Reply #19: did you have a point?

[iverglas]

A properly instructed jury, in a case in which a pregnant woman was charged with homicide and claimed self-defence, and in which

- the jury found her stated apprehension of serious injury or death to have been reasonable;

- the jury found that she had had no other reasonable alternative available to her to avert serious injury or death; and

- the jury found she had used only the force that was necessary to avert serious injury or death,

would acquit her. Those are all questions of fact that are properly within a jury's jurisdiction to decide.

This has nothing to do with "pesky juries" ignoring the law in favour of their own prejudices. If a jury were to believe that a pregnant woman charged with killing someone had NOT, for instance, had a reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death, or had used force out of all proportion to what was needed in order to defend herself, and nonetheless acquitted her -- basically, if the jury just decided that people who assaulted pregnant women deserved to die anyhow -- then you would indeed have a "pesky jury". A group of citizens who had decided that they would not do their sworn duty to uphold the law.

What it does have to do with is the proper application of the existing standards to the circumstances of individual cases. WHAT I SAID was that because the circumstances of our hypothetical case include

- the fact that a pregnant woman is susceptible to injuries that other individuals are not susceptible to; and

- the fact that it may be more difficult for a pregnant woman to avert serious injury or death by retreating from the situation,

a pregnant woman might be justified in using degrees of force that another person might not be justified in using, and in using force in situations in which another person might not be justified in using it.

What your problem with that might be, I just dunno.

.