Self-defense mechanisms

The rule of law creates a space for personal self-defense in the business realm. The laws governing such actions must be followed by the parties concerned, but self-defense mechanisms are governed by statute. (Bethlehem, 2012). Therefore, a person may be allowed by law to defend against an unlawful physical attack as long as they do not plan to harm or kill anyone. This is especially true if the physical attack was likely to cause them harm or death. (Shen, et al., 2012).

A claim under section 34(1) must satisfy the conditions listed below:

Several factors occur in a self-defense scenario, including;

firstly, the accused did not incite and is illegally attacked. Secondly, the accused did not apply unnecessary force to defend the attack (Cheng, & Hoekstra, 2013). Thirdly, the accused had no intention to kill or cause serious injuries to the offender and lastly, the accused did not in any way harm or kill the attacker.

To use section 34(2) as a defense, the following must exist:

In this scenario, the victim is seriously injured or facing death from the assault. Some factors exist, to begin with, the accused must have been illegally attacked, second, the accused did not use unnecessary pressure to defend the attack, and thirdly, the accused intentions were to kill or harm the offender (Fontaine, 2010). Additionally, the accused was reasonably worried that the assault might kill or cause severe body damage to him or her. Lastly, the accused must have been convinced he had no other option (Lazar, 2012). This section is therefore applied in scenarios of death or grievous bodily harm caused by the defendant to the offender and faces charges of murder or manslaughter.

In conclusion, the rule of law provides for individuals who are unlawfully assaulted for they can sort to use self-defense mechanisms. In the sections 34(1) and 34(2) of the criminal code is applied on individual who are unlawfully assaulted without provoking the attacker and for the sake of their self-defense may cause death or body harm to the offender or had such like intentions (Schmitt, 2010).

References

Bethlehem, D. (2012). Self-defense against an imminent or actual armed attack by nonstate actors. American Journal of International Law, 106(4), 769-777.

Cheng, C., & Hoekstra, M. (2013). Does strengthening self-defense law deter crime or escalate violence? Evidence from expansions to castle doctrine.Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 821-854.

Fontaine, R. G. (2010). An attack on self-defense. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 47, 57.

Lazar, S. (2012). Necessity in Self‐Defense and War. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 40(1), 3-44.

Schmitt, M. N. (2010). Cyber operations in international law: The use of force, collective security, self-defense, and armed conflicts. In Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks: Informing Strategies and Developing Options for US Policy (Vol. 151, pp. 163-64).

Shen, D. W., Pouliot, L. M., Hall, M. D., & Gottesman, M. M. (2012). Cisplatin resistance: a cellular self-defense mechanism resulting from multiple epigenetic and genetic changes. Pharmacological reviews, 64(3), 706-721.