circumstances.
b.	imperfect circumstances.
c.	mitigating circumstances.
d.	aggravating circumstances.

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:   p. 155            OBJ:   4

 

4. Most defenses are perfect defenses; if they’re successful, defendants are

a.	committed.
b.	convicted.
c.	acquitted.
d.	sentenced.

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:   p. 154            OBJ:   43

 

5. Evidence that doesn’t amount to a perfect defense might amount to an imperfect defense; that is, defendants are

a.	committed to a mental hospital.
b.	entitled to an acquittal.
c.	entitled to a sentence reduction.
d.	guilty of lesser offenses.

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

6. The castle exception is an exception to what doctrine?

a.	the retreat doctrine
b.	the stand-your-ground doctrine
c.	the justification doctrine
d.	the excuse doctrine

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

7. At the heart of the choice-of-evils defense is the necessity to prevent

a.	imminent danger.
b.	crime.
c.	rape.
d.	murder.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.166             OBJ:   10

 

8. What kind of strike does the law not allow to form the basis of self-defense claims?

a.	Deadly
b.	less than deadly
c.	Conventional
d.	Preemptive

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:  p. 170            OBJ:   4

 

9. Which of the following cases involves the “New York Subway Vigilante?”

a.	State v. Harold Fish (2009)
b.	People v. John Gray et al. (1991)
c.	People v. Goetz (1986)
d.	State v. Thomas (1997)

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:   p.160             OBJ:   5

 

10. Defensive force may be used only if the threat or danger is

a.	perfunctory.
b.	mandatory.
c.	contingent.
d.	imminent.

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.173             OBJ:   14

 

11. The general rule is that self-defense is available only against what type of attacks?

a.	Justified
b.	Legal
c.	Excusable
d.	Unprovoked

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   5

 

12. A person who was the initial aggressor can gain a lawful right to self-defense if they do which of the following from the incident they started?

a.	renounce themselves
b.	completely withdraw
c.	irrevocably abbreviate themselves
d.	tangentially abstain

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF: p. 156                         OBJ: 5

 

13. According to what rule does the government have a monopoly on the use of force; so when you use force, you’re “taking the law into your own hands?”

a.	the rule of law
b.	the rule of self-defense
c.	the rule of justification
d.	the rule of mitigation

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   4

 

14. A person can use deadly force against an attacker whom the victim reasonably believes is going to cause them an injury less than death. The attacker is said to be threatening

a.	broken bones.
b.	serious bodily injury.
c.	permanent bodily injury.
d.	harmful bodily injury.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   4

 

15. In some jurisdictions, a person must retreat before using defensive deadly force if

a.	he can with complete safety to himself and others.
b.	he was not the original attacker.
c.	the attacker demands he retreat or die.
d.	the attacker refuses to retreat.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.162             OBJ:   5

 

16. How many requirements are there to establish criminal liability?

a.	One
b.	Two
c.	Three
d.	Four

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:   p.154             OBJ:   1

 

17. What is the heart of self-defense?

a.	necessity
b.	imminence
c.	practicality
d.	concession

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

18. Which of the following never justifies the use of force against another person?

a.	retaliation
b.	self-defense
c.	defense of someone other than yourself
d.	an imminent attack

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

19. The retreat requirement is weakest or nonexistent when persons are attacked

a.	in a public place.
b.	in their own homes.
c.	in a government building.
d.	indoors.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

20. Which doctrine holds that a person does not have to retreat if he or she didn’t start the fight, even if it is safely possible?

a.	the stand-your-ground rule
b.	the self-defense rule
c.	the preemptive-strike rule
d.	the self-preservation rule

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   6, 7

 

21. Supporters of the castle laws see them as the public reasserting what?

a.	fundamental rights
b.	gun rights
c.	freedom of speech rights
d.	defense attorney rights

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.167             OBJ:   10

 

22. Which of the following is the majority rule?

a.	the stand-your-ground rule
b.	the retreat rule
c.	Both
d.	Neither

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   6, 7

 

