The abolition of defensive homicide : a step towards populist punitivism at the expense of mentally impaired offenders Ulbrick, Madeleine, Flynn, Asher and Tyson, Danielle 2016, The abolition of defensive homicide : a step towards populist punitivism at the expense of mentally impaired offenders, Melbourne university law review, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 324-370. Attached Files Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads Title The abolition of defensive homicide : a step towards populist punitivism at the expense of mentally impaired offenders Author(s) Ulbrick, Madeleine Flynn, Asher Tyson, Danielle orcid.org/0000-0001-9439-567X Journal name Melbourne university law review Volume number 40 Issue number 1 Start page 324 End page 370 Total pages 47 Publisher Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc. Place of publication Carlton, Vic. Publication date 2016 ISSN 0025-8938 Keyword(s) defensive homicide homicide law reform mentally impaired offenders Summary The offence of defensive homicide was abolished in Victoria in November 2014, following a widely held perception that it was being abused by violent men. While primarily associated with battered women who killed in response to prolonged family violence — but who were unable to establish their offending as self-defence — a less publicised rationale underpinning the introduction of defensive homicide was to provide an alternative offence for offenders with cognitive impairments not covered by the mental impairment (formerly the insanity) defence. Cognitive impairments are complex and varied in their nature and symptomatology. Offenders presenting with cognitive impairments therefore require an appropriate range of legal responses to capture the nuances and appropriate moral culpability of their conduct. Drawing from an analysis of the cases of defensive homicide heard over its 10–year lifespan, this article contends that the abolition of defensive homicide did not adequately take into consideration the potential impacts on individuals whose mental conditions are not typically covered by the restrictive mental impairment defence. We further argue that the decision to abolish defensive homicide was driven by dominant, populist voices, without sufficient attention given to the offence’s potential to achieve the aims underpinning its enactment, including providing an alternative offence for women who kill in response to prolonged family violence. Language eng Field of Research 160203 Courts and Sentencing 1801 Law Socio Economic Objective 940405 Law Reform HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal ERA Research output type C Journal article Copyright notice ©2016, Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc. Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30085473 Document type: Journal Article Collections: School of Humanities and Social Sciences 2018 ERA Submission Related Links Link Description Connect to published version Go to link with your DU access privileges     Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved. Versions Version Filter Type Thu, 18 Aug 2016, 05:00:26 EST Thu, 18 Aug 2016, 12:40:29 EST Thu, 18 Aug 2016, 12:43:44 EST Thu, 18 Aug 2016, 13:35:31 EST Thu, 03 Nov 2016, 09:02:46 EST Tue, 15 Nov 2016, 10:50:07 EST Tue, 15 Nov 2016, 10:55:28 EST Fri, 18 Nov 2016, 11:13:04 EST Mon, 21 Nov 2016, 08:58:27 EST Mon, 21 Nov 2016, 09:12:26 EST Mon, 21 Nov 2016, 09:14:21 EST Wed, 23 Nov 2016, 10:37:52 EST Wed, 11 Jan 2017, 09:51:45 EST Wed, 11 Jan 2017, 10:00:23 EST Filtered Full Citation counts:   Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science Cited 3 times in Scopus Search Google Scholar Access Statistics: 141 Abstract Views, 17 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics Created: Thu, 18 Aug 2016, 12:40:28 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.