MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124602040 · doi:10.17159/pjdnzz54

Criminal Justice for Female Victims of Domestic Violence: Time to Deal Defencelessness a Final Blow

2025· article· W7124602040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rinda Botha

Bibliographic record

VenueObiter · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriminal justiceDomestic violenceLegislaturePleaNoticeLegislationLaw enforcementPresidential system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the Presidential Summit on Gender-based Violence (GBV) and Femicide in November 2022, President Cyril Ramaphosa instructed the Department of Justice and Correctional Services to implement criminal justice reforms that would prioritise the needs of domestic violence and GBV survivors. Ironically, from January to March 2023, shortly after the President’s instruction, South Africa experienced yet another increase in violence against women, with 969 murders and 1 485 attempted murders. Carrying out the President’s instruction may take the form of legislative amendments to offer stronger protection and/or reforming the defences available to survivors of abuse who, having lost confidence in the system, take the law into their own hands and end up as murder-accused in criminal proceedings. Two years following the President’s instruction, this article takes stock of progress and recommends a potential way forward. In terms of reforms to the Domestic Violence Act, some noteworthy changes took effect in 2023, including the option to apply for a domestic violence safety monitoring notice. However, in light of the already overstretched police force and the poor track record of protection orders in keeping women in abusive relationships safe, the likelihood that the notice will bring dramatic change is slim. Shifting the focus to the defences available to battered women who face murder charges after killing their abusers, the article examines the plea of private defence as well as non-pathological criminal incapacity. With reforms in this area sorely lacking, South African authorities have two options: Lawmakers may follow the example of Australia and Canada, which countries extended the scope of private defence by way of legislative amendments to accommodate abused women. This, however, is the least preferred option. Unlike the two foreign jurisdictions, South Africa has a much narrower definition of private defence and employs a mainly objective test. Alternatively, and ideally, the defence of non-pathological criminal incapacity based on provocation and emotional stress could be revived from its slumber erroneously imposed by S v Eadie in 2002. This can be achieved through a clarificatory appeal court judgment, without the need for legislation. The subjective nature of the test to determine criminal (in)capacity means that the abused woman’s state of mind – including what she perceived and believed to be true at the time of killing her abusive partner – can be taken into consideration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0220.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObiterSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207