Hniya BENNANI Docteure en droit privé et sciences criminelles Université Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fès, Maroc

Résumé :

La conception classique de la légitime défense en droit pénal repose sur un modèle articulé autour de trois conditions, à savoir l’imminence de la menace, la nécessité de la riposte et l’exigence de proportionnalité, conçu pour des agressions ponctuelles et symétriques. Cette étude montre que ce modèle est structurellement inadapté aux violences conjugales systémiques dans lesquelles la menace n’est pas un événement isolé mais un processus continu d’emprise et de terreur. L’objectif principal est de proposer une refondation conceptuelle de la légitime défense applicable à ce contexte, à partir de trois concepts opératoires : le danger continu, la proportionnalité contextuelle et dynamique, et la subjectivité située. L’étude montre d’abord que le syndrome de la femme battue (SFB) et l’état de stress post-traumatique (TSPT) révèlent un biais structurel du droit pénal, lequel universalise un modèle d’agent rationnel qui s’avère inadapté à la rationalité défensive altérée des victimes de violences chroniques. Elle examine ensuite les réponses juridiques existantes et en démontre les limites et impasses et propose enfin un modèle alternatif articulé autour d’un standard de proportionnalité contextuelle et dynamique, fondé sur un faisceau de critères objectifs contextualisés, le standard de la personne raisonnable située, et un encadrement procédural strict.

Mots-clés : Légitime défense – Violences conjugales – Syndrome de la femme battue – Proportionnalité contextuelle – Imminence – Danger continu – Subjectivité située – État de stress post-traumatique – Emprise.

CONTEXTUAL AND DYNAMIC PROPORTIONALITY: RETHINKING SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST SYSTEMIC DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Hniya BENNANI Ph.D. in Private Law and Criminal Sciences Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Fez, Morocco

Abstract :

The classical conception of self-defence in criminal law is based on a model structured around three conditions, namely the imminence of the threat, the necessity of the response, and the requirement of proportionality, designed for isolated and symmetrical attacks. This study shows that this model is structurally ill-suited to systemic domestic violence, in which the threat is not an isolated event but a continuous process of coercive control and terror. The main objective is to propose a conceptual refoundation of self-defence applicable to this context, based on three operational concepts: continuous danger, contextual and dynamic proportionality, and situated subjectivity. The study first shows that battered woman syndrome (BWS) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) reveal a structural bias in criminal law, which universalises a model of a rational agent that proves ill-adapted to the altered defensive rationality of victims of chronic violence. It then examines existing legal responses and demonstrates their limits and dead ends, and finally proposes an alternative model structured around a standard of contextual and dynamic proportionality, based on a set of contextualised objective criteria, the standard of the situated reasonable person, and strict procedural safeguards.

Keywords: Self-defence – Domestic violence – Battered Woman Syndrome – Contextual proportionality – Imminence – Continuous danger – Situated subjectivity – Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – Coercive control.

---

Bibliographie 

ALLHOFF, F., « Self-Defense Without Imminence », American Criminal Law Review, vol. 56, 2019.

ALICKE, M. D. et WEIGEL, S. H., « The Reasonable Person Standard: Psychological and Legal Perspectives », Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 17, 2021.

BENNETT, S., « Ending the Continuous Reign of Terror: Women, Domestic Abuse and the Privilege of Self-Defense », Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 24, 1989.

BETTINSON, V. et WAKE, N., « A New Self-Defence Framework for Domestic Abuse Survivors », Modern Law Review, vol. 87, 2024.

BOLINGER, R. J., « The Moral Grounds of Reasonably Mistaken Self-Defense », Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 100, n° 2, 2020.

BOTH, L. M., FAVARETTO, T. C. et FREITAS, L. H. M., « Cycle of violence in women victims of domestic violence : Qualitative analysis of OPD 2 interview », Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, vol. 41, n° 1, 2019.

DAUGHERTY, J. C. et al., « Tentative Causes of Brain and Neuropsychological Alterations in Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence », Brain Sciences, vol. 14, 2024.

DEB, A., « Limitations of Battered Woman Syndrome and the Need for a New Defence », BRICS Law Journal, vol. 8, n° 3, 2021.

DEVOS, J., Les violences conjugales : la mobilisation des acteurs, Mémoire de master, Université de Lille, 2021.

DIOSO-VILLA, R. et NASH, C., « Identifying Evidentiary Checkpoints and Strategies to Support Successful Acquittals for Women who Kill an Abusive Partner During a Violent Confrontation », International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, vol. 13, n° 1, 2024.

DOBASH, R. E. et DOBASH, R., Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy, New York, Free Press, 1979.

DOWD, M., « Dispelling the Myths About the Battered Woman’s Defense: Towards a New Understanding », Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 19, n° 3, 1992.

EASTEAL, P. W. et STUBBS, J., « Battered Woman Syndrome: Misunderstood? / The (Un)Reasonable Battered Woman? A Response to Easteal », Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 3, n° 3, 1992.

ETEZAZIAN, S., « The nature of the self-defence proportionality requirement », Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, vol. 3, n° 1, 2016.

FERZAN, K. K., « Defending Imminence: From Battered Women to Iraq », Arizona Law Review, vol. 46, n° 2, 2004.

FITZ-GIBBON, K. et VANNIER, M., « Domestic violence and the gendered law of self-defence in France: the case of Jacqueline Sauvage », Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 25, n° 3, 2017.

FOLLINGSTAD, D. R., RUTLEDGE, L. L., BERG, B. J. et al., « The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships », Journal of Family Violence, vol. 5, n° 2, 1990.

FOLLINGSTAD, D. R., SHILLINGLAW, R. D., DEHART, D. D. et KLEINFELTER, K. J., « The Impact of Elements of Self-Defense and Objective Versus Subjective Instructions on Jurors’ Verdicts for Battered Women Defendants », Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 12, n° 5, 1997.

FRIGON, S., « Tuer pour survivre : Récits et parcours de Canadiennes, de Belges et de Françaises », Recherches féministes, vol. 12, n° 2, 1999.

FRYE, N. E. et KARNEY, B. R., « The context of aggressive behavior in marriage: A longitudinal study of newlyweds », Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 20, n° 1, 2006.

GAHLOT, N., « Right Of Private Defence Under The Criminal Law : A Study », African Journal of Biomedical Research, vol. 27, n° 5s, 2024.

GOOSEN, S., « Battered women and the requirement of imminence of self-defence », Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, vol. 16, n° 4, 2013.

GRUDECKI, M. et SITARZ, O., « Fear and Agitation as the Normative Elements of Legitimate Self-Defence Excess », Ius Novum, vol. 18, n° 1, 2024.

HODELL, E., DUNLAP, E., WASARHALEY, N. et GOLDING, J., « Factors Impacting Juror Perceptions Of Battered Women Who Kill Their Abusers : Delay And Sleeping Status », Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 18, n° 2, 2012.

HOLLIDAY, J. et al., « The Use of Battered Woman Syndrome in U.S. Criminal Courts », The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 50, n° 3, 2022.

HOYLE, C. et SANDERS, A., Police response to domestic violence: From victim choice to victim empowerment?, Londres, Routledge, 2017.

HULLEY, J., WAGER, K., GOMERSALL, T., BAILEY, L., KIRKMAN, G., GIBBS, G. et JONES, A., « Continuous Traumatic Stress: IPV Survivors’ Experiences of Post-separation Abuse », Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 38, n° 5-6, 2022.

JACUS, J.-P., LE GOFF, J. et CUERVO-LOMBARD, C.-V., « Violences et maltraitances intrafamiliales (conjugales, infantiles et sur personnes âgées) : aspects épidémiologiques et approche psychopathologique », Annales Médico-psychologiques, vol. 182, 2024.

KAUFMAN, W. R. P., « Self-Defense, Imminence, and the Battered Woman », New Criminal Law Review, vol. 10, n° 3, 2007.

KIMBLE, M. et al., « The impact of hypervigilance: Evidence for a forward feedback loop », Journal of Anxiety Disorders, vol. 28, n° 2, 2014.

