Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Criminal Defenses: Self-Defense, Justification, Affirmative, and Excuse Defenses, Quizzes of Criminal Law

Definitions and explanations of various criminal defenses, including self-defense, justification defenses, affirmative defenses, and excuse defenses. It covers the concepts of burden of production and burden of persuasion, as well as perfect and imperfect defenses. The document also delves into the specifics of self-defense, its elements, and when it can be used.

Typology: Quizzes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 01/20/2012

re8annt
re8annt 🇺🇸

1 document

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
TERM 1
criminal conduct
DEFINITION 1
acts triggered by criminal intent(a criminal act and criminal
intent) is necessary to hold individuals accountable for the
crimes they commit. pages 135-136
TERM 2
justification defenses
DEFINITION 2
defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but
claim what they did was right(justified) under
circumstances.The classic justification is self-defense; kill or
be killed. Even if the government proves all the elements in
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks
because they are not blameworthy. pages 135-136
TERM 3
affirmative defenses
DEFINITION 3
A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding
to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more
familiarly, in criminal law. (most justifications and excuses
are affirmative defenses.) pages 135-136
TERM 4
excuse defense
DEFINITION 4
defendant admit what they did was wrong but claim that
under circumstances; they weren't responsible for whatthey
did. The classic excuse is insanity.pages 135-136
TERM 5
burden of production
DEFINITION 5
The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted
conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own
position. pages 135-136
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Criminal Defenses: Self-Defense, Justification, Affirmative, and Excuse Defenses and more Quizzes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!

TERM 1

criminal conduct

DEFINITION 1 acts triggered by criminal intent(a criminal act and criminal intent) is necessary to hold individuals accountable for the crimes they commit. pages 135- TERM 2

justification defenses

DEFINITION 2 defendants admit they were responsible for their acts but claim what they did was right(justified) under circumstances.The classic justification is self-defense; kill or be killed. Even if the government proves all the elements in the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks because they are not blameworthy. pages 135- TERM 3

affirmative defenses

DEFINITION 3 A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, in criminal law. (most justifications and excuses are affirmative defenses.) pages 135- TERM 4

excuse defense

DEFINITION 4 defendant admit what they did was wrong but claim that under circumstances; they weren't responsible for whatthey did. The classic excuse is insanity.pages 135- TERM 5

burden of production

DEFINITION 5 The burden of proof is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. pages 135-

TERM 6

burden of persuasion

DEFINITION 6 Means that they have to prove their defense by a preponderance of the evidence, defined as 50%. In other jurisdictions, once defendants meet the burden of production, the burden shifts to the government to prove defendants weren't justified or excused.pages 135- TERM 7

perfect defenses

DEFINITION 7 Most defenses are perfect defenses, if they are successful, defendants areacquitted,there's one major exception, defendants who successfully plead the excuse of insanity don'twalk- at least not right away.pages 135- TERM 8

imperfect defense

DEFINITION 8 evidence that doesn't amount to a perfect defense might amount to an imperfect defense; that is; defendants are guilty of lesser offenses.pages 135- TERM 9

self-defense

DEFINITION 9 A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self- defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. pages 137- TERM 10

elements of self-defense

DEFINITION 10 unprovoked attack- the defendant didn't start or provoke the attack. Necessity - defenders can use deadly force only if it's necessary to repel an imminent deadly attack, namely one that;s going to happen right now. proportionality - defenders can use deadly force only if the use of nondeadly force isn't enough,namely excessive force is not allowed. reasonable belief the defender has to reasonably believe that it's necessary to use deadly force to repel the imminent deadly attack. pages 138-