Plugging away

[ciroccoj]

No nightmares the last two nights. Phew. I did not want to repeat the experience of a couple of nights ago. Thanks for ::hugs::, guys, and ::hugs:: back to you - especially those of you who deal with this kind of thing on a semi-regular basis. ::shudder::

In related news, I'm still plugging away at my ADR and EnvLaw essays. Forced myself to just TYPE yesterday and wound up with about 6 pages of excruciatingly bad and disorganized prose which I can now work on improving. Haven't done the same for ENV, but I'm aiming at both first drafts being written by the end of the day.

And I'm close to handing in my Drafting final assignment on the Self-Defence provision of the Criminal Code. I've taken the existing self-contradictory and wildly redundant provisions, purged them of (most of) their madness, then merged them with Judge Lynn Ratushny's proposal for a self-defence code that would take into account the circumstances of battered women.

Anybody who's looking to waste a bit of time, or is interested, here it is:


(1) In this section,
(a) "assailant" means a person who assaults a defender;
(b) "defender" means a person who uses force against an assailant;
(c) "provocation" includes provocation by blows, words or gestures;
(d) "reasonable belief" means a belief that corresponds to or is what an ordinary person would believe, if placed in the circumstances as the defender believed them to be; and
(e) "reasonable degree of force" means the degree of force that an ordinary sober person would use, if placed in the circumstances as the defender believed them to be.

(2) A defender is not liable for using force against an assailant if
(a) the defender actually believes
(i) the assailant is committing or is going to commit an assault, and
(ii) the use of force is necessary for self-protection or for the protection of a person under the defender's protection from the assault;
(b) those beliefs are reasonable; and
(c) a reasonable degree of force is used to prevent the assault or the repetition of the assault.

(3) A defender who, without justification
(a) assaults another without intent to cause death or serious bodily harm; or
(b) provokes an assault on himself or herself by another,
may justify the use of force in self-defence as defined in subsection (2) against the person whom the defender has provoked, if the defender first tries to end or escape the conflict as far as feasible before the need to defend against death or serious bodily harm arises.

(4) The circumstances to be considered in determining reasonableness are those that probably influenced the beliefs and the degree of force used by the defender. These include:
(a) the nature, duration and history of the relationship between the defender and the assailant, including prior acts of violence or threats, whether directed at the defender or at others;
(b) the age, race, sex and physical characteristics of the defender and the assailant;
(c) the nature and imminence of the assault; and
(d) the means available to the defender to respond to the assault, including the defender's mental and physical abilities and the existence of options other than the use of force.

Oh and if you spot any glaring errors, please let me know. I'm sending this in later today.

• Finish typing in first draft of ADR
  
• highlight holes
  
• Type in first draft of ENV
  
• highlight holes
  
• three more articles of ADR
  
• find five articles for ENV
  
• send in DFT
  
• pick up Justin
  
• laundry
  
• scan two songs

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I noticed one possible error - you define provocation but never use the word.


daf9

[bandgeek.livejournal.com]

Hi there. I found you through snarkhunter and thought you were interesting. I hope you don't mind. :)

I found one little questionable thing in your draft (I'm planning on studying law once I get through undergrad, so please forgive me if I'm just being amateurish):

(b) the age, race, sex and physical characteristics of the defender and the assailant

You might want to clarify what this means. Does this mean that a defender could be justified in feeling more threatened because her assailant was black? Or because he was male and she female, without any other real threat being involved?

Anyway. I think it's real nifty that you're a law student. :)

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

Ditto what daf9 said -- otherwise, if I had something similar assigned, I'd snitch this and turn it in...

::imagines Ben Stone glaring at me::

Uh, no I wouldn't. Honest.

::goes back to her two remaining chapter problems that get turned in with the final tonight::