In: Psychology
Jane was attacked by an unknown man. She was able to free herself and ran to a nearby house, with the man chasing close behind. She screamed and knocked at the door of the house. The occupants of the house opened the door, and she requested refuge. The occupant refused, but Jane forced her way into the house. To gain entry, Jane had to strike the occupant. Once inside, she used the telephone to contact the police, who responded within minutes. At the insistence of the occupants of the house, Jane has been charged with trespass and battery. Does she have a defense? Explain.
Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.
(Answer) At the beginning of the case, it is said that Jane was being attacked by the man who chased her. It can be reckoned that the actions of Jane that followed were all in lieu of saving herself.
Secondly, Jane did not seriously maim or even the burgle the house that she sought refuge in. From these actions, it can be established that Jane did not have any ulterior motives in breaking into the house.
Therefore, it can be established that both trespassing and battery if presumed, were both with the intention of self-defense or averting a major mishap. This would be similar to a police apprehending a common citizen’s vehicle in order to chase a perpetrator or any such situation. In such a case, Jane would not only have a chance to prove herself innocent but even charge the house owner for aiding a criminal act.
The sections and laws that are used in this case would depend on the court and the state that the case is tried in. However, based on common law, it would be hopeful that the victim in this case be excused since she is not guilty of any intentional crime or serious damage as the land owner would have been had Jane not been able to use the phone.