KLESHCHOVA, O. et al., « Resting Amygdala Connectivity and Basal Sympathetic Tone as Markers of Chronic Hypervigilance », Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 94, 2018.

KRETZMER, D., « The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum », The European Journal of International Law, vol. 24, n° 1, 2013.

LIS, S. et al., « Generalization of fear in post-traumatic stress disorder », Psychophysiology, vol. 57, n° 1, 2019.

LUPIEN, S. J. et al., « The effects of chronic stress on the human brain: From neurotoxicity, to vulnerability, to opportunity », Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, vol. 49, 2018.

MATRAY, C., « Le dérapage narcissique de l’avocat général », Journal des Tribunaux, 2018.

MCPHERSON, R., « Women and self-defence: an empirical and doctrinal analysis », International Journal of Law in Context, vol. 18, n° 4, 2022.

MONCKTON-SMITH, J., In Control: Dangerous Relationships and How They End in Murder, Londres, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.

NOURSE, V. F., « Self-Defense and Subjectivity », The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 68, n° 4, 2001.

O’MEARA, C., « Reconceptualising the right of self-defence against « imminent » armed attacks », Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, vol. 9, n° 2, 2022.

OUELLET, F., HETROY, E., PATARD, G., GAUTHIER-DAVIES, C. et LECLERC, C., « Co-Occurrence of Violence on the Severity of Abuse in Intimate Relationships », Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 37, n° 21-22, 2022.

PROTELLI, L. et LEPOIVRE, A., Procès Jacqueline Sauvage : quand la presse joue le rôle de juge, Mémoire de Master, Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2018.

RAVISH, S. et SHARMA, R., « Tracking the Epistemic Harms of Marital Rape: The Case for Experiential Injustice », Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 43, n° 2, 2026.

REDD, N. J., « Learned Helplessness and Battered Woman Syndrome », in R. GARTNER et B. MCCARTHY (dir.), The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime, Hoboken, Wiley-Blackwell, 2019.

ROSEN, R. A., « On Self-Defense, Imminence, and Women Who Kill Their Batterers », North Carolina Law Review, vol. 71, n° 2, 1993.

SANGERO, B., Self-Defence in Criminal Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2006.

SCHULLER, R. et VIDMAR, N., « Battered Woman Syndrome Evidence in the Courtroom », Law and Human Behavior, vol. 16, n° 3, 1992.

TOMLIN, P., « Subjective Proportionality », Ethics, vol. 129, n° 2, 2018.

WALKER, L. E. A., « Battered Women Syndrome and Self-Defense », Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, vol. 6, n° 2, 1992.

WALKER, L. E. A., « Battered Woman Syndrome: Empirical Findings », Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1087, 2006.

WALLACE, S., « Beyond Imminence: Evolving International Law and Battered Women’s Right to Self-Defense », The University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 71, n° 4, 2004.

WALUS-WIGLE, J. et MELOY, J. R., « Battered woman syndrome as a criminal defense », The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, vol. 16, n° 3, 1988.

WEI, M., « Research on the Legitimate Defense of Domestic Violence Crimes », Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 5, n° 2, 2025.

YUSUF, R. A. et al., « A Comprehensive Review of Family and Domestic Violence: Patterns, Dynamics, And Control Measures », Pan African Journal of Life Sciences, vol. 9, n° 1, 2025.

ZEPINIC, V., « Battered Women Syndrome: A Headache for Medicine and Law », Psychology, vol. 12, n° 6, 2021.

ZEPINIC, V., « Battered Woman Syndrome: The Iceberg of Domestic Violence », Beijing Law Review, vol. 14, n° 1, 2023.

Jurisprudence

Cass. crim., 23 juin 2021, n° 20-84.820.

Cass. crim., 26 oct. 2022, n° 21-86.419.

People v. Humphrey, No. S045985, Superior Court of Fresno County, 1996.

R. v. Lavallée, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, 1990 CanLII 95 (CSC).

S v Engelbrecht, 2005 (2) SACR 41 (W).

State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461 (1985), 693 P.2d 475.

State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178 (1984), 478 A.2d 364.

State v. Peterson, No. 1670, Sept. Term, 2003, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.