Women and self-defence: An empirical and doctrinal analysis

11Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The problem of women's access to self-defence has been internationally recognised. This paper presents original empirical data on women's use of self-defence in practice alongside critical feminist analysis of the requirements of self-defence under Scots law. The empirical findings confirm that women are rarely successful with self-defence at trial level and the doctrinal analysis further demonstrates that self-defence does not adequately reflect women's experience of violence, especially sexual violence, and instead continues to reflect male experiences of (public) violence. It is intended that this research will form part of a larger developing evidence base, the type of which has been called for (Fitz-Gibbon and Vannier, 2017) and can be used to support reform in this area. As such, it represents a significant contribution to socio-legal work that has considered the issue of women's access to criminal defences.

References Powered by Scopus

Killing the competition - Female/female and male/male homicide

181Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes

111Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Killing in Self-Defence

84Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Identifying Evidentiary Checkpoints and Strategies to Support Successful Acquittals for Women who Kill an Abusive Partner During a Violent Confrontation

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Women who kill their abusers and self-defence

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

News media reporting on Scottish cases in which women kill following domestic abuse

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McPherson, R. (2022). Women and self-defence: An empirical and doctrinal analysis. International Journal of Law in Context, 18(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552322000131

Readers over time

‘22‘23‘24‘25036912

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 4

57%

Researcher 3

43%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 3

38%

Social Sciences 2

25%

Arts and Humanities 2

25%

Business, Management and Accounting 1

13%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0