Isn't it kind of hypocritical for the US government to eliminate the Good Soldier Defense?

If you compare the "Good Soldier Defense" with the "Battered Wife Defense," you could claim that both are defenses for perpetrators of crimes who may or may not have gone through traumatic experiences that have shaped the behavior that led to the committing of what is regarded as crime.

And yet the US Senate decides to effectively scrap the "Good Soldier Defense" in most cases, but the "Battered Wife Defense" is beyond reproach? Doesn't that seem just a little bit hypocritical?

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 7 years ago
    Favourite answer

    I don't think character or past behavior should be a factor in determining guilt. The evidence either proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime or it does not. Other information about a person's past, or character should be considered irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not they committed the offense in question.

    Obviously, reasonable self-defense is not a crime.

    (Add: Yes, it's hypocritical)

    ~

  • 7 years ago

    No.

    The battered woman defense is a type of temperary insanity plea, whereas the good soldier defense is mostly used as a way to claim that just because a person has a good reputation and a clean record, that it somehow means he or she could not possibly be guilty.

    Since every person who commits a crime at one time had a clean record, the "good soldier defense" is an illogical claim to make. It's good to see the government has finally caught a clue in this regard.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Indeed it is hypocritical and gender-biased.

    Still, I'm in favor of ALL violent criminals being kept apart from the rest of us, rather than having special excuses whereby a "label" excuses a crime.

    If "understanding" the motive of a crime and sympathizing excuses those crimes, what happens when psychology advances to the point that we understand ALL crimes?

  • 7 years ago

    I don't think either defense is a good idea. There are no excuses, only what you do. None of us do crimes unless and until we really really feel compelled to do them. Exactly. We're still not supposed to do them. And, we never do a crime until we do one. Neither of these things addresses the propriety of the act.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    Because of Commander in Chief Hussein Obama.

  • 7 years ago

    When women aren't at stake, it just isn't as important, it's really that simple.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.