Template talk:Criminal defenses

Duplication of items

The template is being bulked up with a number of duplicate items "in English law", examples are: Duress/Duress in English law & Necessity/Necessity in English law. Does this imply the first item is "general" or "in U.S. law"? What about other traditions of law? Customary law of indigenous peoples, or Chinese law. My preference would be to reference a general article and reference US/UK and notable exceptions from there. -- Paul foord 15:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template generally contains common law concepts, which are most widely used in English speaking countries, and in former members of the British Commonwealth. The "in English law" forks are a relatively new addition, and I'm not sure they're necesary on this template - we could just as well have links to articles on Duress in Australian law or Duress in Canadian law or Duress in Kenyan law, so I would not object to the removal of the English law forks (might want to ask the editor that added them). bd2412 T 15:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I forked was because, as I was adding the 2005/6 cases, the quantity of material in the separate English law elements became disproportionate. I therefore created separate pages to allow for further growth. I have removed all reference to English law from the the CrimDef template. David91 16:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I agree with your creation of separate articles to handle the volume of material, but this will keep the CrimDef template to a less bulky general purpose design. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have the "kid" back on the block again, keeping us old 'uns in line. How many thousand edits a day are you managing now? Only joking. :) As I work through all the new cases over the last twelve months, page length is getting to be a real problem. This is not the place to discuss the problem of dynamic growth, but I will flag the issue here and we can take it to the LawProject area. David91 17:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

Any reason why alibi links to the wiktionary entry? OrangeDog 19:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

I've removed "mistake of law" and "mistake of fact", which are actually "mistake of template". The proper term of legal art for the criminal defense is simply "mistake". The terms "mistake of law" and "mistake of fact" are principles of civil law, primarily used in contract and tort law (e.g., in claims for restitution). ... Kenosis 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is rubbish

It contains many things that are not defences as such, but rather challenges such as lack of mens rea (alibi) or actus reus (false confession). Its purpose is better fulfilled by simply including Template:Criminal law on the relevant pages rather than this one.

Unless there is any objection within a week I'mma go ahead with these changes and request deletion of this template. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected self-defence

Clicking self defence lead to self-defence instead of Right of self-defense as in the legal concept. I have corrected this. Kylesenior (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]