Abuse defense

Last updated

The abuse defense is a criminal law defense in which the defendant argues that a prior history of abuse justifies violent retaliation. While the term most often refers to instances of child abuse or sexual assault, it also refers more generally to any attempt by the defense to use a syndrome or societal condition to deflect responsibility away from the defendant. Sometimes the concept is referred to as the abuse excuse, in particular by the critics of the idea that guilty people may use past victimization to diminish the responsibility for their crimes. [1]

Contents

When the abuser is the victim of the crime, as is often the case, the abuse excuse is sometimes used as a way to "put the victim on trial".

The Supreme Court of the United States has held on numerous occasions that the defendant should be permitted to present any information that they feel might affect sentencing. Despite this legal precedent, the availability of the abuse defense has been criticized by several legal experts, particularly in the aftermath of the trials of Lorena Bobbitt and the Menendez brothers. Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has described the abuse excuse as a "lawless invitation to vigilantism".

Definition

The abuse defense is "the legal tactic by which criminal defendants claim a history of abuse as an excuse for violent retaliation". [2] In some instances, such as the Bobbitt trial, the supposed abuse occurs shortly before the retaliative act; in such cases, the abuse excuse is raised as a means of claiming temporary insanity or the right of self-defense. In other trials, such as those of the Menéndez brothers, the supposed abuse occurs over a prolonged period of time, often beginning during the defendant's childhood; this relates the abuse defense to the concept of diminished capacity. Because the victim of the act is often the person who committed abuse against the defendant in the past, the goal of the abuse excuse is to "put the victim on trial" and show that the abuser "had it coming". [3]

Other responsibility deflection defenses

There are more than 40 distinct defenses and syndromes that have been employed by defense attorneys, all of which share the goal of deflecting responsibility for the crime away from the defendant. [4] Some of these defenses seek to relate the defendant's behavior to previously existing medical conditions, such as antisocial personality disorder, fetal alcohol syndrome, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Other defenses seek to attribute the criminal act to the society in which the defendant lives rather than his or her own choices; the pornography defense asserts that the proliferation of pornography causes men to commit acts of sexual violence, and urban survival syndrome claims that violent conditions in a city or neighborhood may justify violent actions by a particular individual. [5]

Prevalence

A growing concern among the American public is that guilty criminals are too often excused for their crimes or are given unsuitably short sentences, a problem that is exacerbated by the use of the abuse defense. Legal experts counter that excuse defenses either serve an insignificant role in the trial or are entirely unsuccessful. [6] During the trial of Dan White, who assassinated gay rights advocates George Moscone and Harvey Milk, one expert testimony mentioned that the consumption of large amounts of junk food may have intensified White's state of depression prior to the murders. It was widely reported that White's counsel had earned him a reduced sentence by employing the so-called "Twinkie defense", despite the fact that the subject of sugar intoxication was only briefly touched upon during the trial. [7]

Although the American public often complains about the supposed frequency with which defendants use the abuse defense, the reality is that it is generally only used in high-profile cases. In order for the abuse defense to be employed effectively, it is necessary for the defense to produce expert testimony on the defendant's behalf. Most defendants are unable to pay for such testimony; as such, qualified experts tend to provide advocating testimony only in those cases in which the defendant is wealthy or is supported by public interest groups. [8] The trials of Lorena Bobbitt and the Menéndez brothers were two high-profile cases that are often cited as examples of the abuse excuse in action.

Bobbitt trial

On June 23, 1993, Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's penis with a kitchen knife while he was sleeping. Afterward, she drove away and tossed the severed penis out the car window into a nearby field. [9] Bobbitt later claimed that her husband had raped her immediately prior to the incident, though he denied these claims and was eventually acquitted of rape charges. [10] Bobbitt also claimed that her husband had repeatedly raped and verbally abused her in the past, and that the memories of this abuse "raced through her head" in the moments prior to the attack on her husband. At her trial, Bobbitt's defense attorney argued that she was not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. She was acquitted by this reason and was released after being taken into custody for psychiatric evaluation. [9] Legal critics argued that Bobbitt won her trial by means of the abuse defense. [11]

