The urban survival syndrome , in US jurisprudence, may be used either as a justification or justification justification. The first case to use, unsuccessfully, the defense of "urban survival syndrome" was the 1994 Fort Worth, attempted assassination of Texas's Daimion Osby.
The use of urban survival syndrome as a defense against criminal charges follows the successful defense of the woman syndrome being beaten in Country v. Kelly (1984), which is based on the acceptance that such a presence of the syndrome can cause the accused, the victim of domestic violence, to reasonably believe that he is in danger and therefore justified in using lethal force, given the circumstances.
Video Urban survival syndrome
Defense
As a defense reason, urban survival syndrome is presented as a defensive version of abuse. Here an individual experiencing the daily life of racial segregation and violence that is common in many cities in the United States causes a subjective state equivalent to that caused by survival in a violent battlefield. It therefore leads to a condition similar to the well-known syndrome in psychological and psychiatric practice, that is, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
As a defense of justification, the urban survival syndrome is offered to strengthen the claim of self-defense in which a defendant believes that he should not be criminally liable for unlawful acts, since the defendant objectively makes sense in believing that a deadly act is necessary for survival. In this case, the act would be called justifiable murder. The defense of justification is a codification of the defense of the needs of common law.
Maps Urban survival syndrome
History
State v. Brown
In Country v. Brown , 91 NM. 320, 573, P.2d 675 (NM. 1977), the court dealt with a situation similar to Osby, and a justification defense was used. The term, urban survival syndrome, has not yet emerged. Brown, a black man living in a city neighborhood, was charged with two counts of assault with the intention of killing a police officer. Brown said he was scared of police officers and acted in self-defense when he shot them. The court allowed defense witnesses to describe the black verbal and physical abuse by police officers, including Brown, although the court refused to allow a social psychologist to testify to explain the study of police behavior against minorities, or those who concluded that minority groups might see police officers as enemies to them and will tend to fear them in road encounters. These studies may offer evidence of justification. Brown was convicted and appealed.
The New Mexico Appellate Court reversed its decision to exclude expert testimony and return the case to a new trial. The court felt such a testimony in favor of Brown in his claim that he feared immediate danger when he shot police officers instead of acting out of anger and rejection of authority, as prosecutors alleged. Therefore, evidence showing Brown's state of mind at the time of the offense has been excluded as a reversible error.
People v. Goetz
In People v. Goetz, 68 NY2d 96 (NY 1986), Bernhard Goetz, a white man, uses the terrorist state's subjective defense and fears to justify the shooting of four black teenagers on the New York City Subway. The court ruled that testing whether the use of lethal force is justified must be completely subjective and focus on the circumstances of the accused when the incident took place and annull the criminal charges for attempted murder, assault, and harm. However, after appealing to the New York Appellate Court, in a unanimous finding, stating that the use of fully subjective tests to determine the viability of a deadly physical force by the defendant may allow a jury to free any defendant who believes his actions are reasonable, regardless of how strange the reason, creates a slippery slope. The jury can determine a different sensible test for each defendant who claims justification. The court explained that the law of justification requires an objective element; lethal physical strength is only permissible if a reasonable person will believe that he is in fear of serious physical injury or death.
Osby test
Country v. Kelly (1984), by allowing testimony to the battered female syndrome, opens the door to consider the subjective state of the offender as pathological syndrome caused by environmental factors and enables defense on that basis.
The term "urban survival syndrome" was first used in 1994 in the Fort Worth, Texas case where two defense lawyers, David Bays and Bill Lane, defended Daimion Osby, a 17-year-old black client, who had shot and killed. two unarmed men in the parking lot and on trial for two counts of first-degree murder. The victims were also black, and the defendant told police he shot them because he feared his life and had to kill them before they killed him. The lawyers argue that Osby has reason to be afraid because he lives in a dangerous community, an inner city neighborhood with one of the highest crime rates in the country. Expert testimony is allowed to be proof, given by a sociologist who has written about race relationships and who produced statistics that the Fort Worth area where the crime took place was a dangerous area with a high crime rate, and that two people who perished according to FBI profiles of people- the most dangerous Americans. He also testified that being killed is the greatest danger facing youth in such an environment. Osby claims that over the past year the two men have been repeatedly harassed and threatened him and his family for payment of gambling debt. The evidence also shows that the two men had guns in their cars.
Based on the testimony, the defense attorney argues that the defendant's belief that he is in danger for his life is natural, and therefore he is justified in using lethal force. The jury of nine white men and three blacks to a dead end, eleven to one, supports the belief. The prosecutor is a black lawyer who firmly states that there is no such syndrome in psychiatry as an "urban survival syndrome". The vacuum of one black man from the same neighborhood as Osby and who agreed that the area was a "war zone". The six jurors interviewed after the trial said they ignored the defense too far. Furthermore, a coalition of black ministers from the Osby neighborhood openly denies that the environment is so dangerous and complains that the defense side reinforces racial stereotypes.
After a retrial of the murder charge, the defense tried to introduce testimony from a psychologist, other than that of a sociologist, to the psychological effects of living in harsh urban areas. The psychologist's testimony was disallowed and Osby was found guilty of two counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Criticism
The "urban survival syndrome" has been criticized by blacks as a black stereotype as if all blacks reacted in the same way: that as a black group it is violent, angry and more than likely guilty. This perspective shows defects in any defense that depend on the rules and customs of the subculture as a substitute for the dominant society. Reverend Ralph Waldo Emerson, a minister at Fort Worth stated the following:
(The Osby Mistrial) says 'these guys' can not help shoot each other,... And it's said to the nervous law enforcement officers that they should be ready to draw when they stop someone in our community.
The battered female syndrome has been criticized on the same grounds: that it encourages the stereotype of women's society as powerless and incapable. While court testimony can support the woman's actions as natural in a self-defense situation, the court seems to focus on testimony that depicts the battered woman as "dysfunctional". A further problem arises with this defense when the analog syndrome, "battered child syndrome" is used as a defense, because a woman's unique vulnerability to domestic violence seems to be attenuated.
See also
- Defense abuse
- Black Anger
Note
External links
- Estrich, Susan. Getting Away With Murder: How... - Google Book Search . Retrieved 2008-08-15 .
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments