Isn't it kind of hypocritical for the US government to eliminate the Good Soldier Defense?

I don't think character or past behavior should be a factor in determining guilt. The evidence either proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime or it does not. Other information about a person's past, or character should be considered irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not they committed the offense in question.

Obviously, reasonable self-defense is not a crime.

(Add: Yes, it's hypocritical)

~

No.

The battered woman defense is a type of temperary insanity plea, whereas the good soldier defense is mostly used as a way to claim that just because a person has a good reputation and a clean record, that it somehow means he or she could not possibly be guilty.

Since every person who commits a crime at one time had a clean record, the "good soldier defense" is an illogical claim to make. It's good to see the government has finally caught a clue in this regard.

Indeed it is hypocritical and gender-biased.

Still, I'm in favor of ALL violent criminals being kept apart from the rest of us, rather than having special excuses whereby a "label" excuses a crime.

If "understanding" the motive of a crime and sympathizing excuses those crimes, what happens when psychology advances to the point that we understand ALL crimes?

I don't think either defense is a good idea. There are no excuses, only what you do. None of us do crimes unless and until we really really feel compelled to do them. Exactly. We're still not supposed to do them. And, we never do a crime until we do one. Neither of these things addresses the propriety of the act.

Because of Commander in Chief Hussein Obama.

When women aren't at stake, it just isn't as important, it's really that simple.