'Violent Responses to Abuse' Chapter 2 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Homicide Law Reform in Australia: Improving Access to Defences for Women Who Kill Their Abusers
Over the past three decades, the law of homicide has been the subject of much academic debate, parliamentary review and various law reform commission reports throughout Australia. Such activity is largely a response to concerns about the availability and operation of the defences to homicide for women who kill in the context of family violence. The law in each state and territory in Australia differs and the issues with which reform bodies are grappling are complex. It is therefore not surprising that different recommendations have been made about how best to produce a more just law of homicide. This article explores some of these reviews and recommendations — particularly in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia — and the reforms that have been planned and implemented. It will reveal that, despite sharing the core concern of improving the access to appropriate defences for women who kill their abusers, reform has been far from consistent across these jurisdict...
Flinders Law Journal, 2011
Imminence, usually understood to require a close temporal connection between an actual harm or threat of harm and a defensive response, has traditionally served as a key consideration in self-defence. Previously functioning as a rule of law, in more recent times imminence has served as an evidentiary matter going to the reasonableness and necessity of an accused’s conduct. However, during the past two decades imminence has proven problematic in cases involving victims of chronic family violence who killed their abusers in non-confrontational circumstances and sought to plead self-defence. A number of jurisdictions in Australia responded to this by developing distinctive approaches to imminence. Five key approaches are discernible, with the most radical reform (in Queensland) seemingly substituting a history of domestic violence for a requirement of imminence. Other jurisdictions, including Victoria and Western Australia, have considerably relaxed imminence considerations. It now appears that while imminence previously may have operated as an independent temporal measure, its function as a proxy for necessity is now clear – at least in cases involving victims of family violence who kill their abusers. The absence of effective State protection for some of these individuals may justify an exception to the general rule that only the State can use force to protect in non-imminent circumstances. Consequently, for victims of family violence who kill their abusers, necessity rather than imminence may be the key consideration.
Divergent directions in reforming legal responses to lethal violence
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2012
Over the past three decades, debates about legal reforms to lethal violence have been evident across Australia and in other jurisdictions. While these debates have often arisen from shared concerns, the resulting reforms have taken different approaches to reformulating the defences to murder. This article considers the divergent approaches taken to reform and the process of law reform itself, documenting the significance of localised histories and high profile cases. It also questions whether reforms to the defences to murder have responded adequately to the varying contexts within which men and women kill. The analysis reveals the limitations of law reform inquiries that fail to take a comprehensive approach to considering the operation of the laws in this area. The article calls for ongoing critical analysis of homicide within and beyond the law.
Victoria’s New Homicide Laws: Provocative Reforms or More Women “Asking For It”?
Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 2011
The controversial partial defence of provocation has now been abolished in three Australian jurisdictions, including Victoria. Recent developments in Victorian case law would appear to suggest a continuation of 'excuses' for male anger and violence towards women that position the woman victim as to blame for her own death. This article considers that the 2005 abolition of provocation was only in part designed to redress the problem of victim-blame. The decision was accompanied by other key changes introduced into the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to make it easier for women who kill in the context of family violence to successfully claim self-defence and 'excessive self-defence' (defensive homicide). Drawing on recent developments in Victorian case law since the 2005 amendments, this article argues that the claim that provocation's victim-blaming narratives are being mobilised in the guise of other defences merits closer analysis. It also argues that provocation's critics must continue to expose the gendered (and raced) assumptions underlying the other defences to homicide, such as self-defence including manslaughter and the new offence of defensive homicide. Otherwise there is a risk that provocation's victim-blaming narratives could end up rewritten in such a way that support an argument for a reduction in culpability in cases where there is a history of violence against the woman victim, which is likely to result in claims that little has changed.
Victoria's New Homicide Laws: Provocative Reforms or More Stories of Women 'asking for it'?
2011
The controversial partial defence of provocation has now been abolished in three Australian jurisdictions, including Victoria. Recent developments in Victorian case law would appear to suggest a continuation of 'excuses' for male anger and violence towards women that position the woman victim as to blame for her own death. This article considers that the 2005 abolition of provocation was only in part designed to redress the problem of victim-blame. The decision was accompanied by other key changes introduced into the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) to make it easier for women who kill in the context of family violence to successfully claim self-defence and 'excessive self-defence' (defensive homicide). Drawing on recent developments in Victorian case law since the 2005 amendments, this article argues that the claim that provocation's victim-blaming narratives are being mobilised in the guise of other defences merits closer analysis. It also argues that provocation's critics must continue to expose the gendered (and raced) assumptions underlying the other defences to homicide, such as self-defence including manslaughter and the new offence of defensive homicide. Otherwise there is a risk that provocation's victim-blaming narratives could end up rewritten in such a way that support an argument for a reduction in culpability in cases where there is a history of violence against the woman victim, which is likely to result in claims that little has changed.
Submission on the Department of Justice’s Defensive Homicide: Proposals for Legislative Reform - Consultation Paper (2013) This is a joint submission on behalf of: • The Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria • Dr Danielle Tyson (Department of Criminology, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University) • The Victorian Women’s Trust • The Federation of Community Legal Centres • Prof. Bronwyn Naylor (Faculty of Law, Monash University) • Domestic Violence Victoria • No To Violence • Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service • inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence • Women Disabilities Victoria • Women’s Health Victoria • Koori Women Mean Business • Peninsula Community Legal Centre • Victorian Women Lawyers • Women’s Legal Service Victoria • Human Rights Law Centre Prepared by: Dr Debbie Kirkwood, Mandy McKenzie, Dr Danielle Tyson, Dr Chris Atmore, Sarah Capper, Libby Eltringham 27 November 2013
Domestic Violence and the Gendered Law of Self-Defence in France: The Case of Jacqueline Sauvage
Feminist Legal Studies, 2017
Legal responses to battered women who kill have long animated scholarly debate and law reform activity. In September 2012 after 47 years of alleged abuse, Frenchwoman Jacqueline Sauvage fatally shot her abusive husband three times in the back. The subsequent contested trial, conviction for murder, unsuccessful appeal and later presidential pardon of Sauvage thrust the French law of self-defence into the spotlight. The Sauvage case raises important questions surrounding the adequacy of the French criminal law in this area, the ongoing proliferation of gendered stereotypes in law and the need for reform. In the wake of the Sauvage case, this article provides a timely analysis of the gendered law of self-defence in France. Drawing from an in-depth analysis of the judgments imposed in the Sauvage case, this article examines the adequacy of French legal responses to battered women who kill and ignites an argument for further law reform.