23. The law of self-defense is undergoing

a.	no change currently.
b.	major transformation.
c.	minor transformation.
d.	nothing.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.172             OBJ:   7,9

 

24. Evidence that doesn’t amount to a perfect defense might amount to a/an

a.	imperfect defense.
b.	special defense.
c.	specific defense.
d.	rational defense.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

25. The modern right to use force against those unlawfully entering the person’s home generally

a.	does not include defense of the cartilage.
b.	does not include deadly force.
c.	applies only to nighttime intrusions.
d.	requires that the intruder specifically threaten the occupants of the home.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.171             OBJ:   8

 

26. Which of the following is a key requirement of the necessity defense?

a.	that no reasonable legal option exists for averting the harm
b.	that a reasonable legal option exists for averting the harm
c.	that a significant reasonable legal option exists for averting the harm
d.	that a specific reasonable legal option exists for averting the harm

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p. 162            OBJ:   11

 

27. At the heart of the choice-of-evils defense is the necessity to prevent what kind of danger?

a.	imminent danger
b.	unavoidable danger
c.	deadly danger
d.	serious danger

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.180             OBJ:   10

 

28. At the heart of the defense of consent is the high value placed on the right to

a.	bear arms.
b.	a jury trial.
c.	free speech.
d.	individual autonomy.

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.184             OBJ:   11

 

29. Self-defense consists of how many elements?

a.	two
b.	three
c.	four
d.	five

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:   p.190             OBJ:   5

 

30. The defense of consent recognizes the societal value of

a.	individual autonomy.
b.	a person’s right to die if they want to.
c.	a person’s right to refuse medical care.
d.	self-fulfillment.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.184             OBJ:   11

 

31. Which of the following is recognized as a valid consent defense situation in most states?

a.	a person consents to be killed
b.	a person consents to a crime being committed on their children
c.	the injury happens during a sporting event
d.	statutory rape

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:  p.185             OBJ:   11

 

32. To provide a valid consent defense, the consent of the victim must be

a.	objectively reasonable and imminent.
b.	knowing and voluntary.
c.	in writing and authorized.
d.	given after the crime occurs.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.185             OBJ:   11

 

33. In which of the following situations does the right to defend “others” not apply?

a.	defending a spouse from assault
b.	defending a parent from assault
c.	preventing the rape of a friend
d.	preventing a sister from having an abortion

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.171             OBJ:   8

 

34. The case of The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) involves which defense?

a.	imminent necessity
b.	the castle doctrine
c.	the Good Samaritan defense
d.	unprovoked attack defense

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.180             OBJ:   10

 

35. Knowing consent means

a.	the person consenting is too young to understand what she’s consenting to.
b.	the person consenting understands what she’s consenting to.
c.	consent was the product of free will.
d.	consent was not the product of force.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.185             OBJ:   11

 

36. Which of the following is not one of the elements of self-defense?

a.	necessity.
b.	attack.
c.	proportionality.
d.	reasonable belief.

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:  p.156             OBJ:   5

 

37. Most self-defense statutes require the belief in imminent danger to be honest and

a.	credible.
b.	legitimate.
c.	defensible.
d.	reasonable.

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

38. English common-law required defendants pleading self-defense in homicide cases to prove that they had

a.	retreated to the wall
b.	retreated as far as possible
c.	retreated reasonably
d.	retreated fully

 

 

ANS:  A                   REF:   p.162             OBJ:   6

 

39. The retreat rule is the

a.	common rule
b.	minority rule
c.	majority rule
d.	same as the castle rule

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   6, 7

 

40. When you’re attacked in your home, you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack, but only if you reasonably believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury. This is known as the

a.	retreat exception
b.	home exception
c.	ground exception
d.	castle exception

 

 

ANS:  D    3              REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

41. Regarding defense of home and property, most statutes do not include what area?

a.	the backyard
b.	the front yard
c.	the garage
d.	the curtilage

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.172             OBJ:   8,9

 

42. What state passed the first new castle doctrine?

a.	California
b.	Ohio
c.	Oregon
d.	Florida

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.172             OBJ:   9

 

43. The Florida castle law abolished what?

a.	the duty to retreat rule.
b.	the imminence rule.
c.	the use of force rule.
d.	the recklessness rule.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.174             OBJ:   9

 

44. In March 2007, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) held a symposium consisting of prosecution, law enforcement, government, public health, and academic experts from 12 states. Which of the following is not one of their main concerns?

a.	officers’ use of force.
b.	operations and training requirements.
c.	increased investigation burdens.
d.	increased homicides.

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.178             OBJ:   10

 

45. The Jennifer Galas case deals with the expansion of what laws?

a.	new castle laws
b.	new retreat laws
c.	new curtilage laws
d.	new prostitution laws

 

 

ANS:  B                    REF:   p.178             OBJ:   9

 

 

Case 5.1

Li plays on a local soccer team. In a match against another team Li is hit by an opponent during normal play and his leg is broken. Li calls the police department from the hospital emergency room and requests that the player who hit him be charged with assault.

 

46. If charged with assault, what defense would the opponent most likely use at trial?

a.	consent
b.	excuse
c.	justification
d.	mental illness

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.185             OBJ:   11

 

47. If charged with assault, what might prevent the opponent from claiming consent as a defense?

a.	the consent was voluntary
b.	the consent was knowing
c.	the consent was authorized
d.	the consent was coerced

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.185             OBJ:   11

 

Case 5.2

Vincent is awoken in the middle of the night by a sound outside his house. He takes a loaded .38 pistol from his nightstand and proceeds downstairs to his kitchen to check on the noise. He encounters a stranger in his kitchen. The stranger hits him in the face knocking him to the floor. As he gets up his see the man running out his kitchen door. Vincent shoots the man through the kitchen door.

 

48. Which of the following rules is most applicable to this case?

a.	the stand-your-ground rule
b.	the retreat rule
c.	the castle rule
d.	the grounded doctrine rule

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

49. Why is Vincent not justified in shooting the man?

a.	the castle exception requires that you reasonably believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury
b.	the castle exception does not include curtilage
c.	the stand-your-ground rule does not include curtilage
d.	the stand-your-ground requires that you reasonably believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

Case 5.3

Savannah and her girlfriend Vanessa have been drinking at her apartment most of the afternoon. They are arguing when Savannah goes into her bedroom and gets her gun. She shoots at Vanessa but misses. Vanessa leaves the apartment and gets a gun from her car. She returns to the apartment. Savannah yells stop and runs towards the bathroom. Vanessa shoots at her but also misses. Savannah turns and shoots Vanessa.

 

50. What element of self-defense has Savannah failed to meet in this encounter?

a.	unprovoked attack.
b.	necessity.
c.	proportionality.
d.	reasonable belief.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

51. What exception allows Savannah to claim self-defense in this situation?

a.	the withdrawal exception.
b.	the retreat exception.
c.	the stand-your-ground exception.
d.	the castle exception.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

 

52. What kind of defense to criminal liability would Savannah most likely use?

a.	self-defense.
b.	excuse.
c.	incompetence.
d.	consent.

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.156             OBJ:   4

 

Case 5.5

Tiffany is walking to the market to buy groceries. A man comes up behind her and puts a gun in her back. He tells her to step into the alley with him. Tiffany goes to the alley with the man who tells her to remove her clothes. Before she can do what he says the man drops the gun and Tiffany grabs it and shoots him. The man dies.

 

53. If Tiffany is charged with murder which of the following defenses should she use?

a.	failure-of-proof defense
b.	diminished capacity defense
c.	justification defense
d.	attendant circumstances defense

 

 

ANS:  C                    REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

54. Tiffany’s defense is described best as

a.	failure-of-proof defense
b.	diminished capacity defense
c.	excuse defense
d.	affirmative defense

 

 

ANS:  D                    REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

55. If Tiffany is acquitted she has achieved which of the following?

a.	a perfect defense
b.	an imperfect defense
c.	a positive defense
d.	a negative defense

 

 

ANS:  A                    REF:   p.154             OBJ:   4

 

