What is meant by the phrase "affirmative defense"?
2006-10-22 09:23:19 · 6 answers · asked by daisyduke2692002 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
There are two types of defenses.
A defense
and an affirmative defense
affirmative defenses state that everything that the other side says is true but for some reason, the defendant is excused as a matter of law.
Examples would be:
I was speeding but it was an emergency
I killed him but it was in self-defense
I was double parked but was making a delivery
I didn't pay child support, but I was homeless
I punched him, but I suffer from a mental disorder that prevents me from telling right from wrong.
Yes it's all true but it happened too long ago.
With a defense, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution or plaintiff. An affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof over to the other party. Essentially the claims are "affirmed" as true, and new facts must be proved to show an excuse or that the claims are not the entire truth of the matter.
2006-10-22 09:42:44 · answer #1 · answered by Discipulo legis, quis cogitat? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
An affirmative defense means that, the Judge will instruct the jury: "If you find that "these things" happened, then you MUST find the defendant not guilty." Using an affirmative defense puts the burden of proof on the defendant.
Example: In Georgia, we have a "stand your ground" law, which says that if we are attacked, and we defend ourselves within the Law, we cannot be held liable either criminally or civilly. Let's say that I am attacked, and I defend myself. I do so within my rights under the law. I must show evidence that I have done so at the trial. The judge will tell the jury; "If you find that the evidence shows that the defendant acted according to the law, you MUST find for the defendant." Not may...not can...must.
2006-10-22 12:01:29 · answer #2 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is when the defendent doesn't argue the actual conditions of the evidence presented, but argues the validity of the evidence presented.
Self-defense is a great example. A plantiff may charge the defendent of assault and battery, but the defendent may argue an "I did it, but..." defense over the reasons which make him not guilty.
Another great example is how certain statutes may not be fulfilled. If a contract is signed waivering a plantiff's rights, and the plantiff still brings the other party to court, the defendent can say, "Yes that happnened, but we signed off on it being OK." Such a case could exist if a TV was being sold. The seller could say the buyer stole it in spite of paying him because the TV wasn't for sale. The seller can say, "Yes, I took it after paying, AND it was on sale," followed by presenting the contract.
2006-10-22 09:43:37 · answer #3 · answered by Mikey C 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
An affirmative defense is something that is beside the point but ends the argument. Like statute of limitations.
2006-10-22 09:30:50 · answer #4 · answered by grdnoviz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
An extremely de-stabilizing foreign policy, like Israel uses. Bomb kill and take out anyone you do not like. International laws be dam. The same mind set as used by two bit hoods.
2006-10-22 09:33:58 · answer #5 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yeah, makes me wonder too. Guess as opposed to Negative Agression.
2006-10-22 09:26:22 · answer #6 · answered by Jack 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