Self-Defense and Consent: Three Criminal Law Cases
This paper examines three landmark criminal law cases—People v. Goetz (1986), State v. Stewart (1988), and State v. Shelley (1997)—to explore the legal and ethical dimensions of self-defense, justifiable use of deadly force, and consent to harm. The analysis addresses New York's deadly force statutes, the reasonableness standard in self-defense claims, battered woman syndrome as a legal defense, and the limits of consent in sporting contexts. Each case is evaluated through both legal and moral lenses, considering questions of imminent danger, preemptive action, retaliation, and the boundaries of individual autonomy under criminal law.
- People v. Goetz (1986): Deadly Force and the Reasonableness Standard: Goetz subway shooting facts, acquittal, and Fletcher's critique
- New York Statutes on Deadly Force and the Justification Defense: NY deadly force statute, reasonableness standard, proposed amendments
- State v. Stewart (1988): Battered Woman Syndrome and Imminent Danger: Stewart case facts, court majority vs. dissent on imminence
- Domestic Violence, Retaliation, and the Right to Self-Defense: Scholarly statements on retaliation and Stewart's self-defense claim
- State v. Shelley (1997): Consent and Sporting Conduct: Consent in sports, foreseeability, and Shelley's broken-jaw assault
- Conclusion: Agreement with Shelley ruling and limits of sporting consent
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds each legal argument in specific case facts, keeping analysis concrete rather than abstract.
- It consistently applies a reasonableness standard across all three cases, creating analytical coherence throughout the discussion.
- The author engages critically with quoted scholars and statutes rather than simply restating them, offering clear positions with supporting reasoning.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the technique of case-based normative analysis: presenting legal facts, summarizing the court's reasoning, and then evaluating both through an ethical and practical lens. The use of commentary from scholars like George Fletcher and legal theorists such as Thompson and DeWolfe Howe shows how secondary sources can be leveraged to sharpen an argument without displacing the student's own voice.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized around three distinct cases, each treated as a self-contained analytical unit with numbered sub-questions guiding the discussion. Within each unit, the student moves from factual summary to legal analysis to personal evaluation. This question-and-answer format, typical of law and criminal justice coursework, ensures systematic coverage of each legal issue while allowing the author to build a cumulative perspective on self-defense and consent across the three cases.
People v. Goetz (1986): Deadly Force and the Reasonableness Standard
The controversial People v. Goetz (1986) involves the defendant, Bernhard Goetz, who shot and injured four young Black men on a subway train in New York City. Four youths—Troy Canty, Darryl Cabey, James Ramseur, and Barry Allen—were riding the subway; two of them had screwdrivers hidden on their persons, later admitting they intended to use these screwdrivers to unscrew coin boxes attached to arcade games. Goetz was also riding the train and carried an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol he had purchased in 1981. Canty approached Goetz, possibly with one of the other young men beside him, and said, "Give me five dollars." There was no use of force, nor was there a display of a weapon. Goetz responded by standing and firing four shots from his unlicensed gun, which he had been carrying in the waistband of his pants. A bullet struck each of the young men, and then Goetz fired another shot at Cabey, permanently damaging his spinal cord. Goetz fled the scene and ultimately surrendered to police in New Hampshire a week later. Much of the controversy surrounding the case revolves around whether a person has the right to use deadly force based on a belief that they face clear and present danger of severe bodily harm.
New York tried Goetz for attempted murder and assault. The jury acquitted him of both charges, stating that Goetz "was justified in shooting the four men with the silver-plated .38-caliber revolver he purchased in Florida." The jury did convict him of illegal possession of a firearm, for which the court sentenced Goetz to one year in jail. Following sentencing, Goetz told the court: "This case is really more about the deterioration of society than it is about me… I believe society needs to be protected from criminals."
Criminal law professor George Fletcher followed the trial closely. After the acquittal, he commented: "The facts of the Goetz case were relatively clear, but the primary fight was over the moral interpretation of the facts… I am not in the slightest bit convinced that the four young men were about to mug Goetz. If he had said, 'Listen buddy, I wish I had $5, but I don't,' and walked to the other side of the car, the chances are 60–40 nothing would have happened. Street-wise kids like that are more attuned to the costs of their behavior than Goetz was" (qtd. in Roberts 1989).
Professor Fletcher made an astute and correct observation: Goetz was not justified in shooting, as a simple "sorry, I don't have five dollars" would have readily defused the situation. It is more likely that this case reflects the racism embedded in society and the justice system as it existed in the 1980s. Goetz was clearly traumatized and on edge from the time he was mugged in 1981—the incident that prompted him to purchase the gun in the first place. Goetz was not behaving reasonably: any reasonable person would have exhausted verbal options before resorting to a firearm. As Professor Fletcher suggested, the men likely had no intention of mugging Goetz; had he simply dismissed their request and moved to the other end of the car, they would most likely have left him alone. The case raised enduring questions about race, fear, and the limits of self-defense doctrine in American criminal law.
Works Cited
People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96. 1986. Print.
State v. Shelley. 929 P.2d 489 Wash. App. 1997. Print.
State v. Stewart. Supreme Court of Kansas. 21 Oct. 1988. Print.
Wiley, Krista. "Getting Away With Murder." Psychology Today, 12 Feb. 2013, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201302/getting-away-murder. Accessed 7 Oct. 2017.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.