Share via Email The presumption of critics of David Miliband's view that terrorism can be justified is, Natalie Hanman points outthat the state has a monopoly on violence, which therefore legitimates the use of it, and that any other group using violence is illegitimate.
Common excusing conditions[ edit ] Potentially excusing conditions common to most jurisdictions include the following. Where a state is engaged in a war with a legitimate casus bellia combatant may lawfully kill an enemy combatant so long as that combatant is not hors de combat.
This principle is embedded in public international law and has been respected by most states around the world. Thus, if there is no formal declaration of war or the casus belli is not legitimate, all those who engage in the fighting and kill enemy combatants could theoretically be prosecuted.
Protecting the national interest against external aggressors is considered an excuse on utilitarian grounds, i. Most countries agree that it is lawful for a citizen to repel violence with violence to protect his or her own or another's life and limb, or to prevent sexual assault or to quell a riot see below.
This is often considered a part of the defense of provocation against a charge of murder. Based on the idea that all individuals may suddenly and unexpectedly lose control when words are spoken or events occur, jurisdictions differ on whether this should be allowed to excuse liability or merely mitigate to a lesser offense such as manslaughterand under which circumstances this defense can be used.
However, the law retains explicit exceptions which prohibit the prosecution "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion," "of any person for any medical treatment," or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child," thereby preserving the right to an abortion stemming from Roe v.
European Convention on Human Rights[ edit ] See also: Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: Provided that the arrestor is justified in terms of this section in using deadly force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a suspect, only if he or she believes on reasonable grounds- a that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the arrestor, any person lawfully assisting the arrestor or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; b that there is a substantial risk that the suspect will cause imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm if the arrest is delayed; or c that the offence for which the arrest is sought is in progress and is of a forcible and serious nature and involves the use of life threatening violence or a strong likelihood that it will cause grievous bodily harm.
Examples in the United States[ edit ] A non-criminal homicide ruling, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, exists under United States law. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crimesuch as rape, armed robberymanslaughter or murder.
The victim must reasonably believe, under the totality of the circumstancesthat the assailant intended to commit a serious crime. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would not be considered justifiable. In many states, given a case of self-defense, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so.
Preemptive self-defense, in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is considered criminal. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v.
Hellerthe majority held that the Constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". To quote the California State Penal Code state law that covers justifiable homicide: Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either-- 1.
In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or, 2.
When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or, 3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.
Although the above text is from California law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody.Start studying Terrorism and Torture. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Torture is, sadly, an established part of U.S. history dating back to pre-Revolutionary times. A timeline documenting the history of torture in the United States. But if torture against state (or quasi-state) terrorists is justified, as Steinhoff himself admits and as self-defense at the national level would require, that will justify torture on a much larger scale, and normalization and institutionalization seem inevitable.
Advanced Interrogation Technique. Torture is an "advanced interrogation technique" that is far more effective than other interrogation techniques. Torture in any form, is absolutely unacceptable and can never be justified, UN said on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, urging great support for victims worldwide.
In his. Dec 17, · Torture is the use of excessive force, often at the cost of treating the tortured as subhuman, that will temporarily or permanently alter a sense of ego, self, and personhood.