The Law of Self-defense
We concur with Justice White's interpretation of Tennessee State law. However, we propose that more restrictive standards should be used by policemen when dealing with imminently dangerous circumstances.
The necessity standard that White proposes for governing the use of lethal force strikes the right balance in regulating violence. He insists that the police act reasonably by evaluating whether the felon's interest in life outweighs the state's interest in seizing the felon by lethal force. Because we honor the supreme value of human life, lethal force should only be used when there is a reasonable belief that the felon poses a significant threat to the policeman or society.
More restrictive standards of policing will minimize discretion and prevent unnecessary violence. The decision to impose death on a criminal should be left to the discretion of the judges rather than the police. A slight error in the judgement of the policeman can impose a death penalty on someone who does not deserve it. Furthermore, policemen can be driven to use lethal force because of personal biases and reluctance or incapability to seize the felon through non-violent methods.
White's standard is less restrictive than the standard governing self-defense and the death penalty. The doctrine of self-defense requires the presence of the four conditions- imminence, necessity, proportionality and no intent to punish- whereas White's standard only requires necessity for the use of lethal force. White's standard should be less restrictive than the standard of self-defense because the police have legitimate authority to use violence to maintain order and safety in society. Law asks us to be better than we would otherwise...
... middle of paper ...
...s a top-down, hierarchical bureaucracy in which, judges make the decisions that must be obeyed by all other legal actors. Leventhal is thus the 'anti-Cover' in that he recognizes that police officers have the power to make law. In Garner White rejects common law because it was constitutionally unreasonable with regards to the totality of circumstances. Thus, by rejecting common law, White, like Leventhal, understands that law in the books is different from law in action. As the police govern law in action, White hesitates to hinder the police from using discretion, which is essential for effective law enforcement.
In conclusion, we agree with Justice White's decision to impose a standard on the use of lethal force. However, as we stress the importance of the supreme value of human life, we want greater standards to be fulfilled before the use of lethal force.
Second, McCleskey had to establish the extent of this treatment. Last, he had to prove that the process by which the death penalty was chosen was open to racial bias. McCleskey met all three prongs of this standard, and even though the Court’s decision denied his claim that he was not guaranteed equal protection, there is enough evidence to prove the selection process was not racially neutral and that a violation of the 14th Amendment was present. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons. In order to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination, McCleskey must first demonstrate that he belonged to a group “that is a recognizable, distinct class, singled out for different treatment” (McCleskey v. Kemp 318).
Over the years, our nation has witnessed countless cases of police brutality. It has developed into a controversial topic between communities. For instance, deindustrialization is the removal or reduction of manufacturing capability or activity can lead to more crimes when people are laid off. Police officers are faced with many threatening situations day-to-day gripping them to make split second decisions; either to expect the worst or hope for the best. The police are given the authority to take any citizen away for their action that can ruin their lives. With that kind of power comes great responsibility, which is one main concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force might or
This paper will examine the pros and cons of the death penalty. Is it a deterrent or is that a myth. Does it give the family of the victim peace or does it cause them to suffer waiting for appeal after appeal. What are the forms of execution and any evidence of them being cruel and usual punishment. Is the death penalty fair if there are glaring, disparities in sentencing depending on geographic location and the color of the offender and victim’s skin?
Police brutality is a very real problem that many Americans face today. The police carry an enormous burden each day. Police work is very stressful and involves many violent and dangerous situations. In many confrontations the police are put in a position in which they may have to use force to control the situation. There are different levels of force and the situation dictates the level use most of the time. The police have very strict rules about police use force and the manner in which they use it. In this paper I will try to explain the many different reason the police cross the line, and the many different people that this type of behavior effects. There are thousands of reports each year of assaults and ill treatment against officers who use excessive force and violate the human rights of their victims. In some cases the police have injured and even killed people through the use of excessive force and brutal treatment. The use of excessive force is a criminal act and I will try and explore the many different factors involved in these situations.
