In claims of abuse? The abuse system is way overboard as it is.
I would have thought the defense could have made an imminent threat argument. Assuming everything in the OP is true then clearly this guy was a constant threat. To say if she merely waited till he (inevitably) went after her again before burying a hammer in his head makes all the difference between guilt and innocence seems absurd on the face of it. Particularly if she would have no ability to put a hammer in his head while he was attacking her and her only chance to do so was while he slept (or snuck up on him or whatever).
IANAL so perhaps the definition of “imminent threat” is too tightly written to expand like this but it boggles the mind to think the courts are so hog tied by their own inscrutable rules to not be able to flex enough to allow such an argument.
I don’t pretend it’s a perfect solution, but you’ve just admitted that in the case of a true monster, the standard order of protection means diddly-squat. So, for people who are really being abused, there is justification to feel that a complaint would do nothing but paint a target on their foreheads.
Battered Woman Syndrome is certainly used as a defense - changing the ‘immediacy’ element of the threat required to justify the killing.
It’s subject to a lot of criticism too, though, including some feminist critiques. The idea is that by setting a separate standard for women, you treat them as infants and victims, and make abuse arguably more likely.
The problem with those argument, IMHO, is that they ignore the current situation. Repeated abuse can lead to a feeling of hopelessness and the idea that the only way out is killing the abuser. The law in some way needs to reflect that reality, and my only question is what the best way of doing that is.
I’m not sure that making it justified homicide is the right way. I’d prefer more discretion for the judge in sentencing (I would for all offenses, to be honest). I don’t know if the woman here is a threat to society, and I don’t think incarceration is necessarily the right option.
It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t problem.
I had a friend whose girlfriend attacked him (I saw it as did two other people). She called the police and claimed he abused her (the extent of his abuse was holding her wrists to stop her from hitting him). We all told the police as much. The police handcuffed him and took him to jail anyway.
Why? The flip side which they found the hard way is to go to a domestic dispute and not arrest anyone and the following morning someone is dead (has happened often enough). So, the police now default to separating the two people and this means the guy goes to the lockup (my friend was released the following morning with no charges).
There just are no good answers to this to cover all exigencies.
But for every person who is really being seriously abused there are thousands who would end up in jail based on having the nerve to argue with their spouse. This would be a far greater abuse. (See too Whack-a-mole’s subsequent post.)
Just because there are no good answers doesn’t mean that the best answer is automatically arresting male abuse victims.
In fairness they should cart off the women as readily as the men but our society does not work like that.
It is done because while this method is not great they deem the potential alternative to be worse (they leave them alone and someone is dead a few hours later).
True. Another example: Teri Garr.
As I noted in my initial comment to this thread, this makes it all the harder for male abuse victims, since they are more likely to be portrayed as the vicious abusers if they try to take any action.
Jury nullification or Governor’s pardon is the way to go here, not changing the law.
There are cases where a wife who kills her husband is sentenced very leniently based on a defense of abuse: Mary Winkler served less than a year. Moreover, AFAIK the only evidence of abuse was her own testimony.
But what if the system stutters? When living with someone like this, you have real reason to fear that if you call the police and they don’t act perfectly appropriately: taking you absolutely seriously, giving you the complete benefit of the doubt, and quickly getting you and your whole family and putting you in a place of safety, then you might be the immediate cause of your family’s murder. If the situation is sufferable–however horrible–better to wait just one more day and see if something better develops.
I wouldn’t trust the cops–I’d worry they’d call, or come by and want to have a conversation. Basically, any investigation might be fatal to the children, but how can the cops act without investigating first?
Question: what would have happened, both theoretically (should have happened according to statues) and practically (overworked system, disinterested cops) if one of the kids had gone to the police and reported severe abuse? Could the police have arrested the man at least for one day, so that the wife could have gathered the children and left forever? Would the family of the woman have had the right to police protection because the husband threatened her to retaliate against them? (Assuming that the children were witnesses to these threats).
Could the woman have taken the kids to a woman’s house and hidden there - he must have slept some time before that, he can’t have watched her 24/7, surely?
In many fiction novels, the victims say that if they go to the police, the cops won’t help until violence has been committed, but simply threats of violence aren’t legal enough to arrest somebody. As mentioned already, a restraining order is useless if the person doesn’t care.
It seems to me that giving abused spouses wider possiblities - both legal and extra, like women’s houses - to escape these situations would be a far better solution than changing the law, and the possibility of a pardon for special cases like this.
It’s not about vengence or “justice.” It’s pure self defense. Any argument that this woman was not in immanent danger are specious. She and her children lived under an ongoing, continuous, extant threat at every moment. Essentially, they were hostages. Do you think it’s a crime or “vigilante justice” for hostages to kill those who are holding them hostage?
This case isn’t really all that special. That’s the real horror of it.
I think that the governor of Oregon should pardon her - she took a really shitty deal just to protect her son from spending his life in prison. She doesn’t deserve it, and the prosecutor who offered it to her is an asshole.
I’m not familiar with abused women, so forgive me of my ignorance, but what about this? He’s got to sleep sometime. When he does, call the police and explain the situation. That you want to leave and he has threatened to kill your entire family if you do. That would certainly be enough to get a TRO. Then, buy a gun. Stay with your family members. Sleep in shifts. If you see the husband near the property, call the cops, and then get ready to shoot if he attempts to break into the house.
If the threat isn’t imminent, then I can’t see a reason to allow for a justifiable homicide. Legal remedies are there to protect a woman when she claims abuse. A few years back, I had a friend that his wife was slapping him around. Cops were called, and SHE was taken to jail. While in jail, the local domestic violence group consulted with her and when she was released ROR, they took her to the courthouse to apply for a TRO, and it was granted.
So, SHE was the one charged with battery. The officers on the scene saw no evidence that he did anything wrong, but he had to move out of the house and not see the kids for the next month. You think that can’t possibly happen in a free country, but it happens all of the time.
I think the jury should have nullified. Cases like this one are the reason there aren’t more controls on jury nullification in the American judicial system.
This.
I saw a case where an ex-wife came to the tennis court at a match we were playing. Raised holy hell because the ex-husband had left the kid in the care of his live-in girlfriend. She grabbed a tennis racket and started to beat him silly. He finally grabbed the racket head and twisted it out of ther hands. She ran to her car, called the cops, and despite the reports of more than a dozen witnesses, he was arrested, and subsequently lost custody. The custody hearing was a kangaroo court like I never imagined could exist in the US. The only thing the judge was interested in was that he had been arrested. The fact that the charges had been dropped was of no interest to her whatsoever. He had a lawyer, she had a lawyer, but her lawyer was allowed to talk and talk and talk. As soon as his lawyer opened his mouth the judge would interrupt, and literally say “He should have thought about that before he got arrested.”
The woman was a total psycho. The only thing that seemed to interest her was shopping for clothes, jewelry, etc.
None of us from the tennis team were allowed to testify. The judge somehow ruled that the merits of the incident were not germane, only the fact of the arrest.
Do you really think that’s all that realistic? I’m not a battered woman, but if I were in a relationship where that happened, I’m not suddenly going to have the time and energy devoted to learning how to shoot and be comfortable around a gun. Especially if I have kids.
Plus they may not have family who would do that for them.
As for sleeping in shifts…how is that realistic? People have to leave the house, etc. You’re expecting normal civilian human beings to enter into some kind of military mindset. It’s so out of the range of most people’s experience.
Sounds like you and I had the same judge.