Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    What do you think, Alan?  From the way in which you posed the question,
    it would seem that you are opposed to the retaliation you described.
    I'm opposed to it, too.  The deaths you described sound like horrible
    ones, and the young people who killed their parents must be in terrible
    agony over what they've done no matter what kind of abuse they
    suffered.  But if you consider the lack of responsiveness of the
    police and courts when it comes to "family" matters, it's not at
    all surprising to me that this kind of retaliation is occurring.
    
    I also sensed from your note that you're not entirely certain that
    the parents did anything to precipitate the attack.  Well, I suppose 
    that there are a handful of deranged children out there who might be 
    capable of committing violence against their loving parents, but
    normally the bonds between a parent and child are so strong (even
    in abusive families) that only the most traumatic abuse could bring 
    a child to kill his or her parent.  In almost every such case that
    I've ever heard about, there was an established pattern of abuse
    to which neighbors and families could testify, and the police
    had been involved on at least one occasion prior to the death. 
    I believe that children who kill their parents do so only after
    they believe that there is no other way out for them.
    
    Justine
                                                 

  >    To what extent do we, as a society, want to sanction "vigilante
  >    justice" - in effect, the execution for alleged crimes for which,  
  >    even if those killed had been tried and convicted, capital punishment 
  >    would not have been imposed by the state?

  I think it is not a question of vigilante justice but rather of
  "justifiable homicide."  If you kill someone in self-defense and the
  homicide is found to be justifiable, that does not mean that the state
  would have executed the deceased if you had only wounded him or her. 

  Personally, I think that justifiable homicide should include cases of
  attempted rape and attempted torture as well as attempted
  murder/assault. 

  To digress for a bit, I wonder how many cases of elderly parent abuse
  are a result of getting back at a parent for past abuses...

  JP

    RE: .1
    
    Justine, if you read anything into the way I posed the question,
    I didn't intend it. I tried to state the background of the cases
    as objectively as I could.
    
    I do not believe that these kids killed their parents for no reason;
    I'm sure they had plenty of reason for what they did.
    
    What I was trying to get at, though, is that we all have been taught
    that we have laws to protect us, and that no person ought to 
    take the law into his/her own hands. Also there is the concept of
    the presumption of a person's innocence, until he/she has been
    proven guilty in a Court of Law.
    
    When Bernhardt Goetz shot the four youths on the subway train, he
    at first was lauded as something of a folk hero - a Charles Bronson
    "Death Wish" kind of character.         
    
    Maybe what I'm really asking is: 
    
      - Have we given up on the principle of presumption of innocence?
    
      - Do we want people to, again, be able to take the law into their 
        own hands, as in the days of our "wild West" - a "string-'em-up-
        they're-guilty" attitude?
    
      - Should the "vigilante punishment" for the crime be sanctioned
        to be more severe than the "legal" punishment for the same 
        offense (somewhat akin to a police officer's use of deadly
        force in shooting to death a suspect fleeing from a stolen car)?
        
        Alan                        

    <--(.3)
    
    Alan, I think that what we're seeing is a response to the failure of
    societal agencies to protect us.  If society as a whole cannot be held
    accountable for the failure of police to protect us, but we can be
    punished for a too-vigorous self-defence, then we are trapped in the
    role of victim because all the advantages then accrue to the criminal.
    People are evaluating and rejecting that Official Victim position.
    
    The kids Goetz shot are free to menace whomever they please because all
    costs will be borne by their victims unless they happen to pick on some
    undercover cop, a very unlikely event.  Leaving tangled motives aside,
    we can say that Goetz recognised that and decided to change the odds by
    not following the rules they were counting on him following.
    
    						=maggie 

    If the "powers that be" will not protect you, then if you are to
    retain your sanity and/or your life, at some point you must protect
    yourself.
    
    IF the abuse that was perpetrated on these people was by a stranger
    on a streetcorner, the person's action in self-defense would be
    obvious. IF the abuse, on the other hand, is perpetrated on the
    victim in her home, by her family, time after time, day after day,
    the picture changes. Is the message that a one-time shot of violence
    is OK to defend yourself against, but otherwise, get used to it?
    
    Is the message that if the violence is perpetrated on you by your
    family, get used to it?
    
    Can the society afford many more people, who, abused as children
    grow up to be abusers themselves?
    
    If no-one else will protect you, you *must* protect yourself. 
    
