 |
[ Home Page | Message Boards | News | Archive | Books | Buy Stuff | FAQs, etc. ]
A Staff Report by the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
18-March-2008
There've been some interesting Staff Report columns recently dealing with tricky and specific legal issues, like confessing to a crime after being found not guilty. It inspired me to raise the question of yet another legality that everyone thinks they understand by watching television procedural dramas: claiming self-defense. What exactly in the law makes allowance for self-defense? Do you have to plead guilty in order to claim self-defense, or is it a "not guilty by reason of" thing? What are the limitations on self-defense? Finally, and most importantly, the practical concern: if you do hurt or kill someone in self-defense, is there a process you should follow to report the incident to minimize suspicion and/or time in custody? —BrainWeasel, East Lansing, Michigan
SDSTAFF Bricker replies:
Self-defense, when proved, produces a legal justification for an act of harming another that would, without that justification, be criminal. It's a common-sense concept in the law – we cannot, after all, reasonably impose criminal sanctions against someone who harms an aggressor in the process of defending his own life from harm.
The notion of self-defense has one of the oldest pedigrees in written law. In 450 BC, when the Romans set out their core legal principles in what ultimately were known as the Twelve Tables, included was the idea that an attack on property constituted a personal attack on its owner; the head of a household was legally excused from penalty in defending his family members and possessions as well as his person.
Although its implementation has evolved over the intervening years, that essential principle continues to inform the law of self-defense. Though the specifics vary by jurisdiction, today's self-defense rules generally include certain common elements. The defense must be proportional to the threat; you typically may not use deadly force to protect yourself from a threat that was not itself deadly in nature. You may, in some jurisdictions, have a duty to retreat, which means that as part of your defense you must show that you had no reasonable way to avoid the confrontation. The picture may change depending on where the incident takes place; the so-called "castle doctrine" holds that you have no duty to retreat when accosted in your own home. Finally, if you were the initial aggressor, you may not be able to claim self-defense, or it may be available to you only if you first broke off your initial attack and made it clear to your opponent that you were ending the conflict.
In the United States today, self-defense is generally what's known as an affirmative defense, meaning that the accused is responsible for raising and proving the issue. This is in contrast to the usual formula in criminal procedure, which assigns the state the burden of proving each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, beyond this basic proposition, details vary considerably between states.
In Michigan, to pick an example, self-defense using deadly force is justified if the defendant honestly and reasonably believes he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that it is necessary for him to use deadly force; the force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. The defendant must prove by preponderance of the evidence that those circumstances existed. (In 2006, Michigan lawmakers removed a previous requirement holding that deadly force could be considered necessary only if a defendant was not able to safely retreat.)
You ask a very interesting question, by the way, when you wonder whether one has to plead guilty in order to claim self-defense. The basic answer is no: since self-defense negates the criminality of your actions, you don't plead guilty in order to assert it. However, at least in Michigan, you must admit to the underlying acts in order to assert self-defense. You can't, in other words, go into court and say in effect, I didn't do it – but if I did, it was self-defense. The defendant doesn't have to testify in order to prove self-defense, but he cannot simply rely on the prosecution's evidence to show he committed the acts, and he cannot deny the acts.
As far as there being a particular process that may minimize your legal liability and exposure in connection with exercising your right to self-defense, notifying the police immediately is certainly a reasonable step, and consulting with an attorney is always prudent. Of course, the safest approach is to be somewhere else long before things escalate to the point where physical violence becomes necessary.
Sources:
People v. Riddle, 467 Mich 116, 119; 649 NW2d 30 (2002)
People v. Kemp, 202 Mich App 318, 322; 508 NW2d 184 (1993)
People v. Lemons, 454 Mich 234, 246 n 15, 249; 562 NW2d 447 (1997)
—SDSTAFF Bricker
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
Staff Reports are researched and written by members of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil's online auxiliary. Although the SDSAB does its best, these articles are edited by Ed Zotti, not Cecil, so accuracywise you'd better keep your fingers crossed.
[ Return to the Staff Report Archive ]
The Straight Dope / Questions or comments for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com
Comments regarding this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com
For advertising information, see the Chicago Reader Online Rate Sheet
Copyright 2008 Chicago Reader, Inc. All rights reserved.
No material contained in this site may be republished or reposted without express written
permission.
The Straight Dope is a registered trademark of Chicago Reader, Inc.