Cost: $25.00

If you do not want to order online, and would prefer to send in your order using email, fax, mail or phone, download and print the ORDER FORM.

If you questions, please email help@victorybriefs.com or call 310-472-6364.

About the Product

Author(s) and/or Contributor(s): Stephen Babb, Erik Legried, Jeff Liu, Christian Tarsney, Adam Torson

Description: Topic analysis and evidence for the Jan/Feb 2012. Topics covered include self-defense, battered woman syndrome, structural barriers to escaping abuse, and much more.

File Index

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Topic Analysis by Stephen Babb……………………………………………………………….. 9

Topic Analysis by Erik Legried………………………………………………………………… 20

Topic Analysis by Jeff Liu…………………………………………………………………………. 29

Topic Analysis by Christian Tarsney…………………………………………………….. 44

Topic Analysis by Adam Torson………………………………………………………………. 58

FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE…………………………………………………………………………………. 73

THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO SUFFER FROM OR ARE KILLED BY ABUSE IS SHOCKINGLY HIGH 73

A LARGE PROPORTION OF WOMEN WILL EXPERIENCE SOME FORM OF DOMESTIC ABUSE………….. 74

THE NUMBER OF VICTIMS WHO KILL THEIR ABUSERS REMAINS LOW, BUT THE ISSUE IMPLICATES GENDER EQUALITY ISSUES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 75

The Nature of Domestic Abuse………………………………………………………………………………. 76

BATTERED CHILD SYNDROME MAY REFER EITHER TO INJURIES SUSTAINED BY YOUNG CHILDREN BECAUSE OF ABUSE OR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CYCLE OF ABUSE EXPERIENCED BY OLDER CHILDREN……………………………………… 76

DOMESTIC ABUSE CAN BE PHYSICAL, SEXUAL, AND EMOTION, AND FOLLOW A DISTINCTIVE CYCLE OF TENSION BUILDING, ACCUTE EXPLOSION, AND CONTRITION………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77

BATTERED WOMEN GENERALLY EXPERIENCE MULTIPLE KINDS AND INCIDENTS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE          78

Court Treatment of Abuse Victims………………………………………………………………………… 79

STATES TAKES A VARIETY OF APPROACHES TO BATTERED WOMAN’S SYNDROME………………………. 79

COURTS DIFFER IN THEIR TREATMENT OF CONFRONTATIONAL VERSUS NON-CONFRONTATIONAL KILLINGS BY VICTIMS OF ABUSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 80

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 81

Justification versus Excuse…………………………………………………………………………………. 82

JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES CLAIM THAT AN OTHERWISE CRIMINAL ACT WAS FULLY WARRANTED OR PRAISEWORTHY IN THE PARTICULAR CASE, WHEREAS EXCUSE DEFENSES MAINTAIN THAT THE ACT WAS STILL WRONGFUL BUT THE PERSON CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR DOING IT………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 82

THE JUSTIFICATION-EXCUSE DISTINCTION RESOLVES SCENARIOS THAT WOULD OTHEWISE RESULT IN MORAL PARADOX #1 -…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 83

THE FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL IS #1 – 303………………………………………………………………………………………. 84

ONLY THE JUSTIFICATION-EXCUSE DISTINCTION RESOLVES THE PARADOX IN HYPOTHETICAL #1 – 305         85

THE FOLLOWING HYPOTHETICAL IS #2…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

AGAIN, THE EXCUSE-JUSTIFICATION DISTINCTION IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE THE PARADOX…. 87

USING JUST JUSTIFICATION RESULTS IN A REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM OF TWO RIGHTS MAKE TWO WRONGS MAKE TWO RIGHTS, ETC. -………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 88

SELF-DEFENSE IS TRADITIONALLY A JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, NOT MERELY AN EXCUSE………….. 89

AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE…………………………………………………………………………………. 90

Moral Right to Self-Defense………………………………………………………………………………… 90

THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IS A LAW OF NATURE………………………………………………………………………….. 90

THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE COMES FROM THE BASIC LOGIC OF JUSTICE…………………………………. 91

