Talk:Affirmative defense

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[fair use#Fair use as a defense|fair use]] The anchor (#Fair use as a defense) has been deleted by other users before.
[[defamation#Truth|truth]] The anchor (#Truth) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I keep seeing law pages turn up that are not listed at list of legal topics. Could the authors please attend to that? Michael Hardy 00:24 May 1, 2003 (UTC) There seem to be many pages that are legal topics that have never been listed in legal topics, I doubt if the authors can be located to do that kind of cross linking. I've found about 30 so far. Alex756 08:34 May 1, 2003 (UTC) Since May first at least 80 law entries added to list of legal topics most not new. Alex756 01:41 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

So, who wants to write simple:Affirmative defense? :) --Spikey 18:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Criminal law?

Isn't that term also used in criminal law? -- JensMueller 21:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

How can this be? I'm of the understanding that BARD is only for criminal law. Civil cases are on the "balance of probabilities". PullUpYourSocks 21:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Civil cases require only require a "preponderance of evidence", but that's not the point that was being made: the point was that the prosecution's burden is normally BARD in proving facts of a crime, but the defense has the burden of proof in making an affirmative defense, but the argument does not need to be made BARD. --Mr kitehead 01:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your jurisdiction. English law uses "on the balance of probabilities" as the standard of proof for civil cases. Let's not be too US-centric here. – ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best known?

Description of Insanity defense as "best known" seems both misleading & in error. Insanity & Intoxication are anomalous from ther rest of the category of affirmative defenses. The far more common defenses of "Self-Defense" and "Necessity" serve better to illustrate the class. I will preserve the commentary of Insanity with the description of most controversial, which I believe was the editors intended assertion.CheshireKatz 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Procedure

Affirmative Defense is similar and dissimilar to a counter-claim, as it defends the specific allegations and also states that there is contributory tortuous conduct on behalf of the complainant as well, whereas a counter claim admits guilt but states the complainant is equally or more tortuous in the claim and the defendant seeks damages for the subsequent injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SUITuP1981 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format

"divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible" TheHappiestCritic (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It feels like the lead paragraph should provide a clear example of what the defense actually is (think of the person who comes to this page after hearing the phrase on some crime-law drama..) I added the sentence "In it, the defendant affirms only part of the plantiff's claim, essentially a defense of "mitigating factors" for this reason, and put the sentence giving self defense as an example there. However the phrase "mitigating factors" may not actually be correct, and certainly doesn't "sound legal". A sentence about it's relationship to the offering of a counter-claim I think would be useful, but something a bit simpler than the last paragraph of the preceding section on the Talk page (remember, "newspapers are written for about a sixth-grade reading level" - or so I heard in (American) high school (circa mid-1990). 98.223.232.121 (talk)Jim

Using the “mistake of fact” and “self-defense” defenses together

I removed the statement, “It can be used with other defenses such as self-defense. Self-defense would still be available even if the defendant mistakenly believes that he was in imminent danger of harmful or offensive bodily contact^{[citation needed]}” from the “mistake of fact” section because it is wholly unreferenced, and whether it is true or not may vary from state to state. 50.246.99.245 (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Affirmative defence is a Common Law concept, known throughout the English speaking world and Commonwealth. The common law is English law. I suggest that the spelling of defence should therefore follow the standard English spelling, rather than the American.101.98.188.150 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meeksmatt123 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Meeksmatt123 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]