 

TRUE/FALSE

 

1. Deadly force may never be used for defense.

 

 

ANS:  FALSE            REF:   p.156             OBJ:   4

 

2. Insanity is an example of a justification defense.

 

ANS:  FALSE            REF:   p.154             OBJ:   2

 

3. In both justifications and excuses, the defendant admits doing the criminal act.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.154             OBJ:   2

 

4. Most affirmative defenses are perfect defenses

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.154             OBJ:   4

 

5. An imperfect defense, such as imperfect self-defense, may, in some jurisdictions, reduce a murder to manslaughter.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.154-155      OBJ:   4

 

6. The retreat rule is the minority rule.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.165             OBJ:   6, 7

 

7. Self-defense laws have not changed in many years and are not currently changing.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.154             OBJ:   9

 

8. The initial aggressor or attacker can never claim self-defense.

 

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

9. The four elements of self-defense are unprovoked attack, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

10. In all jurisdictions, a person must retreat from their home if they can safely do so before using deadly force.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

11. In the justification defenses, defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim what they did was right (justified) under the circumstances.

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

12. The law of self defense is undergoing major transformation.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.172             OBJ:   6

 

13. The Model Penal Code choice-of-evils provision contains five elements.

 

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.181             OBJ:   10

 

14. At the heart of the defense of consent is the high value placed on group autonomy in a free society.

 

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.185             OBJ:   11

 

15. The “New Castle Doctrine” laws are transforming the law of self-defense.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.172             OBJ:   9

 

16. Most deadly force statutes do not include the curtilage.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             3REF: p.172             OBJ:   8

 

17. The American Prosecutors Research Institute Symposium experts saw one possible positive effect of the castle laws—that they’ll deter crime.

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.176             OBJ:   10

 

18. Force may lawfully be used as a preemptive strike against a potential attacker.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

19. A classic excuse defense is insanity.

 

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.154             OBJ:   2

 

20. Retribution is the heart of the defense of self-defense.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.156             OBJ:   4

 

 

21. “Inevitable” harm is the same as “imminent” harm.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.157             OBJ:   5

 

22. A victim of domestic violence is justified in shooting her cohabitant husband while he is asleep.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.166             OBJ:   8

 

23. Historically, self-defense meant protecting yourself and the members of your immediate family.

 

ANS:  TRUE                REF: p.170            OBJ:   8

 

24. There’s no empirical research to help explain why so many states have adopted the “new castle laws.”

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.175             OBJ:   9

 

25. Defendants are criminally liable if they were not responsible for their actions

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.154             OBJ:   2

 

26. Defendants are not criminally liable if their actions were justified under the circumstances.

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.154             OBJ:   1

 

27. Most affirmative defenses are imperfect defenses.

 

ANS:  FALSE           REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

28. If you use force to protect yourself, your home or property, or the people you care about, you’ve violated the rule of law.

 

ANS:  TRUE   solid   REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

29. Self-defense consists of four elements.

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

30. Some self-defense statutes allow you to kill someone you reasonably believe is about to commit a serious felony against you that doesn’t threaten either your life or serious bodily injury.

 

ANS:  TRUE             REF:   p.159,171       OBJ:   5

 

 

 

COMPLETION

 

1. In the                            defenses, defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim what they did was right.

 

ANS:  justification

 

REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

2. In the                            defenses, defendants admit what they did was wrong but claim that, under the circumstances, they weren’t responsible for what they did.

 

ANS:  excuse

 

REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

3. Most justifications and excuses are                             defenses.

 

ANS:  affirmative

 

REF:   p.154             OBJ:   3

 

4. The defense of consent represents the high value placed on individual                      in a free society.

 

ANS:  autonomy

 

REF:   p.184             OBJ:   11

 

5. The                               Personal Protection Law (2009) became the model for most of the new castle laws.

 

ANS:  Florida

 

REF:   p.172-173       OBJ:   9

 

6. A(n) _____________ defense is one which only reduces the conviction to a lesser offense.

 

ANS:  imperfect

 

REF:   p.155             OBJ:   4

 

7. A _____________ defense is one that, if established, requires an acquittal.

 

ANS:  perfect

 

REF:   p.154             OBJ:   4

 

8. The choice to commit a lesser crime to avoid a(n)                              threat of harm from a greater crime is justified.

