Battered Women's Syndrome: A valid defence in law?

Should the effects of prolonged abuse be considered a defense for killing another human being?

Total Votes:

[ 0 ]

This poll closed on December 20, 2004.
No longer accepting new votes.

[flautist]

Prettz3003

flautist

Prettz, first of all, if you have never been there, then shut the ******** up. You have no clue what you are talking about. You have no idea the hell in which abused people live. Yes, I am talking about men and women. I know. You know why we don't leave? It's because of jackasses like you. No one believes us. The abuser will lie, make up any ******** story they can to explain away the scars. Not to mention that it's all a game of power. If an abused person leaves, the abuser will follow them. They are sick ******** who get off on having control, having power. Leaving breaks that power, and the abuser will try to get it back. Not to mention that they know they are doing wrong, and don't want the abused to tell anyone.

To make a long reply short, Prettz, I have 4 letters for you: STFU!

And people say I flame people. Sheesh.

Sure, WOMEN can always plead Battered Women Syndrome, but can a guy plead Battered Man Syndrome? If you want some special loophole for battered people, don't discriminate based on SEX. Men are abused too. This is what I was talking about. Plus, juries now a days are more likely to believe the womens side of the story. Now, I don't have a source, but if a women is beaten/raped, she has more than 80% chance that her rapist will be convicted. Would that happen for a guy? How many guy rape cases get publicity like Kobe's case girl rape case get? ZERO.

If you read my post, I said INCLUDING MEN. I know men get abused. And, yes, if they report it, there's an 80% chance of conviction, but what about the punishment the abuser gets? I know of a case of a serial rapist who was a therapist, raped 7 women repeatedly, gang raped them with his friends, stalked them, and only got 4 years. His friends were not convicted. As he was lead off, he looked at his victims and said "See you in 4 years." This thing happens over and over, that's why no one reports it, that's why victims are driven to murder. The problem lies in our "justice" system.

Yes, the statistics are that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men are victims of sexual assault. Only 2% of reported cases are false accusations. And you just said only 80% get convicted. so, 18% of rapists who have been reported are walking free at this very moment. That's not even considering the countless others who aren't even reported because of fear, shame, or guilt. This is why I think that it's a viable defense. And, yes, it's viable for men, too.

[kitsune_rei05]

speez

kitsune_rei05

I was using the Dudley and Stephens case to illustrate an example of Necessity-- I think that a Necessity defense would be more along the lines of killing to survive, and a Man vs man case would more likely fall under Self-defense than Necessity.

Likewise, I was also just using the Sansregret case to illustrate how women who leave an abusive situation can be in more danger than before.

I was under the impression that there was no self-defense clause for defense in Canada... or did I just not read it when the first post on that was made?

Oh, there is a self-defense clause in Canadian law, you might have missed it when the first post was made.

Self Defense here is pretty strict though, you can't do much more than subdue the person . . . equivalent force, sort of thing. For instance, take a scenario where a person breaks into your house with a knife, and you go downstairs and wrestle the knife from him, but hurt him in the process- THAT would be self-defense, you couldn't then hurt him with the knife unless you were still struggling. If he was subdued, you couldn't then attack. . . if you did, that would be assault, and your best chance of anything would be provocation.

flautist

And, yes, it's viable for men, too.

The issue that he keeps pressing is that it's not a fair defence- A woman could plead it and get acquitted, but the jury wouldn't buy it from a man, not today.

[speez]

Quote:

speez

kitsune_rei05

I was using the Dudley and Stephens case to illustrate an example of Necessity-- I think that a Necessity defense would be more along the lines of killing to survive, and a Man vs man case would more likely fall under Self-defense than Necessity.

Likewise, I was also just using the Sansregret case to illustrate how women who leave an abusive situation can be in more danger than before.

I was under the impression that there was no self-defense clause for defense in Canada... or did I just not read it when the first post on that was made?

Oh, there is a self-defense clause in Canadian law, you might have missed it when the first post was made.

Self Defense here is pretty strict though, you can't do much more than subdue the person . . . equivalent force, sort of thing. For instance, take a scenario where a person breaks into your house with a knife, and you go downstairs and wrestle the knife from him, but hurt him in the process- THAT would be self-defense, you couldn't then hurt him with the knife unless you were still struggling. If he was subdued, you couldn't then attack. . . if you did, that would be assault, and your best chance of anything would be provocation.

Ah ok. now I see the sticky side. So if the attacker/abuser is making threats, then the only time for recouse (in this case, terminal recourse outside of law enforcement) is when he/she is comming at you directly. Then I can't see why the battered woman/man syndrome would even come into play. Then again, I'm also asusming that if someone comes into my house with a knife and I stab them before they can stab me that it would be self defense, so long as they could have still stabbed. OK, I get it all now.

[kitsune_rei05]

speez

Then I can't see why the battered woman/man syndrome would even come into play.

xD it doesn't.

I was using the knife thing as an example of a self-defense situation.

Would Self-defense still apply to battered woman/man's syndrome, then? Would Provocation? That, I don't know.

[speez]

Quote:

speez

Then I can't see why the battered woman/man syndrome would even come into play.

xD it doesn't.

I was using the knife thing as an example of a self-defense situation.

Would Self-defense still apply to battered woman/man's syndrome, then? Would Provocation? That, I don't know.

call me crazy, but I'd think that if the beeter is comming at you with weapon X, and you get to Weapon Y (and in the words of Chicago) you both reach for the gun.... then outside of establishing the relationship between the beeter and the beetee, I don't see the point of the defense.