SELF-DEFENSE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED SIMPLY BY BALANCING THE INTERESTS OF THE PARTIES; CULPABILITY MUST BE A RELEVANT FACTOR…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 92

SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY BALANCING THE PARTIES’ INTERESTS, BECAUSE IT PERMITS THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE WHEN LESSER HARM IS THREATENED…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 93

THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT IT WOULD PRODUCE A NET REDUCTION IN UTILITY, AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT BASED ON THE BALANCING OF INTERESTS………………………………………………….. 94

SELF-DEFENSE PROTECTS THE VALUES OF LIFE AND AUTONOMY AND MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY    95

THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IS BASED ON THE AGGRESSOR FORCING THE VICTIM TO CHOOSE BETWEEN LIVES, NOT SOME RETRIBUTIVE PRINCIPLE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 96

SELF-DEFENSE IS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE AGGRESSOR SHOULD BEAR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FORCING A CHOICE BETWEEN LIVES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 97

SELF-DEFENSE IS JUSTIFIED EVEN WHEN THE AGGRESSOR IS NOT CULPABLE OR NOT AN AGENT, BECAUSE THE VICTIM HAS DONE NO WRONG AND HAS BEEN FORCED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN LIVES……………………………………… 98

INDIVIDUALS DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR INNATE RIGHT TO KILL AN AGGRESSOR TO THE STATE AS PART OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 99

SELF-DEFENSE IS A PRE-POLITICAL, MORAL RIGHT…………………………………………………………………………. 100

THE STATE IS ILLEGITIMATE IF IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE………………. 101

Psychological and Structural Barriers to Escaping Abusive Relationships…………….. 102

VICTIMS OFTEN FEEL THAT THE ONLY WAY OUT OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAP OF DOMESTIC ABUSE IS TO KILL THEIR ABUSERS; MANY DO SO………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102

THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF REASONS VICTIMS STAY IN BATTERING RELATIONSHIPS……………….. 103

THE GOVERNMENT IS PERCEIVED TO BE AND ACTUALLY UNHELPFUL IN PREVENTING ABUSE – 104

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ACTORS APPROACH INTERVENTION WITH DIFFERENT GOALS THAN VICTIMS: THIS DISCREPANCY IS PROBLEMATIC-………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105

THE COURTS FOCUS ON PAST JUSTICE IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE VICTIMS FOCUS ON FUTURE CARE – DECREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THEY VIEW THE SYSTEM AS AN ALTERNATIVE……………………………………………………………. 106

WHEN THE STATE ASSERTS COERCIVE CONTROL OVER THE VICTIM THEY MIRROR THE ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP -     107

TRADITIONAL PERSPECTIVES OF IMMINENCE DO NOT CAPTURE THE COMPLEXITIES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -         108

MEDIATION IS AN UNSUCCESFUL TACTIC WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COUPLES -…………………….. 109

WOMEN FEEL LIKE THERE ARE NO OPTIONS NOW THAT THERE ARE MANDATORY ARREST LAWS – THEY WON’T EVEN CALL FOR HELP……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 110

RURAL WOMAN FACE PARTICULARLY STRONG BARRIERS TO ESCAPING ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS 111

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING LAWS ARE A BARRIER TO ABUSE VICTIMS EFFECTIVELY FLEEING THEIR ABUSERS  112

WOMEN WHO FLEE FROM ABUSE WITH THEIR CHILDREN RISK LOSING CUSTODY………………………. 113

THE PUBLIC IS SHAMEFULLY APATHETIC ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE………………………………………. 114

SUICIDAL PARTNERS AND BELIEF IN THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE PREVENTS VICTIMS FROM LEAVING – IT IS RATIONAL FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE –………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 115

Battered Woman Syndrome, Battered Person Syndrome, and Domestic Abuse Syndrome 116

SUMMARY OF BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME………………………………………………………………………………….. 116

SUMMARY OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS………………………………………………………………………………………….. 117

BATTERED WOMANS SYNDROME DESCRIBES A PSYCHOLOGICAL CYCLE EXPERIENCED BY VICTIMS OF ABUSE WHICH MAKES THEM FEEL THEY CANNOT ESCAPE ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS………………………………………………………. 118

WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE SYNDROME, VICTIMS ARE UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR USE OF LETHAL FORCE WAS REASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES……………. 119

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME IS ACCEPTED TO VARYING DEGREES AS PART OF SELF-DEFENSE LAW IN VIRTUALLY EVERY AMERICAN JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 120

BEFORE RECOGNITION OF BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A PART OF SELF-DEFENSE LAW, VICTIMS WHO KILLED THEIR ABUSERS GENERALLY PLEAD INSANITY, WHICH IN TURN REFLECTS SEXIST ASSUMPTIONS……. 121

BATTERED WOMAN’S SYNDROME EXPLAINS A VICTIM’S OMNIPRESENT FEAR OF VIOLENCE……. 122

MOST WOMEN DO NOT NEED BWS TO EXPLAIN THEIR SCENARIO – MOST KILL IN THE SITUATION OF IMMINENCE       123

CHILDREN OF ABUSIVE FAMILIES ARE VICTIMIZED, BUT COURTS HAVE BEEN SLOWER TO RECOGNIZE DOMESTIC ABUSE SYNDROME AS A VALID DEFENSE FOR THEM……………………………………………………………………………………. 124

COURTS FAIL TO RECOGNIZE DOMESTIC ABUSE SYNDROME FOR CHILDREN EVEN THOUGH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ABUSE ARE THE SAME AS FOR ADULT WOMEN………………………………………………………………………………… 125

TRAUMATIC BONDING THEORY IS BOTH DIFFERENT AND PREFERABLE TO BWS -……………………….. 126

TRAUMATIC BONDING AND HOSTAGE THEORY ARE PREFERABLE TO BWS -………………………………… 127

Self-Defense Law………………………………………………………………………………………………. 128

IN A MAJORITY OF JURISDICTIONS, VICTIMS WHO KILL THEIR ABUSERS WHILE THE ABUSER IS ASLEEP CANNOT RAISE A SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 128

VICTIMS OF ABUSE HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME MAKING A TRADITIONAL SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM……. 129

IMMINENCY STANDARDS DO NOT CAPTURE THE NECESSITY THAT THEY MEAN TO–………………….. 130

IMMINENT THREAT REQUIREMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT FROM VIGILANTISM, BUT NECESSITY REQUIREMENTS DO THIS BETTER–…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 131

THE RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL JUSTIFIES VICTIMS OF REPEATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO USE DEADLY FORCE–      132

MANY VICTIMS WHO KILL THEIR ABUSERS IN THEIR SLEEP RECEIVE EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY, SUGGESTING WIDESPREAD DISSATISFACTION WITH THE APPROACH OF MOST JURISDICTIONS TO SELF-DEFENSE IN THESE CASES        133

JURY NULLIFICATION IN CASES WHERE VICTIMS KILL THEIR ABUSERS IN A NON-CONFRONTATIONAL SETTING SUGGEST INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN CURRENT LEGAL APPROACHES AND SOCIAL NORMS…………………….. 134

THE PROVOCATION DEFENSE IN AMERICAN LAW IS CURRENTLY INADEQUATE FOR VICTIMS WHO KILL THEIR ABUSERS IN A NON-CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 135

VICTIMS CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT BATTERERS’ FUTURE BEHAVIOR -………………………………………. 136

Domestic Abuse in Homosexual Relationships………………………………………………………… 137

GAY VICTIMS ARE PARTICULARLY SUSCEPTIBLE TO SELF-DEFENSE LAWS THAT REINFORCE MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT FAIR FIGHTS -………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 137

IT IS A MYTH THAT IT IS EASIER FOR GAY VICTIMS TO LEAVE THEIR ABUSERS -……………………………. 138

Impact of Domestic Violence……………………………………………………………………………….. 139

CHILDREN EXPERIENCE VARIOUS KINDS OF ABUSE WITH MYRIAD NEGATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES     139

A2 Pacifism………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 140

PACIFISM FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES VIOLENCE IS REQUIRED TO RESPECT OUR OWN STATUS AS HUMAN BEINGS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 140