 

ANS:  imminent

 

REF: p.180             OBJ:   10

 

9. There is no duty to                   from your own home to avoid using deadly force.

 

ANS:  retreat

 

REF:   p.165             OBJ:   8

 

10. If you don’t                 a fight, you can stand your ground and kill to defend yourself without retreating from any place you have a right to be.

 

ANS:  start

 

REF:   p.165             OBJ:   6, 7

 

ESSAY

 

1. Discuss the differences between justification and excuse defenses. Be sure to give an example of each.

 

ANS:  Justifications free defendants from criminal liability because they prove the defendants are not blameworthy. The criminal act was right or justified. An example is self-defense. Excuses free defendants from criminal liability because they prove the defendants aren’t responsible for their acts. An example is the insanity defense.

 

REF:   p.154             OBJ:   1, 2, 3

 

2. List and explain the four elements of self-defense. Are there any exceptions to any of these elements? If so, explain.

 

ANS: Self-defense consists of four elements. 1. Unprovoked attack. The defender didn’t start or provoke the attack. 2. Necessity. Defenders can use deadly force only if it’s necessary repel an imminent deadly attack, namely one that’s going to happen right now. 3. Proportionality. Defenders can only use deadly force if the use of non deadly force isn’t enough, namely excessive force is not allowed. 4. Reasonable belief. The defender has to reasonably believe that it’s necessary to use deadly force to repel the imminent deadly attack. The withdrawal exception applies to the unprovoked attack element.

 

REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

3. Explain the choice-of-evils defense and present an example.

 

ANS: The choice-of-evils defense is based on necessity. This defense protects those who make the right choice in deciding to commit a lesser crime to avoid the imminent harm of a greater crime or social harm. The crime results in a net social good. Examples include destroying property to prevent fire or speeding to get a dying person to the hospital.

 

REF:   p.180             OBJ:   10

 

4. Discuss the general rules on the use of force and deadly force. Be sure to provide examples.

 

ANS: According to the rule of law, the government has a monopoly on the use of force. Individuals may use force only when authorized by law. Self-defense is a concession to necessity and is only justified when the force is reasonably and immediately necessary for defense. Deadly force is justified only when the necessity is unprovoked and the attack involves threatened death or serious bodily injury. The amount of force used must be the minimum amount reasonably necessary to defend against an imminent threat.

 

REF:  p.155             OBJ:   4

 

5. The general rule regarding self-defense is that a person must retreat if they can safely do so before using deadly force. Explain the “castle exception” to this rule.

 

ANS: According to the castle exception, when you’re attacked in your home, you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack, but only if you reasonably believe the attack threatens death or serious bodily injury (State v. Kennamore 1980, 858).In contrast to the retreat doctrine, the castle exception allows a person to not retreat and use deadly force in their own home. The castle exception and the rules regarding the defense of home clearly demonstrate that the ancient doctrine that homes are castles is still alive and well. In general, a person is not required to retreat from or in their own home before using deadly force.

 

REF:   p.165             OBJ:   9

 

6. The concept of retreat has undergone historic transformation since the English common law requirement that one “retreat to the wall.” Explain thi transformation and how it’s altering the stand-your-ground rule and the retreat rule.

 

ANS: The English common law put the burden on defendants to prove they “retreated to the wall” before acting in self-defense. The American majority “stand-your-ground rule” was based on the idea that a “man” shouldn’t have to flee from attack because he’d done nothing wrong to provoke or deserve the attack and the need to protect the family and country, and could stand his ground and kill to “defend himself without retreating from any place he had a right to be.” Current views on how a person may defend him/herself wherever he/she has  “right to be” have paved the way for a multitude of new statutes. There is no duty to retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force. Judges and legislators have generalized the right to self-defense into the majority stand-your-ground rule, namely that if he didn’t start the fight, he could stand his ground and kill to “defend himself without retreating from any place he had a right to be” (245). The retreat rule now holds that you have to retreat from an attack, if you reasonably believe (1) that you’re in danger of death or serious bodily harm and (2) that backing off won’t unreasonably put you in danger of death or serious bodily harm.