[kitsune_rei05]

You have officially confused me. o.O

So as a defense, would BW/MS count under Self-defence or on it own, or should it be counted at all? Why. . . sort of deal. O.o

Just restating the point of this thread, really.

I'm lost. Ignore me for the time being.

[speez]

Quote:

You have officially confused me. o.O

So as a defense, would BW/MS count under Self-defence or on it own, or should it be counted at all? Why. . . sort of deal. O.o

Just restating the point of this thread, really.

I'm lost. Ignore me for the time being.

no, I get what you're saying.

I think it should be used to help establish the relationship between the suspect and the murdered victom (assuming that the person who was beaten killed their abusive partner) if the murder was durring an attack, then it would definatly be self-defense. If it murder was done under the threat of an attack, and there is a history that could easily be seen to lead to murder, then i think you have a very solid case for self defense, due to the immenent danger.

[kitsune_rei05]

Yeah, that.

But of course, you have the issue where abuse should not be an excuse for murder, and that abuse should be taken seriously when it happens, so that it doesn't escalate to this extent, which both support the no side.

I think that both those points are true, but fact is that right now, abuse isn't taken as seriously as it could be taken- That's why here, charges are pressed by the government and not the person, so the charges can't be dropped. Abuse shouldn't be an excuse for murder, but I can see how and why it would happen.

[speez]

Quote:

Yeah, that.

But of course, you have the issue where abuse should not be an excuse for murder, and that abuse should be taken seriously when it happens, so that it doesn't escalate to this extent, which both support the no side.

I think that both those points are true, but fact is that right now, abuse isn't taken as seriously as it could be taken- That's why here, charges are pressed by the government and not the person, so the charges can't be dropped. Abuse shouldn't be an excuse for murder, but I can see how and why it would happen.

But we're not arguing abuse. We're discussing murder caused by a fear for one's life: which is what leads to the proposed murder.

[suicide_arc]

When a person kills, you could describe them as a loaded pistol because they have a motive and they were out to kill... They're a weapon in themselves.

A person that's been under prolonged abuse is just a /more/ loaded pistol. They have that instability behind them. So, it's nice they mention it as part of the reason, but that doesn't mean it was beyond thier control that they killed a person. Murder is murder, just like abuse is abuse.

[kitsune_rei05]

speez

We're discussing murder caused by a fear for one's life: which is what leads to the proposed murder.

that's true.

suicide_arc]So, it's nice they mention it as part of the reason, but that doesn't mean it was beyond thier control that they killed a person. Murder is murder, just like abuse is a

udk2fscw:1="suicide_arc]So, it's nice they mention it as part of the reason, but that doesn't mean it was beyond thier control that they killed a person. Murder is murder, just like abuse is abuse.

If that were true, then are the other defenses, such as necessity and self-defense, and I suppose no mens rea and automatism, still valid?

[tallfraekonleash]

If it was in self defense then sure but say like a guy tapped his wife on the arm and she was in a bad mood and killed him well that couldnt be justified. It would have to be in context.

[Joybuzzer]

If it was premedatated murder. Then hell no. It's not OK. She could have just as easily left.

However, if he's in the middle of beating the crap out of her and she grabs a frying pan and smacks him so hard in the head and it kills him. NO. Now...her doing it twenty times after he's already been knocked out, I'd say that's a matter for the court to decide, cuz it could be both anger or ******** YOU I WANT YOU DEAD CUZ I WAS JUST TO STUPID TO LEAVE YOU.

[speez]

Quote:

If it was premedatated murder. Then hell no. It's not OK. She could have just as easily left.

However, if he's in the middle of beating the crap out of her and she grabs a frying pan and smacks him so hard in the head and it kills him. NO. Now...her doing it twenty times after he's already been knocked out, I'd say that's a matter for the court to decide, cuz it could be both anger or ******** YOU I WANT YOU DEAD CUZ I WAS JUST TO STUPID TO LEAVE YOU.

Well, what if the murderer/victom is sitting there with the knife and the murderee/abuser comes to beet them, and then the murder/victom tell the abuser to back off or else. Is having the knife a sign of premeditation or an attempt at prevention?

I don't think that there are many if any cases of someone entereing an abusive relationship just so they could kill their abuser....

[Joybuzzer]

Quote:

Quote:

If it was premedatated murder. Then hell no. It's not OK. She could have just as easily left.

However, if he's in the middle of beating the crap out of her and she grabs a frying pan and smacks him so hard in the head and it kills him. NO. Now...her doing it twenty times after he's already been knocked out, I'd say that's a matter for the court to decide, cuz it could be both anger or ******** YOU I WANT YOU DEAD CUZ I WAS JUST TO STUPID TO LEAVE YOU.

Well, what if the murderer/victom is sitting there with the knife and the murderee/abuser comes to beet them, and then the murder/victom tell the abuser to back off or else. Is having the knife a sign of premeditation or an attempt at prevention?

I don't think that there are many if any cases of someone entereing an abusive relationship just so they could kill their abuser....

I'm not saying there was. What I'm saying is...

Guy beats woman regularly. Woman instead of leaving him, takes it. One night while the guy is sleeping, the woman slits his throat. That is murder.

The woman, sitting there with a knife in hand and the guy walks in, and she just pounces him out of surprise, is murder.

If instead she just sat there, and he starts trying to smack her around again, then yeah, stab him untill he stops.

However, this doesn't mean stab him untill he stops and then stab him twenty more times.