    It takes a lot for kids, especially, to go so far as to harm or
    kill their parents. The parent-child bond is difficult to break.
    How many times have we all seen children fiercely loyal to parents
    who (frankly) weren't worth it. No. That bond is strong. It takes
    incredible mistreatment to break it.
    
    I'm sure if the police/DA had evidence to go to trial which proved
    these people did these awful things without provocation, or enuff
    provocation, there would've been trial(s). I'd bet the evidence
    was crystal clear that these peole took more than any human ought
    to before they did what they did.
    
    "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
    
    Dawn
    

    
    I'm a little uncomfortable comparing the actions of B. Goetz to
    those of a child who kills her parent because she can no longer
    stand being tortured.  From the sketchy info I heard about the Goetz
    episode, it sounded like his response *might* not have been completely
    justified.  I'm not sure I believe that his life was in danger or
    that he felt trapped; these seem to be important elements in the
    minds of abuse victims who strike back.  We can argue all we want
    about whether or not they are right to retalliate, but I think an
    important issue to keep in mind is that some people will strike
    back if they feel there is no other way to save themselves.  A question
    we might ask ourselves is, "What can we do so that homicide is not
    their only option?"  The concept of presumed innocence is important
    in court, but a lot of these cases don't even go to court... and
    that's why the victims strike back.
                                                    
    Justine

    John (.2),
    
    You will be cheered (well, probably not) to learn that a plea
    of justifiable homicide may be entered whenever someone killed
    to prvent a violent felony, including rape, torture, and even
    armed robbery.
    
    							Ann B.

    <--(.6)
    
    Sorry, Justine, I didn't mean to draw too much of a parallel between
    Goetz and the kids who kill their abusive parents.  I agree that Goetz
    seems to have had at least some very tangled motives, and that's why I
    put in the disclaimer that I did. 
    
    The point I would wish to make is the same as Dawn's and yours: if we
    perceive that we are alone and our backs are to the wall, the only
    response that makes sense is to fight back with everything we've got.
    Any other action or inaction has to be seen as witlessly
    self-destructive.
    						=maggie

    So are we then all saying that we have a "sub-rosa" set of laws,
    which allow us to take matters into our own hands because we feel
    the "real" laws are ineffective?
    
    If this is the case, then shouldn't these "new" laws become codified?
    Because if they're not given force-of-law status, there's nothing
    to say that sometime, somewhere, some child, accused of killing
    his/her parent no matter how understandable this action may be,
    will be found guilty of premeditated murder - and sentenced to
    death. 
    
    The vagaries of enforcement of the "real" laws will someday work
    against the victims of the currently-defined-"legal" victims.
    Society should not depend upon this type of Russian-roulette.
    
      Alan

    Um...I don't believe minors can be sentenced to death.
    
    I don't know the law, but there may indeed be something that covers
    this which contributed to the lack of prosecution in these cases.
    
    Dawn
    

    It was mentioned that the young girl from New York felt that she
    had no way out of the situation.  A TIME magazine which I was reading
    last night stated that she was too embarassed to try to get help,
    but yet some neighbors knew and suspected.  Why didn't those neighbors
    do something to help.  If they had called in someone to help the
    death might not have occurred.  We need to be there for our children
    and teenagers.  That girl should have some one that she felt
    comfortable with to let know what was going on.  Obviously she didn't,
    that the real shame of it all.
    
    	Lee

    Re: .10
    
    There are several people sentenced to death in various prisons 
    around the country who were minors when the crime was committed.
    I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think it is about 6.
    
    This is one of the issues facing the U. S. Supreme Court this term.
    Be glad that Bork is not one of the sitting justices.
    
    Re: .11
    
    According to the TIME article, there are about 300 cases a year
    of minor children killing their parents. 
    
    -bs

    I'm not implying that the minors facing the death penalty are the
    same ones that have killed their parents - I'm sorry if this
    juxtaposition of statements gave that impression.
    
    -bs

    
    I remember reading somewhere that most of the women serving time
    in prison for murder killed an abusive husband/live-in lover, so
    it would seem that the laws are already being enforced somewhat
    selectively.  I believe the trend not to prosecute in cases like
    these is new.  The laws around justifiable homicide are already
    on the books; they just haven't been enforced before.  Public
    sympathy for a victim-who-murders may influence a DA's decision
    not to prosecute.   
    
    Re children and the death penalty, I believe that in order for a child 
    to be sentenced to death, she or he must be tried as an adult.  That 
    requires a separate, pre-trial hearing.
                
