Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Leslie Green and Brian Leiter

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199606443

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606443.001.0001

Self‐Defense: The Imminence Requirement

Chapter:
(p. 228 ) 7 Self‐Defense: The Imminence Requirement
Source:
Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law
Author(s):

Marcia Baron

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199606443.003.0007

This chapter defends the position that the imminence requirement should be jettisoned. What matters is that it was necessary to use self‐defensive force against an aggressor. Imminence is important evidentially: it helps us answer the question of necessity. The imminence requirement should be replaced with a necessity requirement, probably with the stipulation of a rebuttable presumption that the necessity requirement is not met if the danger was not imminent. The chapter defends this position against arguments by Dressler and Ferzan in support of retaining the imminence requirement; the chapter also tries to figure out why the obvious fact that imminence does not entail necessity has been overlooked, or ignored.

Keywords:   self‐defense, imminence, battered women, justification, excuse, retreat

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .