Class Notes (839,113)
Canada (511,191)
Philosophy (540)
PHL370H5 (4)


6 Pages

Course Code
Andrew Sepielli

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Self-Defense Sept 9, 2013 • Trayvon Martin case discussion • Criminal Law o Offenses o Justifications  Ex. Self defense  ‘Not legally culpable’even though the law was violated by said person o Excuses  Ignorance of law • Justifications o Defense in general  Fletcher - Getts case  Lazar – • Short papers o Coherent 1.5 pages on the topic will get you a perfect grade • Long papers • Short Paper Topic: o Do you think Zimmerman should have been acquitted or convicted? Why?  If unsure, what kind of info are you missing that you think would be relevant? Sept 11, 2013 • Self- and other- defence • Real self-defence o Cases where your use of force is actually necessary to prevent… • Mistaken self-defence o Cases where your use of force was predicated upon your reasonable belief that it was required to prevent force from being used upon you • Self-defence is understood as a sort of punishment o ‘Punishment in the here and now by somebody who is in a good position to know that the accused did it’ • Fletcher o What’s proportionate when it comes to self-defence is not proportionate when it comes to punishment September 16, 2013 • What’s required for justified self-defense? o The threat must be imminent  Some cases in which the imminence required seems to rule out acts of self-defense that seem arguably to be justified • Cases in which you shouldn’t have to wait until the last possible moment to strike (pre-emptive strike) o The amount of force you use must be necessary to prevent the threatened harm o The amount of force you use must be proportioned to the threatened harm o You must intend to act in self-defense • Necessity generally o No matter how evil or horrible the person is that’s inflicting pain on you, you can’t attack them unless your defense is actually going to be effective • Proportionality requirement o Not proportional: Force in excess of what the original attacker was using Sept 18, 2013 • Reasonable Belief standard o Two components  Reasonable • Objective • It’s not enough that you sincerely believe you’re under threat of imminent harm… your belief also needs to be held on reasonable grounds  Belief: • Subjective Sept 23, 2013 • General view: Your belief is reasonable if you were diligent about forming it o Or • General view: Your belief is reasonable only if it meets some sort of objective standard • What factors constitute ‘good grounds’for belief in the context of self-defense? o Do I only have grounds if someone explicitly threatens me?  How do you differentiate b/w something that is explicit and something that isn’t • Judging people based on stereotypes • Lazar o Use this article as a model for paper * o Rules of war are ‘sui generis’  The rules of war don’t apply to anything else. They’re specific to war. Even the rules of self-defense o Innocent attacker o Jus ad bellum (meeting the traditional criteria for the justified resort to war) o Jus in bello (behaviours in war)  The harm done is proportionate to the value of the goals they want to achieve Sept 25, 2013 • No notes. Read paper. Sept 30, 2013 • McMahan o Lazar thinks it’s a myth that it’s only the attacker who is agent-responsible and not the victim o McMahan’s theory doesn’t capture the asymmetry b/w the attacker and the defender  In that the attacker sets up the forced situation and the defender doesn’t o Contributory negligence  You have a responsibility to prevent harm and cannot claim self defense if you were unable to do so and had to ‘protect yourself’ from the threat • Ex. You can’t just sit in the middle of a four lane highway and when cars start coming, start shooting at them because ‘they were coming at you and you had to defend yourself’ • You have a responsibility not to put yourself in that position in the first place  McMahan is claiming that the reason why you can kill somebody in self defense is simply that that person is imposing a risk upon you but you’re not reciprocally imposing harm upon that person  Lazar is saying if you can kill in self-defense it can’t simply be for that reason. That risk of harm that’s imposed upon you is partially your responsibility • Responsibility view o If someone is responsible for an unjustified threat, then you’re not violating their rights if you hurt them in self-defense • Risk view o Are you responsible for a situation in which there’s a risk of an unjustified harm happening to somebody? o The risk view is the one that’s applicable o Nobody can be resp for a harm until the harm happens Rape October 9, 13 • Basic difference: Self defense is a justification whereas rape is an offense • Burden is on the person accused of murder or manslaughter that the killing was in self-defense. By contrast, with rape, the Crown has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all the elements were met. • Is consent subjective or objective? o Is consent something that goes on in your mind or is it something at a more public level?
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.