000			02187nab a22003497a 4500
999			_c6555 _d6555
005			20250625151523.0
008			200226s2016 ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_91710 _aMidson, Brenda
245			_aCoercive control and criminal responsibility : _bvictims who kill their abusers _cBrenda Midson
260			_bSpringer, _c2016
500			_aCriminal Law Forum, 2016, 27: 417–442
520			_a‘‘Battered women’’[1] as defendants pose a universal problem for legal systems.[2] However, unlike English law which retains the defence of provocation alongside diminished responsibility, New Zealand’s legal regime does not have sufficient flexibility to deal with the culpability of these defendants. Arguably other jurisdictions have similar problems, although there is data to suggest that the New Zealand criminal justice system’s response to these defendants is more punitive than, for example, Australia’s or Canada’s.[3] This article suggests an approach that moves away from a focus on the violence perpetrated against defendants toward a holistic approach that focuses on coercive control as it affects criminal responsibility. While the emphasis of this article is on the New Zealand position, where relevant it will reference Australian, Canadian and South African authorities as the article ultimately proposes a framework that could be adapted for use in other jurisdictions as well as New Zealand. (Author's abstract). #6555
650			_aABUSED WOMEN _925
650			_aCOERCIVE CONTROL _95771
650			_aCRIMINAL JUSTICE _9167
650			_aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650			_aHOMICIDE _9297
650			_aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _9431
650			_aLAW REFORM _9338
650			_aPERPETRATORS _92644
650		4	_aVICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9624
650		0	_94412 _aWOMEN'S USE OF VIOLENCE
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
651		4	_aAUSTRALIA _92597
651		4	_aCANADA _92602
651			_aSOUTH AFRICA _93486
773	0		_tCriminal Law Forum, 2016, 27: 417–442
830			_aCriminal Law Forum _98912
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-016-9292-5 _yRead abstract
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE