# Should all homicides require an affirmative defense to not be manslaughter or murder? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2016, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738 "2016-08-23T15:58:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738/41 "2016-08-24T21:34:32Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Did you not read the last sentence of the OP? Which I quoted in my original response to the OP? I’ll repeat it here: > > Zimmerman is actually irrelevant to that question. In then context of everything else that was written in the OP (examples are usually given to clarify intent), it seemed clear to me that the OP was talking about requiring affirmative defenses like self defense rather than requiring the prosecution to prove lack of self defense as a defense. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738/42 "2016-08-24T22:30:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > WTF are you talking about. Classy… > [@](#): > > The prosecution HAS proven murder in my scenario. It is up to the defendant to prove that the murder was justified. Hmm…based on the above, and this: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its different state by state, but when self defense is an affirmative defense (unlike in Florida) the elements of homicide are proven by the prosecution… …perhaps we can add you to the “almost nobody here” who “seems to know wtf they are talking about”. 1. There are no elements of homicide, because homicide is not a crime. 2. If the state has proven **murder** , then a self-defense claim cannot succeed. Murder precludes self-defense. 3. Murder and homicide are not the same thing. It’s crucial that you understand this for this discussion to amount to anything. > [@](#): > > That is the nature of an affirmative defense. Typically, the defendant must prove with the preponderance of the evidence that the murder was justified in some way. This is the way we did things for centuries in most jurisdictions until recent times. Now the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it WASN’T self defense. As above; no, they wouldn’t be trying to prove the murder was justified; murder cannot be justified. Homicide can. Several people have pointed out the basic criticism of the idea: it shifts the burden of proof from the state to the accused, which is problematic: the state has far more resources to throw at the case; it makes false convictions more likely; and it’s at odds with the concept of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that underpins our system of criminal law. Furthermore, why should a defense of self-defense be treated any differently than any other defense? If the accused claims that they were a hundred miles away at the time of the killing, do we demand that they prove they were, or demand the prosecution proove that they were not? If they claim the killing was accidental, likewise, it’d be up to the state to prove that it wasn’t. Is there any reason, beyond antipathy for George Zimmerman, to single out one factor that proves innocence and subject it to these additional hoops? “We used to do it this way” is not, by itself, an argument. What are the merits of the idea? > [@](#): > > Why not make the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant WASN’T insane as well? That doesn’t sound like a bad idea; and indeed that is the rule in some states. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738/43 "2016-08-24T22:55:46Z")
Zimmerman started a violent confrontation with Martin that resulted in Martin being killed. Zimmerman’s defense rested on the claim that he was in fear for his life, but his admitted actions make it clear that he was not in fear for his life (or at least, he was not behaving in a manner consistent with a reasonable and sane person in fear for his life) at the time that he started the confrontation. He might well have become fearful at some point during the confrontation, but he has nobody to blame for that but himself, as Martin had the right to defend himself. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738/44 "2016-08-24T22:59:18Z")
In Zimmerman’s account, he did not start a violent confrontation with Martin; rather, he claims Martin started a violent confrontation with him. Thus, his account alone does not support a charge of murder. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738/45 "2016-08-25T00:03:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Zimmerman started a violent confrontation with Martin that resulted in Martin being killed. The evidence at trial did not support this conclusion. Zimmerman began following Martin. That is not violent, and there was no evidence adduced that Zimmerman was the first to add violence to the mix. > [@](#): > > Zimmerman’s defense rested on the claim that he was in fear for his life, but his admitted actions make it clear that he was not in fear for his life (or at least, he was not behaving in a manner consistent with a reasonable and sane person in fear for his life) at the time that he started the confrontation. The evidence at trial did not support the conclusion you suggest. Zimmerman’s claim that he was in fear for his life after Martin struck him. Zimmerman’s “start” of the confrontation was his decision to exit his truck and follow Martin, and he did not claim to be in fear for his life at this time. There is no contradiction here; your phrasing suggests one. > [@](#): > > He might well have become fearful at some point during the confrontation, but he has nobody to blame for that but himself, as Martin had the right to defend himself. Martin had the right to defend himself against physical attacks, to be sure. But no evidence was adduced at trial that Zimmerman was the initiator of such an attack. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-all-homicides-require-an-affirmative-defense-to-not-be-manslaughter-or-murder/763738.md?page=2)