Review of particular criminal defences

1: Most community members do not blame victims for their abuse or have attitudes which minimise domestic and family violence.

2: Individual attitudes and knowledge about domestic and family violence influenced whether people thought domestic and family violence defendants should have a defence.

3: The community does not support provocation as a defence to assault if there is a risk of significant injury.

4: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants had different views about defendant culpability than non-Indigenous participants in a small number of scenarios.

5: Community attitudes align with traditional rules of self-defence, and participants were able to weigh relevant factors to assess culpability.

6: The community support alternatives to criminal prosecution where parents use minimal force to discipline children.

7: The community supports teachers’ ability to use force for the purpose of management or control but not for discipline or correction.

8: The community does not support provocation defences where the defendant’s conduct is motivated by anger, jealousy, or a desire for control, particularly in cases involving domestic and family violence

9: The community expects individualised criminal justice responses to the use of lethal violence.

10: There was strong community support for partial and complete defences and consideration of abuse for victim-survivors of DFV who kill an abusive partner.

11: There was some support for a partial defence of excessive self-defence.

12: The community does not support the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment for murder. The community expects sentencing to reflect the culpability of murder defendants.