What do you think of the Battered Woman's Defence?

Question

Mary Winkler was just acquitted of murder after admitting to shooting her husband's brains out in his sleep. All you have to do with this defence is claim past abuse. (No evidence of abuse is required nor any explanation as to why divorce wouldn't have worked). In terms of sexual equality,how do apply this to males? Shall we permit them to liquidate their wives in their sleep execution style and then get off with nothing by saying, "oh,well,she was a very abusive lady and gosh to think of all I put up with..." Canadian feminists completely reject this doctrine developed by Lenore Auerbach Walker back in the 70's. Why do we tolerate it? Domestic violence is domestic violence and it is what it is irregardless of the malefacter's gender. American women get off very light also for abusing and even murdering their children. What about this? And look at the media. We've all heard of Laci Peterson but how many of you have heard of Nicole Giovanni? Can any of you tell me who she was?

HH,I guess you missed my point. Laci Peterson case = male malefactor. Ok? Nikki Giovanni,bludgeoned to death at 14 by her feminist mom,zero publicity outside of NJ. Laci,lots of publicity,three years of it. Get it now? I wish I didn't have to spell things out.

Pagan Dan,you missed it that no evidence for abuse is required. I've seen battered women. And I know what the effects of abuse are. And I have yet to see a single "battered wife" defence where there was even the slightest evidence for battering.

Der Lange - you are ill-informed. There wasn't a shred of evidence that Winkler had ever been abused at all,by anyone,what to speak of "horribly". yes,I have known males who were victimized by abusive females,quite a few,including my kid brother,whose girlfriend tried to stab him to death. He got three wounds in the abdomen. She got off with a weapons charge - three months,suspended - for what amounted to first-degree attempted murder. Naturally,ABW was fawning all over her during her "ordeal" and she enjoyed the finest of attornies. My brother survived the attack but will probably suffer a foreshortened lifespan. Three people were present at the time of the attack. She was angry because he brought back the wrong brand of wine from the liquor store. They testified; it didn't matter. She's a girl so anything goes. Turns out three years earlier she smothered her two-year-old girl to death. She beat that rap too - temp insanity,a few months of outpatient counseling.

Answer 1

Because no one feels sorry for men anymore. We are now the enemy, and never the victim. If we were beaten, raped, and sodomized with a bat wrapped in barbed wire, they would throw the case out of court, saying he could have defended himself, assuming they even bother to arrest the woman anyways. If a woman cries abuse, everyone believes her and never him, even if he's completely innocent. But if you turn the tables, they still only believe her and never him.

It's a sick world we live in now, and I guess if they have a self-defense clause that allows them to blow our brains out in our sleep, then I want a pre-emptive strike clause that says we can shoot them first because they would have done violence to us, so we stopped them from being a danger to themselves and others. Let me write my Congressman....

Answer 2

the main problem with the battered woman defense as i see it is that it is implicit within this type of defense that the woman did not kill the man in the midst of physical self defense, but later, during his sleep, which means she has just as ample opportunity to leave. So basically its her choice, walk out the door or shoot the asshole, if she chooses to shoot the asshole she has to take responsibility for that choice simply because its a choice and not a necessity. I agree he is an asshole, but if we shot everyone who's ever been an asshole we'd trip over the bodies everywhere, and one could probably justifiably be one of those bodies as well, Ive been an *** before. No, rather than justify this type of thing after the fact it makes more sense to make help more available, make the cops and courts enforce the laws, and create an environment where anyone abused knows they have a recourse to being abused besides murder. If on the other hand, someone is beating you up, then by all means you have the right to self defense, at that moment. If he's snoring like the fat pig he is, he's not the same level of threat that would justify such extreme means. Just my opinion.

Answer 3

Well, let's get the obvious grammar problems fixed first. The style of your composition makes it clear that you can't spell "malefactor" and don't know that you should have used the form "lightly."

To substance:

First, it appears that you are extremely angry about the defenses posed by battered women, and especially feel that Mary Winkler should have gotten a life sentence, if not death. It seems that you believe the news media is in part responsible for the actions of the judicial system (an absurdity, but it is YOUR absurdity). And it appears that some male you know has suffered abuse by a woman and was not given the same level of regard that you think was tendered, inappropriately, to women.

The Mary Winkler case is a particularly good one for you to bring up. She was a horribly abused spouse of a preacher. Consider, if you will, the particular circumstances that represents. Consider the special oppression she felt, attempting to present a happy and cheerful face to her community as the loving and supportive spouse of a "man of the cloth." If EVER there was a case of "street angel, home devil" it lived in Mary Winkler's house. Consider the constant and tearing emotional confict she experienced, and the brutal consequencs of the hypocrisy that tortured her.

I submit, madam, that you are a blind ideologue who does not believe people have feelings, that you believe emotions are meaningless, and that you will not accept the human psyche can be perverted by bitter experience.

I submit, madam, that you might have been the woman Bertolt Brecht had in mind when he wrote "Mother Courage." I find it amazing that Joseph Stalin's mother still draws breath in you.

