NCJ Number
133946
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 15 Issue: 6 Dated: (1991) Pages: 585-602
Date Published
1991
Length
18 pages
Annotation
An experimental study focused on whether the defense of self-defense, which uses the objective "reasonable man" standard, is unfairly biased against certain female defendants who kill a male and plead not guilty by reason of self-defense (INGRSD) and that jurors share that bias.
Abstract
The research used three cases in which a woman killed a man and pleaded self-defense. One was a battered woman case, one involved a female defendant killing an alleged assailant on the subway, and one involved an alleged rape victim who kills one of her alleged rapists. The cases all involved shootings and charges of first-degree murder. The cases varied with respect to the seriousness of the harm, equal or unequal force, the possibility of retreat or escape, imminence, and the presence and type of expert testimony. Two-hundred sixty-nine student and adult mock jurors rendered verdicts and ratings in the cases. Results indicated broad but variable support for the NCRSD: 63 percent for the battered woman case, 27 percent for the subway case, and 23 percent for the rape case. Results also indicated that the mock jurors use a wider context and, at times, a subjective perspective to decide guilt. Findings suggested advocates of the self-defense defense should focus less on having expert diagnostic testimony admitted and more on having context evidence admitted and more options for verdicts included. Tables and 50 references (Author summary modified)