Although is by far different from those of

Although criminal law is a matter of the state, the application of cultural defense into criminal law is unusual and deserves special attention. Defense lawyers often cite cultural differences as a defense when it comes to domestic violence. Stating the big differences between different cultures in respecting women, children, and families. In the united states of America, people have vigorously put in the effort to modify the way legal systems retort to violence against culturally disadvantaged groups, specifically women and it is a belief that the accommodation of cultural defense is a setback towards their goals. The issue of cultural defense is a conflict of value amidst the minorities and the majorities. The idea of cultural defense states that criminal law does not only rely on the universal principle, it also rests particularly on the understanding of the dominant group. The understanding of cultural defense from the conflict of value between majorities and minorities is required to avoid partial treatment. To be addressed not through the coercive or unilateral imposition of one side’s value on the other but rather through extensive discussion and arguments on both sides. The acceptance of cultural defense into criminal law and justice would not only help in the tracking of self-blame but also give a useful space for intercultural learnings. . According to Kymlicka, theories on how the law can generally operate in a pluralistic society has been developed by notable philosophers such as Taylor, Habermas, and Rawls. However, those multicultural theories must have been adapted into the particular aims, demands, and restrictions of criminal law. Criminal law makes people take responsibility for their actions on the ground of being a rational agent. The presupposition of legal personhood in criminal law is by far different from those of many traditional communities, but it is said that they are now irreversible. The second chapter of Kymlicka’s criminal law and cultural diversity reject the idea of cultural defense in favor of the integration cultural consideration onto criminal law’s image of the responsible individual. The idea behind cultural defense is more than just the defendant bringing forward that the difference between their personal cultural believes been and that of the majority, which might stand as a factor in justifying their actions, but it is also important to take into account the value of the judges and juries and the opposite party since they all have values different as well. His chapter in the book particularly focuses on the ascription of responsibility and what might be labeled “cultural” evidence or information. The author gave her own ascription of cultural defense:”A quite strict division must be made between aims and (the aims restricting) justifications. For the punishment of a concrete individual to be legitimate, considerable weight must be given to the demand for personal blameworthiness in a sufficiently profound sense. For the same reason, considerable weight must be given to the demand for equal treatment in a narrow sense. “Cultural” information is often necessary for these demands to be met. Thus, “cultural” information has a natural place in the rules determining personal blameworthiness. A separate “cultural defense,” though, is a bad idea”The values of someone who is raised in a minority community might conflict with that of someone who is raised the majority community, to the extent that the majority value is incorporated into the criminal value, in this case, both individuals might have to violate their cultural values and beliefs. Both the American and British legal system has largely shown their unwillingness in the acceptance of variation between a defendant’s culture and the largely accepted society’s culture to constitute an independent defense. However, the cultural factor can be relevant in criminal law as long as they can establish a case for one or more traditional criminal law defense. Furthermore, cultural factors might be relevant during charging and sentencing of the criminal process if judges and prosecutors can exercise their discretion in setting charges. The role cultural factor played in establishing the criminal defense is restricted by their permissibility as evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime. It may be possible to introduce the cultural factor into court system under the insanity defense. A defendant might argue that their cultural value is distinct from the majority value that is reflected in the criminal law, that they lacked the substantial capacity to understand the wrongfulness in their act. Kymlicka believed that that the legal responsibility cannot be limited to just moral blameworthiness and that the state has a very legitimate interest in sustaining the mutual recognition of people as citizens. Kymlicka also stated that if we are all in agreement that personal blameworthiness needs to occupy a fundamental role in criminal law, and that there is a need for demands to be met in a very profound way, then we cannot be allowed to neglect the impact of culture, even when it is most flagrantly conflicting. Personal blameworthiness, sufficiently profound, is a precondition for legitimate punishment. It is also important for consider how criminal law treats other mitigating factors that might affect a person’s ability to co-operate with the law when we are looking at the merit of including cultural evidence as a tool for determining individual blameworthiness. . For example, being raised in a poor neighborhood where criminality is rife is arguably relevant for assessing blameworthiness, and indeed sound philosophical arguments support the view that the victims of poor upbringing are less blameworthy. Yet the criminal law system does not typically view poor upbringing as a mitigating factor, and this chapter argues that there are good reasons for this. The ends of the criminal law constrain the space that can be given to philosophical arguments about individual blameworthiness. Thus there may be only limited room for cultural defenses.