• I like sushi
    4.8k
    If the rapist is killed it would be manslaughter. If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here.
  • Tobias
    1k
    Then your position is that all rapists deserve to be killed by their victim's (X-)husband?Harry Hindu

    Not al all, nor is that an implication of my position

    Strange that you interpret a factual statement as a demand. Maybe the information in this thread is inaccurate, biased, or doesn't take into consideration all facts that have been given. There is no problem in asking questions. You didn't have to answer.Harry Hindu

    That is true. There is useful information though in this thread, also addressing your questions. Well, any information on a philosophy forum, might be inaccurate of biased ;). Anyway sorry if I came off as harsh, but I reacted to not telling anything useful. Of course you may always ask questions, fair enough.
  • Tobias
    1k
    If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here.I like sushi

    I would find that very hard to belief. Self defense generally requires defense against an imminent and unlawful attack. Me rescuing my wife is in fact defense of others, his counter reaction therefore is not a response against an unlawful attack. The terminology might be diifferent but unless I see it I hold on what I have learned from Fletcher''Rethinking Criminal Law', a great theorist from whom I learned what I know of anglo/American criminal law and of course from my dear colleague, a US lawyer who taught together with me in Amsterdam .

    But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.1k
    Not al all, nor is that an implication of my positionTobias
    If the rapist is killed it would be manslaughter. If the rapist kills the husband I think you can define that as 'provocation' (raping his wife) so claims to self-defense would be very hard to call but I am sure there are some other mitigating circumstances (convoluted even!) that could warrant a claim of 'self-defense' - state depending if we're talking about US in general here.I like sushi
    First, how does the husband know that his wife is being raped and not a masochist cheating on her husband?

    It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.

    The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring.
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    But well, maybe in the US they construct it through provocation, but with their strict felony murder rule I think you would be hard pressed as a lawyer when you are on the rapist's team.Tobias

    That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state.

    I was simply stating in regards to the hypothetical.

    It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.Harry Hindu

    Laws and interpretations of the law vary from place to place.

    The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring.Harry Hindu

    Possibly? Don’t know. Just stating what I have picked up from Rittenhouse case about how ‘provocation’ plays into how people are charged/convicted from state to state.
  • Tobias
    1k
    First, how does the husband know that his wife is being raped and not a masochist cheating on her husband?

    It seems obvious that in the act of committing a violent act, you have no right to defense from others trying to stop your violent act.

    The fact that this example is being used in a thread which has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case or circumstances is an example of a red herring.
    Harry Hindu

    Not at all, you asked a theoretical question (is defending yourself from being killed always justified) and I am giving you a theoretical answer through an excample. It is indeed not always justified.

    Moreover, you are changing the hypothetica, in that case it would be putative self defense of the part of the husband, but it is of no concern since that was not the point of the hypothetical.
  • praxis
    6.5k
    Say you are in the process of brutally raping my wife, choking her (I am divorced by the way, but that's beside the point, it is not a real scenario, but a hypothetical you see) and I come to her rescue wielding a lead pipe. You out of fear for your life stab me in the eye with the long hair pin conveniently located on my wive's night stand. The pin penetrates my eyeball, enters the brain which sibsequently causes my legs to quake and I collapse to the floor.... dead!Tobias

    A more accurate scenario would be if you and the X went to a BLM protest, saw Harry, a weird teenage kid wielding an assault rifle, and chased after him in a threatening manner with the intent of disarming him, and perhaps beating him up a bit for good measure.

    A weird teenage kid once pulled out a rifle on me when I was a teen. I got the hell out of there because I knew he was stupid enough to use it, regardless of the consequences.
  • Tobias
    1k
    A more accurate scenario would be if you and the X went to a BLM protest, saw Harry, a weird teenage kid wielding an assault rifle, and chased after him in a threatening manner with the intent of disarming him, and perhaps beating him up a bit for good measure.

    A weird teenage kid once pulled out a rifle on me when I was a teen. I got the hell out of there because I knew he was stupid enough to use it, regardless of the consequences.
    praxis

    No, it is not a more accurate scenario because it is a much more muddled situation. I am not passing judgment on the Rittenhouse case, but merely illuminating a point of law about self defense. In between the extremes there is often an area with 50 shades of grey. The point that I was making is that it is not always the case that one may respond with defensive force in a life threatening situation. Not whether in this particular situation the defendent might have responded with defensive force.
  • praxis
    6.5k


    Yours is appropriate for what Harry asked, I see. Nevermind! :blush:
  • Caldwell
    1.3k
    If I was charged in WI and had that judge I would.James Riley
    Nice comeback!
  • Tobias
    1k
    That was my point. I don’t know exact ins and outs and it seems to vary from state to state.I like sushi

    That is correct and such concepts are hard to wrap your head around if you are not from that legal system. I find provocation a very elulusive concept. We do not have it in Dutch law, that expplains it. The theoretical problem for me is that provocation seems to provide an excuse, not a justification. There is a difference between the two. My conduct is understandable, because I am seeing my wife getting raped and that causes a fit of rage or overwhelming desire to free her. I am being rpovoked, and so mentally I am not culpable (no mens rea). Yet, on the objective side my conduct is than still wrong, not justified but excused. I would rather say that in such a situation my conduct is justified, because I fear for the life of my wife. I was in fact acting in lawful defense of others.

    The difference in practice is this: if my conduct is merely excused than countervailing force might itself be justified, because my attack is not, it is merely excusable. If I am justified though, then automatically his counter attack is unjustified, because he responds to a lawful attack on my part, by killing me. However, I ffully acknowledge I am no expert when it comes to the rules on provocation. Moreover, US criminal law seems little concerned about the difference between justification and excuse, much to Fletcher's dismay.

    The results are often very similar though and the hypothetical I gave isquite paradigmatic for conflicting self defense claims. As saidd, under US law it may also be settled via the felony murder law, every loss of life resulting from a felony is attributable to the one committing the felony (out of my head).
1910111213Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.