    Justine
             

    RE: .14
    
    Justine, your statement about the laws being enforced selectively
    is the point I was trying to make.
    
    So long as any law is on the Statute Books, it *can* be used to
    prosecute or not, depending upon the mood (or political aspir-
    ations) of the District Attorney, who can be pressured either
    way by the people who will re-elect him or her.
    
    It's exactly this kind of selective enforcement of Georgia's
    sodomy laws that the Supreme Court upheld. Georgia's sodomy laws
    have only been invoked, recently, against homosexual activities,
    even though all sexual coupling that is not traditional male-female
    "missionary" position is defined as sodomous.       
    
      Alan
          

    I do think that alot of teenagers and kids who go thru sexual or
    physical abuse end up feeling up against a wall with no where to
    turn!  
    
    About a year ago a young teenager (13 or 14) walked out of her school
    and jumped in front of a train.  It was later discovered in the
    girls diary that she had been being sexually abused for years by
    her father/stepfather.  Now why didn't this girl just kill him?
     Oviously she felt she had no way out, but instead of killing him
    she took her own life!  Its sad that she felt no-one could help
    her!  How many others have taken thier own life because they were
    in a situation like this!
    
    Sad enough to say that it has alot to do with people not wanting
    to get involved, and turning the other way!  
    
    Tanya

The following is being posted for a member of this community who
wishes to remain annonymous.

***********************************************************************

When I was about 12 years old, my mother took my sister to her bed, and
kicked my father out.  My father shared a room with me for the next four
years.  I was sexually abused, beaten, and humiliated.  When he was drunk
and abusive, I called the police.  They were not interested in interfering
in domestic matters, and typically would not show up.  Friends, relatives,
neighbors - they all looked the other way, and my suffering was invisible.

I really felt I couldn't live with the situation any more, and I tried to
kill myself.  I did not suceed at suicide; neither did I suceed in bringing
any attention to the horror I was living through.

Finally at the age of sixteen, the police did come one time when I called
them.  They told my father to spend the night somewhere else, and that they
were going to leave.  Then my father punched one of them, and they arrested
him.

It is ok to hit your child or your wife.

It is not ok to hit a cop.

Funny, isn't it?

I was bright enough to get early admission to college, and left home at
sixteen.

I am glad I did not succeed at killing myself.
I am glad I did not kill my father.

I have spent many years in therapy healing myself and finding my way in
the world.  My heart goes out to these children who have been in a situation
that is so abysmal that killing the parent is the only way out.  I cannot
help but think that their approach (attempting to kill the offender) shows
more self esteem than mine (attempting to kill myself).  I have seen the
response of the system.  I have walked in these children's shoes.  I hurt
for them and for myself.  I am ANGRY that there are so few alternatives
to such a terrible situation.  We must find a way in this society to protect
children before they respond with suicide or homicide.

Sign me,
lucky to escape with my life

    re .17
    
    Your courage is a good thing to see.  You may feel like you were weak
    because of it (many rape victims do), but to survive such a thing shows
    incredible courage.
    
    Lee

    re .17
    
    I weep with you.  Society can hust an already intolerable situation.
    Your courage gives me hope for the other children...We all have
    to learn to get past survival you've done that..
    
    MaggieT

RE: .0

This is what happens when you have a Court of Law, instead of a Court of
Justice.  Think of yourself talking to someone who is involved in Court, and
asking, "Do you want Law?", vs. "Do you want Justice?".  The answer would most
likely be, "Hell no, I want Justice!".

Our Court system has become mostly Law, if you get Justice, you're damned lucky!

The problem is that the Court system has turned into a bureaucracy of laws,
when the original purpose of a 'Court' has to judge those situations where no
predefined rule or law could be formulated to handle the situation. 

RE: .1

I know what you mean about "No Way Out".  I fear for mothers and children under
the recent (MA) child custody and support laws, because I fear that many fathers
will feel that they have "No Way Out".  Will we see an increase in divorce
related violence soon in MA?

As with other 'justified' situations you can't help thinking at least once that,
'maybe they deserved it'. 

RE: .2

"Have we given up on the principle of presumption of innocence?"

No, but it's to the point where Justice cannot be done because of law.

"Do we want people to, again, be able to take the law into their own hands,"

Not I.

