Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau, 1916. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [vi]-viii).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Georgetown University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2007. / Description based on contents viewed June 26, 2007; title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references (p. 38-41).

Narratives are a very important part of public policy negotiations and deliberations. Public policy research has shown that policy narratives are manipulated to fit the motives of the creators and enforcers of that narrative (Stone, 2002). The creators and enforcers of these narratives use symbols, language, and other techniques to ensure that the narrative survives and dominates the political and social environment by becoming the favored policy prescription (Stone, 2002; Miller, 2012; Jones & McBeth, 2010; Schneider & Ingram, 1993). This study employs a qualitative content analysis to trace the genealogy of the following narratives that make up the “Stand Your Ground” discourse from 2005-2013: (1) Prosecutorial Discretion Narrative, (2) Vigilante Justice Narrative, (3) Race Narrative, and (4) Law-abiding Citizen Narrative. The “Stand Your Ground” discourse is used to test what this dissertation terms the “institutionalized policy narrative” thesis which states, Policymakers and policy advocates use policy narratives which consist of powerful symbols, politically motivated language, and ideographs to both shape and respond to public opinions by appealing to both the heart and intellect of the public. Once a winning narrative becomes institutionalized it is nearly impossible to replace that winning narrative even in the wake of a powerful new emerging narrative. / Includes bibliography. / Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2014. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

Thesis (doctoral)--Universiẗat Passau, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 295-310).

Thesis (M.S.)--Mississippi State University. Department of Psychology. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis focuses on the law of self-defense in the United States, in a context of domestic violence. The starting point is the work of Cynthia Gillespie, a US attorney whose groundbreaking work in 1989 shed light on the many legal obstacles battered women defendants face in Courts while pleading self-defense to homicide charges. Gillespie argued that some of the requirements inherent to the law of self-defense create unfavorable outcomes when applied to the context of domestic violence. The aim is to understand how the issue has evolved today, through the study of a single case ruled in 2019, “People V Addimando”. The conclusion is that there are some positive evolutions even if some severe obstacles remain. Some hope is to be found with the introduction of a new bill, the DVJSA, which is retroactive.

This research examines the legal issues surrounding killing in defence of property in three selected jurisdictions: South Africa, Cameroon and the United States. The comparative analysis illustrates that although the right to protect one’s property is universal, this defence is interpreted differently in the various jurisdictions. Another issue considered in the study is the constitutional right to life in each jurisdiction and whether or not an unlawful attack against one’s property creates a legal entitlement for the attacked party to take the life of another in defence of his or her property. Private defence of property is available when a person uses force to defend an interest in property, for example; to prevent a would-be thief from taking his own, or another’s property, to prevent someone from damaging his own or another’s property, to prevent an intruder from entering his own or another’s property. When an accused pleads private defence, his claim is that his harm-causing conduct was, in the circumstances, lawful. The reasonable use of force (short of deadly force) in the private defence of property is not disputed. However, the use of deadly force in protection of property is controversial, especially in a constitutional state such as South Africa where life should be prized above property. One should however also consider that there is a close link between the private defence of defending life and of protecting property. In many cases, an assault on property also involves a threat on life. However, there are cases of private defence of property where no threat to bodily integrity exists. These situations will be examined in all three jurisdictions and measured against the various constitutional imperatives. Conclusions and recommendations are made as regards the legal framework on the defence of property in the criminal law of the various jurisdictions. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. M.

No description available.