NEGATIVE EVIDENCE…………………………………………………………………………………….. 141

A2 Self-Defense…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 141

THE MORAL FORFEITURE THEORY OF SELF-DEFENSE CANNOT EXPLAIN THE BASIC LIMITS OF SELF-DEFENSE           141

THE THEORY OF LESSER HARM CANNOT JUSTIFY SELF-DEFENSE………………………………………………… 142

RULE UTILITARIANISM CANNOT SAVE THE LESSER HARM THEORY OF SELF-DEFENSE……………… 143

THE CONCEPT OF MORAL FORFEITURE IS INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY KILLING IN SELF-DEFENSE 144

KADISH’S CLAIM THAT THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY SELF-DEFENSE……………………………………………………………………………………. 145

MORAL FORFEITURE CANNOT EXPLAIN THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE……………… 146

EVEN IF AN AGGRESSOR FORFEITS HIS RIGHT TO LIFE, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE VICTIM IS THE AGENT WHICH MAY ACT ON THAT FORFEITURE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 147

THE “CAUSER-PAYS” PRINCIPLE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY KILLING IN SELF-DEFENSE…….. 148

Narrow Interpretations of Self Defense Preferable……………………………………………. 149

SELF-DEFENSE IS TRADITIONALLY A VERY NARROW CONCEPT, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS……….. 149

ALLOWING ‘PRE-EMPTIVE’ SELF-DEFENSE WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DANGER BE IMMEDIATE ALLOWS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE WHEN IT IS NOT A LAST RESORT……………………………………………………………………….. 150

REMOVING THE IMMEDIACY REQUIREMENT FOR SELF-DEFENSE ALLOWS IT TO BECOME A VEHICLE FOR SIMPLE REVENGE  151

REMOVING THE IMMEDIACY REQUIREMENT FROM SELF-DEFENSE BLURS THE LINE BETWEEN AGGRESSOR AND DEFENDER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 152

ABOLISHING THE IMMEDIACY REQUIREMENT FOR SELF-DEFENSE THREATENS THE RULE OF LAW 153

THE IMMINENCE REQUIREMENT FOR SELF-DEFENSE EXPRESSES THE LIMITS OF GOVERNMENT COMPETENCE, NOT A MORAL RIGHT TO IGNORE THE RULE OF LAW…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 154

THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS INDEFENSIBLE IF NONVIOLENT SOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE – THE PREMISE OF SELF-DEFENSE IS THAT ALL LIVES MATTER -………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 155

THE IMMINENCY REQUIREMENT PREVENTS VICTIMS FROM HAVING A BLANK CHECK TO MURDER AFTER UNREASONABLE TIME-SPANS -…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 156

RELAXING THE IMMINENCE AND ALTERNATIVES STANDARDS IN CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ENHANCES THE RISK THAT DEADLY FORCE WAS UNNECESSARY -………………………………………………………………………………………………. 157

THERE ARE NON-FORSEEABLE EVENTS THAT CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR IF WE RELAX THE IMMINENCY REQUIREMENT – INFINITELY JUSTIFIED PREEMPTIVE FORCE WILL UNDERMINE THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND INNOCENCE         158

RELAXING SELF-DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GIVES THEM AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE AND REMOVES OBJECTIVE STANDARDS TO PReVENT ERROR………………………………………………………………… 159

THE ELiMINATION OF THE IMMINENCE REQUIREMENT CATEGORICALLY JUSTIFIES THE TAKING OF UNNECESSARY LIVES – IT ENDORSES MURDER AND ENCOURAGES SELF-HELP……………………………………………………………………… 160

THE IMMINENCE RULE IS DISTINCT FROM THE NECESSITY RULE AND REFLECTS THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT THE STATE ALWAYS EXERCISES ITS MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE -………………………………………………………………………………………. 161

THE STATE MUST RESERVE THE MONOPOLY ON COERCIVE FORCE; THE ONLY JUSTIFIED EXCEPTION IS OBJECTIVE IMMINENCE -……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 162

EXEMPTIONS FROM THE IMMINENCY STANDARD CAN ONLY BE GRANTED IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL CAN CLAIM AN OBJECTIVE INCAPACITY TO BE PROTECTED BY THE LAW………………………………………………………….. 163

BATTERED WOMEN, ALTHOUGH SUBJUGATED, DO NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD TO BE EXEMPT FORM THE IMMINENCY REQUIREMENT SINCE THE STATE IS EFFECTIVE ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN ITS MONOPOLY ON COERCIVE FORCE -          164

A BATTERED WOMAN WOULD HAVE TO PROVE NOT ONLY THAT SHE IS SUBJECTIVELY STUCK IN THE OPPRESSIVE RELATIONSHIP, BUT THAT SHE IS ACTUALLY A HOSTAGE -…………………………………………………………….. 165

Non-Violence and the Affirmation of Human Life……………………………………………………. 166

FAITH IN THE IDEA THAT WE CAN KILL IN ORDER TO SAVE ENTRENCHES A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE BY JUSTIFYING THE VERY ACTIONS THAT MORAL SYSTEMS ATTEMPT TO PREVENT………………………………………………………………… 166

MAKING NON-VIOLENCE NECESSARY CRITERIA FOR MORALITY DISMANTLES THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE         167

RIGHTS THEORY IS INSUFFICIENT TO REJECT PACIFISM………………………………………………………………….. 168

PACIFICISM IS THE MANIFESTATION OF A REFUSAL TO CREATE MORAL DISTANCE BETWEEN ONESELF AND OTHERS WHO THE LANGUAGE OF “JUSTICE” SAYS WE CAN KILL……………………………………………………………………………………. 169

KILLING EVEN IN REVOLT AGAINST CRUELTY CONTRADICTS THE BASIC AFFIRMATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND SOLIDARITY AT THE HEART OF REBELLION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 170

MURDER EVEN TO REJECT OPPRESSION UNDERMINES THE HUMAN SOLIDARITY ON WHICH THE REVOLT IS BASED 171

Excuse versus Justification………………………………………………………………………………… 172

KILLING IN SELF-DEFENSE IS MERELY EXCUSABLE, NOT MORALLY PERMISSIBLE IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS A POSITIVE MORAL GOOD………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 172

THE DEFENSE OF VICTIMS WHO KILL THEIR ABUSERS SHOULD BE BASED ON AN EXCUSE DEFENSE, NOT A JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 173

BWS CANNOT JUSTIFY THE ACTION OF DEADLY FORCE, IT CAN MERELY EXCUSE ACTORS WHO USE IT –       174

BWS IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION FOR SELF-DEFENSE BUT RATHER AN INSANITY DEFENSE – IT CONFLATES BATTERED WOMEN WITH MENTAL INCAPACITIES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 175

ACTORS THAT ARE MORALLY EXCUSED ARE STILL USING IMPERMISSIBLE DEADLY FORCE –…… 176

FLETCHER’S VIEWS ON JUSTIFICATION INCLUDE MORALLY PERMISSIBLE ACTIONS –……………….. 177

THE COMMON SENSE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COURAGE AND COWARDICE IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN JUSTIFIED AND EXCUSED -……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 178

FLETCHER’S VIEW OF JUSTIFICATION CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR EXCUSABLE OR PERMISSIBLE ACTIONS AND THEREFOR EFAILS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE USE LANGUAGE –…………………………………………………………………….. 179

A2 Battered Woman Syndrome…………………………………………………………………………….. 180

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME REINSCRIBES THE LABEL THAT ABUSE VICTIMS LACK THE MENTAL CAPACITY TO CHOOSE RATHER THAN EMPHASIZING THE REASONABLENESS OF THEIR CHOICES………………………………….. 180

THE STEREOTYPES UNDERLYING BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME CAN UNFAIRLY HARM DEFENDANTS          181

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME EFFECTS THE WAY THE IMMINENCE AND REASONABLENESS REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRADITIONAL SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM ARE EVALUATED, BUT FAILING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF ABUSE IS ALSO UNACCEPTABLE………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 182