"Should the "vigilante punishment" for the crime be sanctioned to be more severe
than the "legal" punishment for the same offense"

Again, I think that there is a difference between vigilante justice, and
'victim' justice/ self defence.  vigilante justice is the situation where
youself are not in danger, or will be in the future; vigilante justice is when
someone else is threatened, or it is after the fact.  Self defence / victim
justice is when you yourself is in danger that you are not able to get out of. 

RE: .14

"I remember reading somewhere that most of the women serving time in prison for
murder killed an abusive husband/live-in lover, so it would seem that the laws
are already being enforced somewhat selectively."

Are you saying that the men who have been in their shoes are not in prison???

Jim.

    Okay. So far I've not seen too many (any) replies, indicating that
    Noters here are concerned with the fact that people have seen fit
    to take the law into their own hands for what, they perceived, were,
    and are, valid reasons. 
    
    What we're sliding into again, I think, is the "code" of the "unwritten
    law". Doesn't anybody recall the "unwritten law" that sanctioned
    a husband's killing his unfaithful wife and her lover, if the husband
    caught them in bed together? Some communities even extended the
    concept of this unwritten law to mean that it was okay for a husband
    to kill his unfaithful wife and her lover at any time, not just
    if he found them together in bed. This unwritten law was the heart
    of the very widely acclaimed story, "Anatomy of a Murder".
    
    In other times, black men in the South were lynched because they
    broke their communities' unwritten laws: they slept with (NOT raped,
    the women were willing) white women. The lynchers were thought by most
    local whites to be heroes; the lynchees were cut down from the trees and
    quickly (and quietly) buried. The blacks knew enough not to protest
    too loudly. That, too, would be breaking the unwritten law.
    
    At still other times (and probably still going on today), homosexuals
    were derided, beaten, sometimes killed, because they were breaking
    their communities's unwritten laws against "perversities and crimes
    against nature".
    
    Doesn't anybody here ever worry that, someday, somewhere, some person 
    will decide that *you* deserve to be killed, because you have violated
    his or her own (or the community's) unwritten law? And since it's
    an unwritten law, chances are you will not even know of its existence,
    let alone that you have broken it.
    
      Alan 

    Having stood in the shoes of one who has broken an unwritten
    law (and nearly paid the ultimate price), it does bother me,
    but I'm not sure what the solution is (if any).  I have a
    notion that such laws are part of the risk of living on a
    planet with imperfect beings.
    
    Unwritten "laws", by their very existance, means that certain
    behaviors are widely sanctioned or proscribed despite the fact that
    they are not within the framework of the formal legal code.
    
    Over time, they are usually either formally outlawed or
    codified into law.  Unfortunately, this doesn't do a hell
    of a lot for the victim at the time.  I have a feeling that
    in time, there will be legislation addressing some of the
    issues in this note.  Until then, there is a high risk of
    (future) crimes being unprosecuted.
    
    The other issue raised was "What does the individual do if (s)he
    feels the formal legal system is powerless to provide protection?"
    
    I think that if a person believes there is no chance of changing
    the system, the individual will defend him/herself or become
    a victim.  This sort of edges into the discussion going on about
    the draft, but I personally feel that most people, when put in
    a life-or-death situation for themselves or their loved ones,
    will apply any and all force necessary to survive/defend despite
    what they ordinarily feel about violence.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  While working for the Boston Draft Resistance Group in '68
    I was drafted and my attempts for CO status failed.  It's with
    no pride that I tell you that one fire fight convinced me that
    while I meant well with my anti-violence rhetoric, when the
    bullets started flying, survival became my one and only priority.
    
    I pray that humanity finds those better solutions because I know
    what I (and most of us) will do if we find ourselves pushed to
    the wall. . .
    

    re "Law vs. Justice":
    
    Seems to me most people want neither, they want REVENGE.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

  I agree that most people don't want justice -- they just want a break.
  Justice is getting what you deserve.  If I got all that I deserved, I'd
  probably be one hurting puppy...
 
  JP

    
    RE .23   Revenge , hell, I want to get one up on em and stay there.
    
     As Conan says " Victorious, is to drive you enemies into the ground
                     before they do it to you."

                                   Bob B

    re .23
    
    Bingo!  That is one of my major problems with the idea of people
    taking the law into their own hands, even in extreme circumstances.
    
    This whole subject is terribly scary -- what happens if we permit
    murder, even if it appears the murderer was forced by circumstance?
    If we do not punish that criminal, where will it stop?  If _this_
    is justifiable, what about when _I_ get killed for having a big
    mouth?  Or my mother for being a woman in a man's field?  Or the
    contractor who accepted my Dad's money and refused to do the work?
    
