h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think the jury´s still out on that one.

Mel

I'm surprised to see that hardly anyone has tackled an extremely important question yet: what in the world would drive a man to do such things?
Apparantly a lot of things. I just cannot imagine that genes alone are responsible for this kind of personality.

This is a terrible thing to say, but I think that shooting that guy is a good and justifiable decision.
The way I see it we *do* have an obligation to respect life. Including our own.
I think that in most such situations escape is simply not an option. There are no friends or relatives to take care of you. The police won't help not just because they don't want to, but because they *can't*. Unless you've got a knife in your back with the guy's fingerprints on them, there is very little the law can do.
The point is we aren't dealing with simple-minded goons here. Wife-beaters are cunning psychopaths who have incredible instinct when it comes to manipulating people. They may be the most loving fathers and husbands in public, and rip your head off the moment the door closes.
I think it's easy to overlook how isolated you become in such a situation. Unless you're lucky, you probably won't have anybody to talk to because no one who knows your husband will believe you. And they can hardly be blamed - if they were to believe you, they might just as well believe in martians.
This is the worst-case-scenario, but you might face the choice between having yourself beaten to death or killing him.
I think the latter is the right thing to do if your motive is self-defence, not revenge.
But I can hardly imagine revenge *not* being part of your motivation.

I recently read a book called Asylum which touched on the psychological aspects of wife beaters, it was more aimed at those who believed that their wives were having affairs but it also went into how the women are drawn in to relationships like this

Mel

Having investigated numerous domestic disputes, I'd like to point out that men can be the victims just as women can. Just because a man can overpower a woman, doesn't mean that he will. It's not always true that he can. I've arrested women for assaulting men in domestic situations. In the one instance that sticks out in my mind. He was bigger than she was, but I have never seen a more stereotypical victim.

I don't know where Autumn Hughes is from, but there are police that will help. We often have a problem because the women themselves won't do anything. If I had a nickel for every time I arrested a man for beating his wife, and she posts his bond, or testifies for him in court, I'd be living large.

In my experience, conically abused spouses don't call the police. I suspect that they learn early on that the police won't just stop the abuse, but they'll arrest the perp. That's not really what they want. They learn to not call the police.

Realistically, I don't have time to actually follow up with a victim and shepherd them through counseling and helping them start anew. I can refer them to a local agency that will help them, but it's their decision to follow up.

One of the other things that most people don't realize about domestic disputes is that it's hard to get to the point where you can make an arrest. Both stories will usually be different. There's never a witness or physical evidence. How do you decide who committed a crime? How do you convince a judge that you had probable cause to make an arrest? We can come and keep the piece while someone leaves, but making an arrest is often very hard. You can forget about a conviction.

As for the 21-year-old woman, she should have shot the rapist, but shooting her husband would have been murder. He was lying there asleep. If a person is in fear for their life, I think it's perfectly legitimate for a victim to shoot an unarmed person. However, you can't hunt someone down. Self-defense is only valid when you're protecting yourself from immediate harm. If she was worried about him waking up, she should have left or called the police.

As for the moral defense of killing, I can't see how it is immoral to kill someone in self-defense. That person is trying to deprive you of life or trying to commit a violent felony. Part of the risk of being a violent felon is that you may come up on someone who will defend themselves. That's why felons fear armed citizens.

If you're introducing a weapon into a fight, you have to be prepared to use it. She probably wouldn't have suffered nearly as much if she hadn't produced a knife. The rape may have been the guy trying to reassert his power over the situation.

The value of restraining order is two fold. Generally, it orders the perp out of the house. It also makes prosecutions easier. It's easy to say that you violated an order to not come on the property. It generally leads to a higher bail and longer sentence. There are down sides too.

For some valuable information about stalking, check out the book The Gift of Fear. It's excellent. As I recall, it talks about the whole seduction process used by abusers.

As for the 21 year old, if she killed her husband, I would have arrested her, and I would have obtained a conviction.

You've contradicted yourself rather, haven't you?