Menendez brothers

In August 1989, brothers Lyle and Erik Menendez shot and killed their parents in their home in Beverly Hills, California. The two constructed an elaborate alibi [12] and maintained their innocence for several years until Erik confessed to his psychotherapist. When it was decided that the murder confession could be used as evidence during their trials, the brothers entered pleas of self-defense. They claimed that they had been sexually abused by their father throughout childhood and that they feared their parents intended to murder them. [13] Despite the judge's refusal to present the juries with self-defense instructions, [14] the first trials both ended with hung juries and were declared mistrials. Although the brothers were eventually convicted and given consecutive life sentences, [15] many legal experts were outraged by the mistrials. [13] [14]

The Supreme Court of the United States has held on numerous occasions that capital defendants have the right to present information about an abusive childhood as mitigating evidence. [16] Prior to 1978, the capital statute of Ohio had placed limitations on what mitigating factors the defense could present during sentencing. However, this statute was invalidated by Lockett v. Ohio , in which Chief Justice Warren E. Burger proclaimed that the sentencer should not be "precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant's character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death." [17] A similar conclusion was reached in the 1982 case Eddings v. Oklahoma , in which the Supreme Court held that United States law does not prevent a jury from considering a defendant's childhood abuse when determining the appropriate sentence. [18]

In the June 2003 case Wiggins v. Smith , the petitioner Kevin Wiggins, who had been sentenced to death for murder, was granted habeas corpus because his attorney had failed to fully investigate or present mitigating evidence regarding Wiggins's childhood. Wiggins had been abused and neglected by his mother and was repeatedly raped while in foster care; the Supreme Court determined that there was a "reasonable probability" that such information would have altered the jury's sentencing, and that the attorney's failure to present this information violated Wiggins's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. [16]

Responses

Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz has argued that, while a prior history of victimization may be a contributing factor to a violent crime, victimization alone cannot fully explain an act of violence. The vast majority of those who have suffered abuse do not go on to kill their abuser, and there is no known correlation between severity of abuse and the "deadliness of the response". [19] Dershowitz views the effectiveness of the abuse defense as a "lawless invitation to vigilantism" which will serve only to extend the cycle of violence. [20]

Although political scientist James Q. Wilson has also denounced the abuse excuse, he points out that it is only effective if a jury finds it to be compelling evidence of innocence or a substantial mitigating factor. When this occurs, there is no reason to exclude claims of abuse from the trial proceedings. [21] Wilson has argued that the problem lies not in the employment of excuses as legal defenses, but in the intermingling of social science, which seeks to explain human behavior, with criminal law, which seeks to judge behavior. [22] Although many citizens advocate severe penalties as a means of reducing crime, a number of studies have shown that the juror's desire to realize that goal is often overridden by the inherent desire to understand the behavior that leads to crime. [23]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "Women and the Abuse Excuse", by Michael A. Dowd.
  2. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, p. 3
  3. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, p. 45
  4. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, pp. 18–19
  5. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, pp. 321–341
  6. ↑ Wilson 1997, pp. 1–3
  7. ↑ Wilson 1997, pp. 22–23
  8. ↑ Wilson 1997, pp. 21–22
  9. 1 2 Pershing 1996, p. 2
  10. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, pp. 57–60
  11. ↑ Greene et al 2006, p. 389.
  12. ↑ Wilson 1997, p. 60
  13. 1 2 Costin, Karger and Stoesz 1997, p. 32
  14. 1 2 Dershowitz 1994, pp. 46–47
  15. ↑ "Menendez Brothers Sentenced to Life in Prison". New York Times. July 3, 1996. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  16. 1 2 Litton 2005, Section IIIA
  17. ↑ Lockett v. Ohio , p. 604
  18. ↑ Litton 2005, Section IIIC
  19. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, pp. 24–25
  20. ↑ Dershowitz 1994, p. 27
  21. ↑ Wilson 1997, p. 3
  22. ↑ Wilson 1997, p. 7
  23. ↑ Wilson 1997, p. 90

Related Research Articles

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make findings of fact, and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to criminal justice:

In American jurisprudence, an excuse is a defense to criminal charges that is a distinct from an exculpation. Justification and excuse are different defenses in a criminal case. Exculpation is a related concept which reduces or extinguishes a person's culpability, such as their liability to pay compensation to the victim of a tort in the civil law.

