Urban survival syndrome

Last updated

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.

Contents

The use of the urban survival syndrome as a defense to criminal charges followed the success of the battered woman syndrome defense in State v. Kelly (1984), which was based on the acceptance that the presence of such a syndrome may cause the defendant, a victim of domestic violence, to reasonably believe she was in peril and was therefore justified in using deadly force, given the circumstances. [1]

Defense

As an excuse defense, the urban survival syndrome is presented as a version of the abuse defense. Here an individual experiencing the daily life of racial segregation and violence common in many inner cities in the United States causes a subjective state equivalent to that caused by survival in a violent battleground of war. As such it leads to a condition similar to a syndrome already recognized in both psychological and psychiatric practices, that is, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). [2]

As a justification defense, the urban survival syndrome is offered to bolster self-defense claims in which a defendant argues that he or she should not be held criminally responsible for actions which broke the law, as the defendant was objectively reasonable in believing his or her lethal actions were necessary for survival. In this case, the act would be termed justifiable homicide. A defense of justification is a codification of the common law defense of necessity. [1]

History

State v. Brown

In State v. Brown, 91 N.M. 320, 573, P.2d 675 (N.M. 1977), the court was dealing with a similar situation to that of Osby, and a justification defense was used. The term, urban survival syndrome, had not yet come into being. Brown, a black man living in an inner city neighborhood, was charged with two counts of assault with intent to kill upon a police officer. Brown said that he was in fear of the police officers and acted in self-defense when he shot them. The court allowed defense witnesses to describe the verbal and physical harassment of blacks by police officers, including Brown, although the court refused to allow a social psychologist to testify describing studies of police conduct toward minority groups, nor those that concluded that minority groups might perceive police officers as hostile to them and would be apt to fear them in any street encounter. These studies could offer evidence of justification. Brown was convicted and appealed. [1]

The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the decision to exclude expert testimony and remanded the case back for a new trial. The court felt such testimony supported Brown in his claim that he was in fear of immediate bodily harm when he shot the police officers, rather than acting out of anger and rejection of authority, as the prosecution alleged. Therefore, evidence bearing on Brown's state of mind at the time of the offense had been excluded as a reversible error. [1]

People v. Goetz

In People v. Goetz , 68 N.Y.2d 96 (N.Y. 1986), Bernhard Goetz, a white man, used the defense of a subjective state of terror and fear to justify the shooting of four black teenagers on a New York City subway. The court held that the test for whether the use of deadly force is justified should be entirely subjective and focus on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident and dismissed the criminal indictments of attempted murder, assault, and reckless endangerment. However, upon appeal the New York Court of Appeals, in a unanimous finding, held that the use of an entirely subjective test to determine the appropriateness of deadly physical force by a defendant could permit a jury to acquit every defendant who believed that his actions were reasonable, regardless of how bizarre the rationale, creating a slippery slope. The jury could determine a different reasonable test for every single defendant claiming justification. The Court explained that the justification statute requires an objective element; deadly physical force is only permissible if a reasonable person would believe that he is in imminent fear of serious physical injury or death. [3]

Osby trial

State v. Kelly (1984), by allowing testimony on battered woman syndrome, opened the door to considering the subjective state of the perpetrator as a pathological syndrome caused by environmental factors and allowing a defense on those grounds. [1]

The term "urban survival syndrome" was first used in 1994 in a Fort Worth, Texas murder case in which two defense attorneys, David Bays and Bill Lane, defended Daimion Osby, their 17-year-old black client, who had shot and killed two unarmed men in a parking lot and was on trial on two counts of first degree murder. The victims were also black, and the defendant told the police he shot them because he was in fear for his life and had to kill them before they killed him. The attorneys argued that Osby had reason to be fearful because he lived in a dangerous community, an inner city neighborhood with one of the highest crime rates in the country. Expert testimony was allowed into evidence, provided by a sociologist, Jared Taylor, who had written on race relations and who produced statistics that the Fort Worth area where the crime took place was a dangerous area with a high crime rate, and that the two men who were killed fit the FBI profile of America's most dangerous men. Jared Taylor is identified by the Southern Poverty Law center as a white nationalist. He also testified that being killed is the greatest danger facing young men in such neighborhoods. [4] Osby claimed that for the past year the two men had repeatedly harassed and threatened him and his family over the payment of a gambling debt. Evidence was also presented that the two men had a gun in their car. [1]

Based on the testimony, the defense attorneys argued that the defendant's belief that he was in danger for his life was reasonable, and therefore he was justified in using lethal force. The jury of nine whites and three blacks deadlocked, eleven to one, in favor of conviction. The prosecutor was a black attorney who forcefully argued that there was no such syndrome in the field of psychiatry as "urban survival syndrome". The one holdout was a black man from the same neighborhood as Osby and who agreed that the area was a "war zone". [1] Six jury members interviewed after the trial said they disregarded the defense as far-fetched. Further, a coalition of black ministers from Osby's neighborhood publicly disavowed that the neighborhood was so dangerous and complained that the defense reinforced racial stereotypes. [4]

Upon retrial on the murder charges, the defense attempted to introduce testimony from a psychologist, in addition to that of the sociologist, on the psychological effects of living in a violent urban area. The psychologist's testimony was disallowed and Osby was convicted on the two murder counts and sentenced to serve life in prison. [1]

Criticisms

The "urban survival syndrome" has been criticized by black people as a stereotype as if all black people react in the same way: that as a group black people are violent, angry and more than likely guilty. [5] This perspective demonstrated the flaw in any defense that depends on the rules and mores of a subculture as a replacement for those of the dominant society. [3] Fort Worth minister Ralph Waldo Emerson stated:

[The Osby mistrial] says 'these folks' can't help shooting each other,... And it says to already nervous law-enforcement officials that they'd better be ready to draw when they stop someone in our community. [5]

The battered woman syndrome has been criticized on similar grounds: that it encourages the societal stereotype of women as helpless and incapacitated. While the court testimony can support the woman's actions as reasonable under the circumstances as self-defense, the courts seem to focus on testimony that portray the battered woman as "dysfunctional". Further problems arise with this defense when an analogous syndrome, the "battered child syndrome" is used as a defense, as the unique susceptibility of a woman to domestic violence can seem to be undercut. [1]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Richard M. Bonnie, Anne M. Coughlin, John C. Jefferies, Jr. and Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury, New York: The Foundation Press. pp. 331, 374–378. ISBN   1-56662-448-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ↑ Clarke, George W. "NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service". www.ncjrs.gov. Retrieved 2008-08-15.
  3. 1 2 Wachtler, Chief Judge. "The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Bernhard Goetz, Respondent - Court of Appeals of New York". wings.buffalo.edu. Archived from the original on 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2008-08-17.
  4. 1 2 . Harris, Paul (May 1999). Black Rage Confronts the Law - Google Book Search. ISBN   9780814735923 . Retrieved 2008-08-15.
  5. 1 2 Gregory, Sophreonia Scott (1994-06-06). "Oprah! Oprah in the Court! - TIME". Time. Archived from the original on September 3, 2010. Retrieved 2008-08-16.

Related Research Articles

The right of self-defense is the right for people to use reasonable or defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life (self-defense) or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Self-defense</span> Countermeasure that involves defending oneself from harm

Self-defense is a countermeasure that involves defending the health and well-being of oneself from harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions.

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."

Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or an agent of the state induces a person to commit a crime that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. In US law, it is defined as "the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent".

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.

On December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot four youths on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan after they allegedly tried to rob him. All four victims survived, though one, Darrell Cabey, was paralyzed and suffered brain damage as a result of his injuries. Goetz fled to Bennington, Vermont, before surrendering to police nine days after the shooting. He was charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury subsequently found Goetz guilty of one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm and acquitted him of the remaining charges. For the firearm offense, he served eight months of a one-year sentence. In 1996, Cabey obtained a $43 million civil judgment against Goetz after a civil jury ruled Goetz as liable, equivalent to $84 million today.

The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defense to culpable homicide. Generally, there is a burden to produce exculpatory evidence in the legal defense of justification.

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.

A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called a "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, was a court case chiefly concerning subjective and objective standards of reasonableness in using deadly force for self-defense; the New York Court of Appeals held that a hybrid objective-subjective standard was mandated by New York law.

<i>R v Lavallee</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on the legal recognition of battered woman syndrome. The judgment, written by Justice Bertha Wilson, is generally considered one of her most famous. The court held in favour of allowing battered woman syndrome to explain how the mental conditions for self-defence were present in this case, and Lavallee's acquittal was restored.

Self-defence is a defence

reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises from both common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than excuse.

In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive.

Robert Nathan Wilentz was Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court from 1979 to 1996, making him the longest-serving Chief Justice since the Supreme Court became New Jersey's highest court in 1948.

State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178; 478 A.2d 364 (1984), is a Supreme Court of New Jersey case where the defendant, Gladys Kelly, was on trial for the murder of her husband, Ernest Kelly with a pair of scissors. The Supreme Court reversed the case for further trial after finding that expert testimony regarding the defence's submission, that Kelly suffered from battered woman syndrome, was incorrectly excluded since battered woman syndrome was a proper subject for expert evidence. Kelly was represented by Charles S. Lorber who is now with Mandelbaum Salsburg of West Orange N.J.

People v. Berry is a voluntary manslaughter case that is widely taught in American law schools for the appellate court's unusual interpretation of heat of passion doctrine. Although the defendant had time to "cool down" between his wife's verbal admission of infidelity and the killing, the California Supreme Court held that the provocation in this case was adequate to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. The lower court had relied on the traditional definition of "adequate provocation" in its jury instructions. The California Supreme Court reversed Berry's murder conviction, while affirming Berry's conviction for assault using deadly force.

The Penal Law of the State of New York combines justification and necessity into a single article, Article 35. "Defense of Justification" comprises sections 35.05 through 35.30 of the Penal Law. The general provision relating to necessity, section 35.05, provides:

§ 35.05 Justification; generally.

Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of the United States</span>

The criminal law of the United States is a manifold system of laws and practices that connects crimes and consequences. In comparison, civil law addresses non-criminal disputes. The system varies considerably by jurisdiction, but conforms to the US Constitution. Generally there are two systems of criminal law to which a person maybe subject; the most frequent is state criminal law, and the other is federal law.

State v. Leidholm, Supreme Court of North Dakota, 334 N.W.2d 811 (1983), is a criminal law case distinguishing the subjective and objective standard of reasonableness in a case where a battered woman used self-protection as a defense. Janice Leidholm had killed her husband near Washburn, North Dakota and claimed self defense. The case clarifies between the defenses of justification and excuse. The case overturned Janice Leidholm’s prior conviction regarding her husband’s death.

State v. Dumlao is a 1986 criminal Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals case appealing a murder conviction on the ground that the court's decision to not issue a jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter based on extreme emotional disturbance was a reversible error. The court found that the Model Penal Code required a subjective analysis of whether provocation is adequate from the defendant's perspective. Based on medical testimony that Dumlao suffered from "paranoid personality disorder", which included symptoms of "unwarranted suspiciousness" and hypersensitivity, the Court granted Dumlao's appeal, holding that his actions on the night he killed his mother in law had been "reasonable" from his perspective.

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.