 

REF:   p.164             OBJ:   6, 7

 

7. Explain the defense of consent. In most states, the law recognizes only four situations where consent justifies otherwise criminal conduct. What are those situations? What does it mean to say that “the heart of the defense of consent is the high value placed on individual autonomy in a free society?”

 

ANS: The defense of consent, is based on the idea that competent adults voluntarily consented to crimes against them, and knew what they were consenting to them. The four situations where consent justifies otherwise criminal conduct in most states include: 1. no serious injury results from the consensual crime; 2. the injury happens during a sporting event; 3. the conduct benefits the consenting person, such as when a patient consents to surgery; and 4. the consent is to sexual conduct. (Fletcher 1978, 770). To say that the heart of the defense of consent is the high value placed on individual autonomy in a free society means that if mentally competent adults want to be crime victims the government should not get in their way.

 

REF:    p.184-185        OBJ:    11

 

8. Two types of affirmative defenses are “perfect” and “imperfect” defenses. Explain the difference between a “perfect” and an “imperfect” defense. Provide examples of each. What is one exception to a “perfect” defense?

 

ANS: Most affirmative defenses are perfect defenses; this means that if they’re successful, defendants are acquitted.  Evidence that doesn’t amount to a perfect defense might amount to an imperfect defense; that is, defendants are guilty of lesser offenses. Self-defense is an example of a perfect defense: when someone kills another person because if they didn’t, they would be killed themselves. An example of an imperfect defense includes killing someone when one honestly believes they are in imminent danger but that belief is not objectively reasonable reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter. The exception to a perfect defense is insanity where the defendants are most often confined to a maximum security hospital until they are sane.

 

REF:   p.154-155       OBJ:   4

 

 

9. 9. One element of self-defense is that the attack was unprovoked. Explain what it means for an attack to be unprovoked. Provide an example. The one exception to this element is the withdrawal exception. Explain the withdrawal exception and provide an example.

 

ANS: Self-defense is available only against unprovoked attacks. So self-defense isn’t available to an initial aggressor; someone who provokes an attack can’t then use force to defend herself against the attack she provoked. For example, person A punches person B in the face person B punches person A back. The person A then stabs person B. Person A could not claim self-defense against person B because person A provoked person B. The withdrawal exception states that if attackers completely withdraw from attacks they provoke, they can defend themselves against an attack by their initial victims. Using the same example, after punching person B, person A begins backing away saying stop, I’m sorry and person B chases person A. Person A may now claim self-defense.

 

REF:   p.156             OBJ:   5

 

 

10. Since 2005, more than forty states have passed or proposed new “Castle Doctrine” legislation intended to expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense. Some argue that these new laws are the expression of one’s “right to defend” while others argue that they are a “license to kill.” Explain each argument and make your own argument for one side or the other.

 

ANS: Opponents and supporters of the castle laws see them in fundamentally different ways. Supporters claim them as the public reasserting fundamental rights. The first woman president of the National Rifle Association argues that the castle law codifies the “right of the people to use any manner of force to protect their home and its inhabitants.” She contends this right goes back to the 1400s, and that Florida prosecutors and courts took away that right by requiring that “law-abiding citizens who are attacked by criminals” have to retreat. Gun control advocates say the laws “are ushering in a violent new era where civilians may have more freedom to use deadly force than even the police.” They’re not a “right to defend”; they’re a “license to kill” (Rather 2009). The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence sees the laws entirely differently. The communications director for the Campaign says:  This law sends a message to people who are potentially dangerous and have an itchy trigger finger that as long as they can make a reasonable case they were in fear, they can use deadly force against somebody. (Kleindienst 2005)

 

REF:   p.174             OBJ:   9