NCJ Number
45422
Journal
CRIMINAL LAW QUARTERLY Volume: 19 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (SEPTEMBER 1977) Pages: 425-453
Date Published
1977
Length
29 pages
Annotation
PLAYER-INFLICTED VIOLENCE IN THE SPORTS OF HOCKEY, FOOTBALL, AND BASEBALL AND THE ROLE OF THE LAW IN PUNISHING VIOLATORS OF CRIMINAL CODES DURING SPORTS CONTESTS ARE EXPLORED.
Abstract
THE INCREASE IN VIOLENCE IN THE GAME OF HOCKEY HAS GAINED WIDESPREAD ATTENTION. IN CANADA, A POLICY OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL LAW ON THE RINK HAS BEEN INSTITUTED. PROSECUTORS IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN MORE RELUCTANT TO ENFORCE CRIMINAL CODES ON ANY PLAYING FIELD. ANY BLOW STRUCK IN ANGER OR WHICH IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO DO BODILY HARM IS A CRIMINAL ASSAULT. A CENTRAL ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DEGREE OF FORCE USED EXCEEDS THAT WHICH COULD BE ANTICIPATED BY A PLAYER IN CONSENTING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SPORT. ANY CONSPIRACY TO ATTACK AN OPPOSING PLAYER (E.G., A COACH'S INSTRUCTIONS TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE GAME), WHETHER IT RESULTS IN ACTUAL BODILY HARM OR NOT, MAKES THE CONSPIRATORS SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE (IN CONTRAST WITH THE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, WHICH HAS REFUSED TO DEAL WITH ASSAULTS ON THE ICE), HAS ACTED TO ENFORCE THE RULES TO THE EXTENT THAT FIGHTING IN FOOTBALL GAMES HAS ALMOST BEEN ELIMINATED. THE POTENTIAL FOR VIOLENCE EXISTS IN BASEBALL, TOO. BATTERS HAVE BEEN INJURED AND IN SOME CASES KILLED WHEN STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY A PITCHER'S FASTBALL. USE OF THE BATTING HELMET AND EJECTION FROM THE GAME OF PITCHERS WHO INTENTIONALLY HIT BATTERS HAVE HELPED THE SITUATION. COMMON DEFENSES USED BY PLAYERS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL ASSAULT ARE: (1) CONSENT OF THE OPPOSITION TO SUCH ATTACKS THROUGH ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE SPORT; (2) SELF-DEFENSE; AND (3) PROVOCATION. THE FOCUS OF THE CONSENT DEFENSE IS WHETHER THE PRACTICES OF THE GAME THAT LED TO THE INJURY WERE REASONABLE, CONSENTED TO, AND NOT LIKELY TO PRODUCE SERIOUS INJURY. THE LEGAL EXCUSE OF SELF-DEFENSE REQUIRES THE ABSENCE OF PROVOCATION ON THE DEFENDANT'S PART; THE BELIEF THAT HE WAS IN IMMEDIATE DANGER OF BODILY HARM; AND THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR HIS FEARS. IN ADDITION, THE DEFENDANT HAS A DUTY TO RETREAT OR AVOID THE DANGER IF REASONABLY POSSIBLE. THE DEFENSE OF PROVOCATION IS PRIMARILY CONSIDERED ONLY IN THE MITIGATION OF DAMAGES AND INVOLVES A CONSIDERATION OF THE PLAYERS' UNCONSCIOUS REACTIONS IN THE HEAT OF THE GAME. ACTUAL CASES AND DECISIONS IN BOTH AMERICAN AND CANADIAN COURTS ARE CITED SHOWING THE APPLICABILITY AND DEGREES OF ACCEPTABILITY OF THESE DEFENSES.