    Justice is nice, but I like having laws to protect me and mine.
    
    Lee

There's something about law providing "justice for all". 

 What does this mean? Well, obviously, it DOESN'T mean that everyone, all the
time, is going to get their own way! It is unfortunate that most of the claims
of "Law, no! I want justice!" can usually be traced to a legal battle that has
been lost, or one in which the legal decision was opposed to one's own opinion 
on the topic.

 Justice means "the upholding of what is just; fair treatment and due reward..."
or "Moral or absolute rightness". BUT WHO DEFINES MORAL RIGHTNESS?  WHO
DEFINES FAIR TREATMENT? ME? YOU? YOUR EX-SPOUSE'S LAWYER? YOUR WORST ENEMY?

 The Law is the embodiment of community standards applied on a national scale;
elected officials from communities (with standards of their own) get together 
and define a set of acceptable behaviour for the greater community, namely
the country. The law is supposed to ensure that one's pleas for justice are
not judged on race, creed, color, sex or religious belief, but rather on 
principles which are applied more or less equitably to all.
 If you don't like the current laws, talk to your elected representative. Write
letters to have the law changed (that's how it works in a democracy). But until
the law is changed, then we must live by the existing laws (or break them to
stage a "test case", in which the legal process itself will demonstrate the
viability of the law being challenged). 
 To condone the law being broken "in certain cases" is to move the definition
of "justice" from the national community back down into the neighbourhoods. 
This brings us back to the situation that the legal system was developed to
avoid; that your rights and expectations of justice will be based on personal
prejudice, sex, skin color, creed or personal habits. That's just ducky for
you PROVIDING you are part of the active majority in the community in which you
are being judged. For the rest of us, it's a nightmare!

			Nigel
			(now back to read-only)

I think we've diverged from the topic... (as what's *new*?)

I think the topic is more like self defense, then taking the law into your
own hands.

RE: .23

Is Revenge Just?  We talk about people getting their just desserts?

Is getting a break Just?

Personally, I don't want revenge, or a break, although they are nice when you
get them, and nice when you can give them. 

RE: .26

"I like having laws to protect me and mine."

What about when laws ***don't*** protect you and yours?  What about when
laws seperate you and yours???

RE: .27

Nothing personal Nigel, but excuse me while I barf on your law and order speech.

I guess that I am an optimist.  I believe that people, particularly (supposedly
impartial) judges can do a better job of maintaining justice, then an imanimate
law.

I'm not talking about going out and gunning people down...  I am talking about
getting the system to recognize that a wrong is being done, and the people
saying, 'Yup, you're getting screwed, too bad *I* can't do anything about
it...'.  And you go through the system, and *every* single person will say,
'Sorry, I'd like to help you, but I can't'.

'It's ain't my job, 'mon...'  I'm talking about giving people responsibility,
without giving them the authority to carry out their responsibilities.

"If you don't like the current laws, talk to your elected representative. Write
letters to have the law changed (that's how it works in a democracy)."

You forget, this ain't a democracy...

Jim.

    Talking about taking the law into one's own hands ...
    
    It's curious that Reagan thinks *he* can ignore the War Powers Act
    because *he* thinks it's unconstitutional.
    
    Reagan's breaking the law.  No one thinks anything of it.  What
    a great example.
    
    	-Ellen

    re .29:
    
    I think the only way to challenge the Constitutionality of a law
    is to disobey it.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
           

    re .30
    
    Ah, so Reagan's just involved in a little civil disobedience.
    
    
    It's nice to know he's carrying on a great tradition!
    
    	bruce

    I do not think that the people described in .0 killed for REVENGE!
    
    The experiences described in .0 are very traumatic ones.  I think
    it should be very hard for anyone to try justify or not justify
    on these types of matters unless they have gone through it.....
                                                                      
    
    

    re .32:
    
    I did not say that they _did_ kill for revenge.
                                 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE .33
    
    I don't recall referring to your note(s) when I wrote .32.  I had
    just went through the replies in this entry and came across a notes
    that mentioned revenge.  So I wrote .32, saying that I do not
    think(being my opinion) that the crimes described in .0 were commited
    for revenge.  And thats what I meant.  Sorry if you thought the
    note was directed at you, it wasn't.  
    
    Tanya