In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice. It "affects the quality of the actor's state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness."

In criminal law, irresistible impulse is a defense by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those actions, even if they knew them to be wrong. It was added to the M'Naghten rule as a basis for acquittal in the mid 20th century.

The urban survival syndrome, in United States jurisprudence, can be used either as a defense of justification or of excuse. The first case using, unsuccessfully, the defense of "urban survival syndrome" is the 1994 Fort Worth, Texas murder trial of Daimion Osby.

Louise Woodward, born in 1978 (age 45–46), is a British former au pair, who at the age of 18 was charged with murder, but was subsequently convicted of the involuntary manslaughter of eight-month-old baby Matthew Eappen, in Newton, Massachusetts, United States of America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic psychiatry</span> Subspeciality of psychiatry, related to criminology

Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it is defined as "a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied in legal contexts involving civil, criminal, correctional, regulatory, or legislative matters, and in specialized clinical consultations in areas such as risk assessment or employment." A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment, such as medications and psychotherapy, to criminals.

Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is a pattern of signs and symptoms displayed by a woman who has suffered persistent intimate partner violence—psychological, physical, or sexual—from her male partner. It is classified in the ICD-9 as battered person syndrome, but is not in the DSM-5. It may be diagnosed as a subcategory of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Victims may exhibit a range of behaviors, including self-isolation, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse, and signs of physical injury or illness, such as bruises, broken bones, or chronic fatigue.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crimes that they were accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court spelled out standards for "effectiveness" in the constitutional right to legal counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Previously the court had determined that the Sixth Amendment included the right to "effective assistance" of legal counsel, but it did not specify what constitutes "effective", thus leaving the standards for effectiveness vague. In Wiggins v. Smith, the court set forth the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Guideline 11.8.6.(1989), as a specific guideline by which to measure effectiveness and competence of legal counsel.

In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as an extenuating circumstance, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Unlike a legal defense, the presentation of mitigating factors will not result in the acquittal of a defendant. The opposite of a mitigating factor is an aggravating factor.

Settled insanity is defined as a permanent or "settled" condition caused by long-term substance abuse and differs from the temporary state of intoxication. In some United States jurisdictions "settled insanity" can be used as a basis for an insanity defense, even though voluntary intoxication cannot, if the "settled insanity" negates one of the required elements of the crime such as malice aforethought. However, U.S. federal and state courts have differed in their interpretations of when the use of "settled insanity" is acceptable as an insanity defense and also over what is included in the concept of "settled insanity".

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

Fault, as a legal term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the actus reus and the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it.

John Wayne Bobbitt and Lorena Bobbitt were an American former couple, married on June 18, 1989, whose relationship received international press coverage in 1993 when Lorena severed John's penis with a steak knife while he was asleep in bed; the penis was successfully surgically reattached. Lorena, an Ecuadorian immigrant, claimed that her husband John, a bar bouncer and former U.S. Marine, had raped and abused her for years. John was charged with rape later that year but was acquitted and subsequently starred in two pornographic films. The next year, Lorena was acquitted of assault by reason of insanity and went on to start a foundation for domestic abuse victims and their children. The couple divorced in 1995.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perry Mason syndrome</span> Social effect of television portrayals of the legal system

The Perry Mason syndrome is the manner in which the television crime drama Perry Mason (1957–1966) may have affected perceptions of the United States legal system among defendants and jurors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perry Mason moment</span> Moment during a trial that radically shifts the likely outcome

In court proceedings in the United States, a Perry Mason moment is said to have occurred whenever information is unexpectedly, and often dramatically, introduced into the record that changes the perception of the proceedings greatly and often influences the outcome. Often it takes the form of a witness's answer to a question, but it can sometimes come in the form of new evidence. It takes its name from Perry Mason, a fictional character in novels and stories written by Erle Stanley Gardner, where such dramatic reversals occurred, often in the form of witnesses confessing to crimes others were accused of in response to the sudden exposure of an inconsistency in their alibi.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.