Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/17708 Record ID: 73e04537-d073-4046-add9-15d3117aae52
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Crisafi, Denise N | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:34:28Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:34:28Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | No. 4938 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/17708 | - |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | University of Central Florida | en |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Electronic theses and dissertations | en |
| dc.relation.isversionof | No. 4938 | en |
| dc.subject | Intimate partner violence | en |
| dc.subject | Law | en |
| dc.subject | Equality | en |
| dc.subject | Legislation analysis | en |
| dc.title | No ground to stand upon? Exploring the legal, gender, and racial implications of stand your ground law cases of intimate partner violence | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 13328 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.description.notes | Within the past decade, the use of self-defense as defined under Stand Your Ground laws has been the subject of political and legal scrutiny. According to the American Bar Association (2015), twenty-three states have passed Stand Your Ground laws that eliminate the duty to<br/ >retreat prior to using force in any place that an individual has the right to be. Several high-profile cases have served as catalysts for questioning the necessity of Stand Your Ground laws. Where the limitations of these laws are becoming increasingly evident is with cases of intimate partner violence. However, there has not been any empirical investigation regarding how Stand Your Ground laws apply to intimate partner violence, and this is the case despite critical evaluations demonstrating self-defense law to be primarily androcentric in language and intent. This bias has been codified into Stand Your Ground laws, where intimate partner violence victims are required under Castle Law to have a protection order issued by the court to prove reasonable fear against their partner who may have a moral or legal right to the same property where the violence occurs.<br/ ><br/ >The current study was designed to address this limitation in the research, and to provide the first known evidence of how statutory Stand Your Ground laws are being applied to cases of <br/ >self-defense that involve intimate partners. The results of these analyses demonstrate that there are more legal restrictions than protections for intimate partner violence victims; that there are gender disparities in sentencing outcomes that do not favor women who are victims of intimate partner violence; and that the media tends to use victim blame tactics that have clear implications based upon the gender and race of intimate partner violence victims. <br/ ><br/ >The results of this study offer much needed evidence of fundamental problems with contemporary Stand Your Ground laws that continue to condemn intimate partner violence victims, and are also used to make recommendations for how Stand Your Ground laws can be modified to offer unbiased legal protection to victims of intimate partner violence who experience a long-term cycle of abuse.<br/ >From abstract<br/ >Open access | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Electronic theses and dissertations | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2016-06-07 | en |
| dc.publisher.place | Orlando | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Miscellaneous | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.