Abusive men are abusive men, and they deserve their treatment. Abusive women likewise deserve theirs. I would LOVE it if my ex-wife, a liar, thief, drug dealer and kidnapper, would be brought to justice. I cut my ex-wife a LOT of slack over the years because she had been malformed by abuse before I met her. Ultimately, it did no good and she acted out her perverse nature. Now my children and I must deal with those consequences.

That does not change the broader issue that you present. My ex-wife did not cause such extensive and persistent harm that I felt my very life was threatened. I did not suffer such total oppression as Mary Winkler did. I was not a "weaker party" as she was in a physically dangerous relationship in which I owned no power.

Bite back your bile and think about the human condition - and about the pitiful shackles any court must wear. Consider that women like Mary Winkler - and yes, some men, too - need what minimal mercy they can get. If you wish to prate about injustice, make the abused divorced fathers of North America your cause. We could use the help - but not from screeching, vengeance driven harridans.

Answer 4

It is, infact a sad case of double standards, and in the end a poor defense.

If such a defence were permissable, it should be based on a mental illness perhaps caused by the prolonged abuse and thus require a lengthy rehabilitation process for the mental illness.

The point is that a life was taken, not naturally, but by murder and should be prosecuted thus.

Answer 5

I'm no feminist, but I am aghast by the anti-female anger in the question and some of the previous answers.

Self-defence is only a legal argument in the face of an immediate danger--such as someone yelling threats and carrying an axe.

We don't have captial punishment in Canada--the last execution was in 1964. Nobody is allowed to kill anyone else.

As reprehensible, and disgusting, and as offensive to my personal vaues as wife-beating is, I do not think a woman has the right to kill an abusive husband other than in immediate self-defence.

I think that a woman who shoots her husband in his sleep should be charged with murder. If she is convicted, the abuse issue should be a factor in sentencing, and it should count for a lot--or nothing.

For example, if I were a judge I would certainly be looking at attempts to leave the relationship, contact with transition houses, and that sort of thing.

Women are generally physically weaker than men, so spousal violence against women IS worse than vice-versa.

Any man who abuses his wife to the point that her life is in danger deserves to die, but just because someone deserves to die does not give anyone the right to kill him. Including, in Canada, the justice system.

Answer 6

i understand where you're coming from and if the defense is misapplied or abused, i agree with you. however, if you watched or read much of many of these cases you will realize how mentally tortured these women are. they've been beaten down physically, emotionally and mentally, and they truly believe they have no way out. the husbands break them down to the point that they believe anything that he says. so if he tells them they can't leave, they'll never make it, they're stupid, they're worthless, no one will believe them (and i the case you mention, he was a minister, so it's likely she truly believed that no one would believe her story of abuse), the women believe these things. they feel desperate and lost, and they feel like they have no options. and so they do what they think is necessary for survival. this defense doesn't go over so well with a man because it's assumed that he's physically stronger than the woman and can overcome the abuse in order to leave. it may seem like a double standard, but when you really research and look at the cases where this defense is used, it make sense. also, there was never any evidence that laci peterson abused her husband, so i'm not sure why you mentioned that case. it's not a very good comparison.

Answer 7

One of the most common questions spouses ask when confronting a marriage crisis is this: How can I save my marriage if my partner doesn't want to help find a solution? How do I succeed I am trying to save my marriage on my own? Learn here https://tr.im/kuH0p

It is a typical enough story: one partner leaves, the other stays. One remains 'in love', the other is uncertain. Whatever it is that has caused a couple to be apart, the one person who remains bears the prospect, fear, doubt, desire, hope of saving his or her marriage' alone.

Answer 8

It is wrong for one spouse to hit or otherwise abuse the other. Woman claim abuse more then men, but it has been known that a 5'2" 98 lb woman has beaten her 6'3" 225 lb husband. The first case documented was in the book "The Burning Bed" in which the wife was abused, and waited until her husband passed out drunk, poured gasoline on the bed, put her kids in the car, set the bed, and house on fire and drove away.

Answer 9

I consider it, yet i do no longer think of it is going to likely be constrained to women folk people - if a similar ingredient happens to a guy all different issues being equivalent, a similar defence must be used. although, i do no longer think of that a individual must be thoroughly permit off because of the fact of that defence - institutionalization in some style of rehabilitative centre might earnings them and society far extra.

Answer 10

The battered woman syndrome RARELY works. Many MORE women are in prison for killing their abusers WHILE they were being attacked than women are free.

However, many, many men never see the cold interior of a jail cell for killing their female partners. She always "deserved" it.

You can't just claim past abuse, you have to prove it. 65% of male/female relationships involves male on female violence. SIXTY FIVE PERCENT. That means that when you get married you stand better than a 50/50 chance of being abused by the man you said you would love and honor for the rest of your life.

If I could I'd keep you out of the shelters for battered women just because you're so stupid.

They won't let me do that though.

Peace.