(Roman, 2013) In the case ofTrayvon Martin many believed the Stand Your Ground laws gave George Zimmerman a free pass to kill anAfrican-American boy. However, not every case is the same and a law cannot be repealed due to one failed case. Stand Your Ground laws value the life of the victim over the life of the criminal, which means that even if a criminal enters your home without the intent to kill or cause physical harm, they are still entering with a criminal intent. Proof that the victims life was in danger is no longer necessary because the presumption that the criminal intended to commit a crime speaks for itself. Many don’t agree with taking the life of a criminal if they didn’t intend to do physical harm to a victim, but it is impossible to know what an aggressor is planning on doing. It’s better to be safe than to have a dead victim with their back against a wall. Another issue that many find with Stand Your Ground laws is the propensity of racial bias within the court room. In a recent study done by the Tampa Bay Times newspaper, it was found that the courts seemed to value the lives of white victims more than those of black victims. (Ackerman, Goodman, Gilbert, Arroyo-Johnson, and Pagano, 2015) However, this study did not discuss the amount of black on white crimes compared to
The four criminal law elements of self-defense are nonaggressor, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Nonaggressor is when the defender did not in any way provoke or stray an attack. When it comes to self-defense it is only available when it comes to unprovoked attacks. If one provokes someone they cannot use self-defense to defend themselves from the attack because they provoked it. However there is one exception and that is the withdrawal exception. The withdrawal exception is when the initial aggressor withdrawals completely from the attack they provoked they can defend themselves against their initial victims. An example of nonaggressor self-defense is Melody hanging out at the bar by herself and Samantha comes up to her trying
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
This day in age discretion is an enormous deal in the scope of criminal justice, whether more discretion is being granted, or more is being taken away from the system as a whole, it is a massive topic to be discussed. Discretion is defined as the power or right to decide or act according to one’s own judgement in a given situation (“Discretion” n.d). Today I am going to tell you about discretion in three different ways, firstly I will explain the use of discretion in policing, then I will explain how discretion is used or not used in courts and sentencing, and finally I will tell you why I feel discretion is an necessary part of our criminal justice system here in the United States of America.
The degree of force that officers use is heavily influenced by police discretion in real-world situations rather than espoused by a certain agenda. Discretion can be classified into four different categories where administrators, the community, and the individual police officer exercise differing degrees of influence in decision-making. What is needed to help officer discretion is a central ethos that will guide discretion when all other rules fail to help.
In today’s society, police officers are very cautious on how much force they can use on a suspect due to the police brutality going on right now. Police brutality is defined as the use of force exceeding what is necessary, many people argue that there should be new policies to determine how much force a police officer can use and also have laws that will convict officers who have killed people by using too much force, so that there is less incidents in the future.
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
A '''use of force continuum''' is a standard that affords law enforcement officials & security officers (police, probation, or corrections) with guidelines as to how much use of force may be used against a repelling subject in a given situation. In certain ways it is similar to the military’s escalation of force. The reason of these models is to clarify, both for officers and citizens, the complex subject of use of force by law officers. They are often vital parts of law enforcement agencies' use of force policies. Although various agencies have developed different models of the continuum, there is no universal standard model (Stetser, 2001, p. 36)
Recently in the United States there has been in increase in deaths that have come from police officers using deadly force. The use of force is inevitable as a police officer, many times their own lives or the life’s civilians are at risk when it comes to determine what type of force a officer should use. There are many incidents where police officer have to react in a matter of seconds and has to choose between his own life or that of the individual causing the disturbance. When a Police Officer uses deadly force has caused outraged with the public, stirring up protests and creating a scandal for the police officer and the Police Department. Many do not know when it is right for an officer to use deadly force and what constitutes it, or what happens when the officer does not use the appropriate amount of force that is required to control the situation. There has been many changes in Police Departments around the country to try to reduce the use of deadly force in response to the issues that have occurred because of it.
The Web. The Web. 15 Mar. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Gul, Zakir, Hakan Hekim, and Ramazan Terkesil. “Controlling Police (Excessive) Force: The American Case.”
It also advocated for the abolition of the death penalty. Discretion used by judges was unlimited, which saw extremely inconsistent and harsh penalties applied to offenders, with disadvantaged offenders being given much harsher penalties than those offenders with a higher social status (Monachesi, 1955). The Classical School of Criminology worked off four main principles: firstly, that individuals act according to their rationality and their own free will, secondly, individuals will weigh up the benefits of committing the crime and compare the benefits to the consequences if they are caught, thirdly, the severity of the punishment must be tied closely with the severity of the crime to act as a deterrent to others and finally, the punishment must be carried out swiftly in an attempt to deter and reduce further crime (Jenkins,