Conference turris::womannotes-v3

What about a battered child syndrome?

If a woman is brainwashed by the beatings, and believes that the only way
to stop them is through killing, then surely a child, who has *always* known
the beatings since s/he was a baby, is even more brainwashed?  

D!

    We people here in Maryland know that good old William Donald Schaeffer
    has lost quite a few of his marbles.  But that's besides the point.
    
    Getting beat is no justification for murder.  Get out of the situation
    and have the son of a gun locked up. 
    
    
    PEace,
    
    Mike  

    I'm not going to try to get anyone locked anyone up, but I *am* going
    to get out of this topic...

    re.2 Unfortunately 'get out of the situation' isn't so simple, for
    reasons the article mentions. (I used to wonder, "Why not just 
    leave?" myself.) 
    
    The argument is not simply that 'getting beat' is justification for
    murder, but that _repeated_ beating, abuse that accumulates and
    convinces a person she is in grave danger, is.

    re .2, .4, I agree that beating, especially repeated beatings, can be
    justification for murder.  I'm small enough that almost any man who
    beat me up could kill me.  Keeping that in mind, I always figured that
    if any guy ever did beat me up and I lived through it, that I'd kill
    him later.  Even if it meant having Nancy B. teach me how to use a
    gun!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    .2
    
    I saw the tape of the woman who had "gotten out of the situation,"
    had her husband incarcerated (locked up); and then when he was
    released for the weekend, he went back and kicked her and 
    beat her to death in front of the neighbors and children and *police*
    with the butt end of his rifle.
    
    So let's talk again getting out of the situation and locking the guy
    up.
     
    Yeah, right.
    

re:.5 (Lorna St.Hilaire)

>  Keeping that in mind, I always figured that
>  if any guy ever did beat me up and I lived through it, that I'd kill
>  him later.  Even if it meant having Nancy B. teach me how to use a gun!!!
    
	Lorna, I had to reply to this just in case you ever delete .5
	so there's still a record of your last sentence ;-) ;-) ;-).

>  I agree that beating, especially repeated beatings, can be
>  justification for murder.  I'm small enough that almost any man who
>  beat me up could kill me.  

	I've heard Massad Ayoob (author of _The Truth About Self-Protection_)
	describe a case in Miami where he was the expert witness for a 
	woman accused by the state of Florida of murdering her husband.
	(I believe she borrowed a neighbor's gun when she was living 
	 alone after they separated.)
	
	He described the battered woman's syndrome and justified her
	actions based her ex-'s (separated) threats that he would kill
	her.  He nearly did through beatings before.  I wish I remembered
	more of the details; Ayoob told quite a chilling story.  The
	woman was acquitted.

							nancy b.

    re .7, wondered what you'd have to say about that! ;-)
    
    I know, you're thinking why doesn't she just learn *now*?!
    
    Lorna
    

    In a way I agree with .2.  I was there and I got out.  But, then
    he didn't threaten me after I moved 800 miles away.
    
    However, I would have joyfully killed him on many occasions and gone
    to jail for it.  And I would have done it at night while he slept.
    Like Lorna, I'm small enough that killing me wouldn't have been a
    problem for him.
    
    
    
    
                                          L.J.

>"    Getting beat is no justification for murder.  Get out of the situation
>    and have the son of a gun locked up. 
>   
>    
>    PEace,
>    
>    Mike  "
Well... Men who beat their female partners do not go to jail ... The rare
exception, I am quite certain, is out in less than two years (the average
term for a convicted rapist).  

And, I am certain it doesn't matter whether the items used in the beating
were fists, boots, sledge hammers, or oak chairs... or whether the woman
had several ribs broken on the occasion of the attack..., ie, or whether the
woman came close to death the last time.

Also, keep in mind that once the woman attempts to
try the process through the court system, it will likely be one to two YEARS 
before the trial... and her abusive partner will be free and available...
None too happy, I'ld imagine.

Getting out of the situation, particularly if there are children and the woman
has no means of supporting them alone, or has been hunted down previously... is
not a possible option for some.  Some reach the point where fear dominates their
lives... and incapacites them.

The answers to this are not as simple as you suggest, Mike.
I wish they were.
Tamar

    
    I wonder whether the defence would hold up if a woman killed her
    husband/lover because of the beatings he was giving her/their children?
    
    I've seen a couple of cases recently where a father/boyfriend has
    killed a little child and the mother hasn't stopped him (through
    fear?), but what if she did try to stop him and killed him in the
    process?
    
    I should hope that that would be just as good a defence but I'm not so
    sure ...
    
    Sam
    

    I think I just heard of a case like that.  The prosecutor didn't bother
    to take it to trial though.  I'll see if I can find more info.
    
    ed

    re.11 By law you are allowed to use force in defense of yourself
    or of anyone entitled to your protection. 

    I reacted quickly to .11 and .12 with "Oh, sure, the prosecutor
    probably realized that it would be hard to convict a woman of homicide
    for protecting her children, even against their father."
    
    But killing to protect *herself*... that's not so easy to defend?
    I think that says a lot about the status of women in our legal system
    (and our society).