ALLOWING BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME TO SUBJECTIVIZE TRADITIONAL SELF-DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS UNDERMINES THE AUTONOMY OF VICTIMS BY PORTRAYING THEM AS NOTHING MORE THAN A PATHOLOGY………….. 183

BWS HAS BECOME SYNONYMOUS WITH DISORDER, IT HURTS RATHER THAN HELPS SELF-DEFENSE WORK -               184

BWS EXCLUDES THOSE WHO DON’T FIT THE MOLD OF THE BATTERED WOMAN -………………………. 185

BWS EXCLUDES AFRICAN-AMERICANS-…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 186

BWS EXCLUDES LESBIANS AND POOR WOMEN-………………………………………………………………………………. 187

THE USE OF BWS IN COURT CAN PREVENT WOMEN FROM GAINING CUSTODY LATER – DISINCENTIVIZING GOING TO COURT AT ALL………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 188

THE DEGREE TO WHICH SELF-DEFENSE LAW IS INFORMED BY A MALE-CENTRIC PERSPECTIVE IS OVERSTATED        189

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME DEFINES VICTIMS IN TERMS OF A SEXIST PATHOLOGY…………….. 190

BATTERED WOMANS SYNDROME IS A MISLEADING LEGAL CONCEPT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE PROFILE OF RESPONSE FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 191

THE TERM ‘BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME’ IS VAGUE AND MISLEADING…………………………………….. 192

BWS IS OFTEN CONCEPTUALIZED AS A FORM OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, BUT THIS CONDITION IS NO MORE RELEVANT TO THE LEGAL UNDERSTANDING OF REACTIONS TO ABUSE THAN OTHER TYPES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193

BWS OVEREMPHASIZES THE ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTION TO ABUSE TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 194

WALKER’S EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS TERRIBLE – IT RELIES ON A POOR SAMPLE………………………….. 195

WALKER’S EMPIRICAL RESEARCH IS FALSE – THE VARIABLES SHE IDENTIFIES DON’T ADD TO LEARNED HELPLESSNESS      196

THERE ARE FIVE PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERVIEWS USED TO SUPPORT BWS -………………………….. 197

BWS IS FAR TOO DEPENDENT ON TIMELINESS – IT HAS A POOR CONNECTION TO SELF-DEFENSE 198

BWS FOCUSES ON INDIVIDUALIZED SUBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF REASONABLBEMNESS – THIS DEFENSE IS EXTENDABLE TO PARAMOID SCHIZOPHRENICS KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE -………………………………………………………….. 199

BWS CANNOT EXPLAIN ITS MOST IMPORTANT PREMISE – WHY A BATTERED WOMAN WOULD KILL HER OPPRESSOR:                200

WALKER’S THEORY IS CONTRADICTORY – IT RELIES ON LEARNED HELPLESSNESS IN PERIODS OF THE CYCLE WEHRE THE VICTIM SUPPOSEDLY DOES NOT HAVE IT………………………………………………………………………………………….. 201

BWS PATHOLOGIZES THE VICTIM SO THAT SELF-DEFENSE IS IMPOSSIBLE – THE ACTOR MUST BE IRRATIONAL           202

BWS THEORY HAS SEVERAL CRITICAL FLAWS –……………………………………………………………………………….. 203

BWS EVIDENCE ALLOWS SELF-DEFENSE BASED MERELY ON THE WORD OF THE BATTERED WOMAN. THIS IS INACCURATE AND MERELY EXCUSES THE ACTOR -…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 204

Provocation Defenses are Preferable to Self-Defense…………………………………………. 205

PROVOCATION ACCEPTS BUT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE HUMAN FAILURE – MORAL EXCUSES ARE PREFERABLE TO BWS BLINDLY JUSTIFYING THINGS -…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 205

THE PROVOCATION DEFENSE PRESERVES THE IMPORTANCE OF RETRIBUTIVE PUNISHMENT AGAINST THE VICTIM WHO TOOK THE LAW INTO HER OWN HANDS -………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 206

——

If you do not want to order online, and would prefer to send in your order using email, fax, mail or phone, download and print the ORDER FORM.

If you have questions, please email help@victorybriefs.com or call 310-472-6364.