    RE .14 It is hard to defend oneself against a charge of murder 
    unless one is in *immediate* danger of death or grave bodily
    harm. That is, one is being threatened by someone who has 
    demonstrated both the willingness and immediate ability to hurt. 
    A sleeping wife-beater may indeed be a threat, but it is damned 
    hard to communicate this to a jury. 
    
    My personal belief is that a woman who feels she must attack her 
    abusive spouse while he is asleep is better off copping a plea of 
    temporary insanity. (*Unless* she is fairly certain that the 'battered 
    wife syndrome' will hold up in court.)
    
    dana

    	Are people saying her that it is OK for any abused woman to murder
    her husband?  Do people think that a politically motivated governor can
    decide guilt or innocence more fairly than a jury which has listened to
    all of the evidence in the case and can consider both the evidence and
    the likelihood that the woman may have had little choice?  Self defense
    has always been a valid defense, and I am sure that juries would listen
    to it even before it was dignified by the term "battered woman
    defense".  Is it safe for any husband who has been seen to argue/fight
    with his wife to remain anywhere near said wife?  If frinsance Pamela
    Smart could demonstrate that her husband had once been in some way
    abusive would that justify her crime?  Would anyone prefer to live in a
    society where guilt or inocence is decided on the basis of what has
    happened in some other well publicized cases rather than the facts of
    the case at hand?
    

    re.16 Normally lethal 'self-defense' is only justifiable when 
    one is in _immediate_ danger of death or grave bodily harm. The 
    point of this 'syndrome' is that these women feel they are
    in such danger even though their abuser is asleep. Apparently many 
    states have concluded that this is valid. The governor in question 
    lives in a state where there is no such presumption, thus he felt he
    had to directly intervene using the powers of his office.
    

    .16, ::lewicke,
    your points are well taken; dispensing in/justice from the executive
    branch is one of the things our government was designed to prevent, as
    a general rule.  I think the key is "as a general rule" -- each of the
    branches serves as check on the other two.  In this kind of case, the
    governor may have decided that the _law_ was insufficient in this kind
    of case.  (I just zapped a long run-on sentence; bear with me...)
    In other words, there are under the law several degrees of murder and
    manslaughter, and any given killing is charged as one of those degrees
    of crime, depending on the motives, premeditation, and circumstances
    surrounding that killing.  The jury hearing the trial is to consider
    what the law has to say about the charge in particular and the case
    under consideration -- those lines in courtroom scenes where the judge
    instructs the jury about the law as it applies to the facts of the
    case.  It may be that the governor decided that the _law_ does not
    sufficiently consider all the motives etc (see above), and so those
    convicted were not given a fair shake by the system itself.
    
    Not pleading the case in either direction, just examining a
    possibility.

        re .16,
        
        The governors decided that, had the juries been permitted
        to hear the battered women syndrome self defense plea,
        then they might have decided differently, as juries that
        have been permitted to hear the plea have done.  [By
        "jury permitted to hear" I mean "the defense permitted to
        present that argument to the jury".]  The governors were
        not overturning the verdicts of juries that had
        considered and rejected that argument.
        
        Dan

    I was given to understand that most abuses do not occur
    in public.  I was also given to understand that they
    were ignored or hidden many times when they did sneak
    into the public.  If the men who have been abusive in public
    have not been taken to jail... I think they SHOULD have something
    to think about.  
    
    Consider the scenario:
       A man walks up to you, yells at you, and then punches you in
    the face in broad daylight.  If there were witnesses, he could
    go to jail.
    
    Now imagine that you were told you had to live with that man.
    Also imagine that if you called the police, and requested that
    this man be arrested, they told you it was a family matter and
    they could not become involved.
    
    Now imagine that he threatens to do the same or worse to you
    the next time. He says he will find you and kill you if you
    leave.
    
    So the police will not help you.  You are afraid to leave.
    You have been abused. You perceive it will be done again.
    You feel that the next time might REALLY be your life.
    
    What do YOU do?
    
    Do you feel YOU may be justified in removing the threat
    by any means?
    
    If not, what alternatives do you feel the above scenario affords?
    
    Cindi                                                            

    	It is not at all difficult to conceive of a case in which a woman
    has been abused and/or threatened justifiably murders her abuser while
    he is sleeping.  It is also not difficult to conceive a case in which a
    woman has been abused or threatened but does not perceive herself to be
    in any real danger and murders the abuser for gain or spite or the
    furniture.  A jury seeing all of the evidence is likely to make the
    right decision.  A governor  doing what is effectively a data search
    that looks for:  women who have murder husbands with some history of
    abuse, is very likely to release some genuine first degree murderers.  
    	To somehow grant the women in question retrials would be fair and
    reasonable.  To grant them pardons based upon less evidence than was
    presented in court is an injustice, and a betrayal of our society.
    						John
    

    Why, yes, John, it is possible to "conceive" that some of these
    desperate, terrified women who have spent so much of their lives
    in fear, degradation, and the hospital are not willing to kill
    someone to escape, but are willing to kill that very someone to
    make a few bucks.
    
    But is it sensible?
    
    						Ann B.