"Self-defense is only valid when you're protecting yourself from immediate harm. If she was worried about him waking up, she should have left or called the police."
. . .
"One of the other things that most people don't realize about domestic disputes is that it's hard to get to the point where you can make an arrest. Both stories will usually be different. There's never a witness or physical evidence. How do you decide who committed a crime? How do you convince a judge that you had probable cause to make an arrest? We can come and keep the piece while someone leaves, but making an arrest is often very hard. You can forget about a conviction."

Right at the beginning of this thread, the poser of the question said:

"Even the police won't help an abused woman. They tell her to go home because they can't do anything unless the man actually breaks one of her bones."

Of course the local police aren't going to help an outsider, against one of their own sort.

So you have a child from a sheltered background, brought up to believe the law will always protect those in need of it, finding out that this is anything but true, having no recourse to any help or support of any kind, in fear for her life, and the mental, physical and possibly sexual abuse of her children.
A child that has herself been abused all her life, and knows there is no outside help.
And you maintain that killing that bar-steward WOULDN'T have been an act of self-defence?

Ok, I think I am going to have to tread very carefully here, because I have not thought what I am going to say through to the point where I can articulate it clearly. But here goes.

The judicial systems all over the world are male constructs, built on male interpretations of what is 'normal' or 'acceptable' behaviour.

By and large - most men resort to physical violence more rapidly than most women - not entirely true of course, but you are going to have to put up with generalisations while I make this point.

The concept of 'self-defence' - created within a male judiciary - presupposes that someone defends themselves in the middle of a violent attack. The concept of 'pre-medidated' - again created within a male judiciary - presupposes that there is not violent attack taking place at the time of the action.

Now - women are less likely to resort to violence to releive their feelings. They are more likely to suppress those feelings or to articulate them than they are just to thump the living daylights out of another human being. (I know it happens, again I am generalising, here).

What is happening here is that male labels, validly created and applied to male behaviour, are being applied to the behaviour of individuals driven by a different physiology and different set of hormonal drivers.

OK - lets cut the quasi-feminist crap, and get to the point:

If a woman wants out - and can truly think of no other way out than violence or suicide - then is her action any less self-defence for being pre-meditated?

In other words, 'cold-blooded' murder can still be a desperate act of self defence. Her objective is to live, do not forget, not some sort of testosterone-fuelled point-scoring.

I am reminded of my analogy of the prisoner in enemy territory, who would not be expected to wake up their jailor before making their escape.

I remain grateful that I have been blessed that so far in my life this has all been theory, not practice.

agcB

The problem is even if it is self-defence, how can you prove it is self-defence. If it was never shown the guy beat her, then it can't be shown afterwards she shot him because he beat her. So she'll have to face murder charges. But perhaps that is still better than the alternative.

If she kills the b*****d while he's sleeping, she's killing him while he is helpless. It's murder. Period.

If she was truly in fear for her life, she should leave the house.

I didn't contradict myself at all. There's nothing that says if the police don't make an arrest that the woman can't leave.

A Girl Called Ben, I don't think we should have separate and unequal legal systems for men and women.

I strongly support the death penalty, but I don't believe that you have the right to take the life of another outside of self-defense, war, or with due process of law. Allowing women this kind of an out because they're too emotionally fragile to be trusted with firearms would give women carte balnche to execute their husbands willy-nilly.

The question of self-defense is a matter for the jury to consider. They can make the decision based solely on the credibility of the victim. There doesn't necessarily need to be independent evidence.

Leaving the house isn't an option when you have small children and have just had a miscarriage.
It is also not very effective - since you get found, dragged back, and beaten even more for having shown defiance.

Women, in general, are not emotionally fragile at all.
Au contraire, a tendency towards testosterone fuelled aggression seems, to me, to show greater emotional fragility.

Most women, compared to most men, are physically fragile.

Any woman that had just been severely beaten by a drunk would be committing suicide if she pointed a weapon at the perpetrator while he was still awake, and she was within reach.

Wounding him, and failing to kill him, would also have been suicide.

Surely no mother of young children would risk leaving them at the mercy of a monster like that?

If you think murder is the answer, I guess I can live with that. Wife beaters don't really deserve to live. On the other hand, she's still going to be convicted of murder.

Women who are abused to the point that they murder their husbands generally wait for the police to arrive, and it isn't hard to get them to confess.

Just to say that Tefkat has made the point I would have made about the relative emotional fragility/stability of men and women. (Never confuse tears with weakness, in the same way you should never confuse sex with love, the first is a physical reaction, the second is an emotional one).

And also that I am not advocating separate justice systems or standards for men and women. That sort of thing scares the lights out of me. No, I was trying, in a vastly over-simplified and pretty theoretical way, to work out why men react in hot-blood and women react in cold-blood, and whether the systems that judge them are equitable or not. Personally I don't think they are always equitable, but I definitely think there should be one system, which we should work to make more equitable if necessary.

As I say - this is all theorising for me, and I am profoundly aware that for others in this thread these issues are much closer to home through their professional work.

I have come into this conversation quite late so sorry if this has been asked and answered - no time to read through seventy odd posts.

When I read the original post here I thought there were two very different things being discussed. Autumn seems to be very condescending towards somebody for what is a reasonable view :

"Men are subject to domestic violence too but it is very rarely taken seriously, in fact men are ridiculed over it. For this reason it is very rarely reported. Male victims are also more likely to have suffered viscious attacks involving weapons than women who are more likely to be attacked by someone unarmed. This is just one example of discrimination against men"

I am not sure what part of this Autumn finds so silly, and as the quote was taken out of context I don't know if I am the one reading it wrong. It seems to me that the quotee is reminding us that men can suffer domestic abuse too, and to dismiss this fact because men are usually bigger and stronger therefore ought to be able to defend themselves only serves to belittle the victims further.

I think we all agree that domestic violence is an awful thing, but the point of the quote seems to be that it is sexist to assume that it is only men that carry it out.

k

That's true. I was recently subjected to a domestic violence seminar. Domestic violence advocates almost always forget that men can be victims of family violence. Probably a quarter of my domestic violence arrests have been women.

One by-product of the domestic violence movement is that the laws can encompass just about anything now. Our law lists out a series of relationships. Just to make sure that everything is covered, it also includes anyone who lives together or has ever lived together. Then it lists out some misdemeanours and then it lists all felonies. Whenever there is a combination of the crime and the relationship, it's an act of family violence.

I once charged a woman with Forgery in the 1st Degree under the family violence act when she swiped her sister's checkbook and cashed some checks. If I were to get in a fight with someone I went through basic training with, that would be an act of family violence. If a kid steals his parents car for a joy ride, that's also an act of family violence.

By law, we can't take the victim's feelings into consideration. So you take a joy ride, you have to be charged. Big fun.

I'm sorry, but the question "should she pull the trigger" bothers me.

You're a cop. You get a call; There's been the sound of a gun going off in a residential neighborhood. When you get there, This woman, having just been discharged from the hospital for a miscarraige, still has the hospital I. D. bracelet on. She was probably too out of it to answer a knock, so either the kids let you in, or you came in on your own.
She's bloody, bruised, and in a state of emotional shock.
She confesses.
You're probably going to take her to the hospital. Then you'll charge her.
The woman's defence lawyer, if he's smart, will call an expert to testify that women who go to the extreem of killing an abused spouse follow a basic pattern, some of the most common elements being that a. they don't pull the trigger until they feel in immediate fear for their life, and b. they wait for the cops and want to confess, c. they feel controlled and in fear of their lives even when not in the presence of their abuser.

The woman thus depicted is so psychologically messed up that she isn't acting in a premeditated manner. Yes, legally, she has committed murder, so legally, she will have to stand trial. The abuse depicted in this description, however, is so severe that as an example, it is invalid. After years of such abuse, after the murder of her baby, she still went back home. Any woman capable of thought would have charged him while still in the hospital, and if she'd been beaten into a miscarraige, the doctors might have been the ones to alert the cops for her.
This worse case senario cannot be analysed from a moral nor a legal perspective. It is too extreem! It illustrates a truth, that such things happen. But, if this woman went home from the hospital after what he did to her, then either she was intending to kill him(Perhaps subconciously), or she was too afraid not to go home. Either way, she was probably too mental to make a moral decision, so we can't really say if it's right or wrong that she pull the trigger until we hear from a psychologist whether or not she was sane when she did it.

If there is ever any recourse, she should not killed him. Since she "Couldn't go through with it", then apparently she came to the same conclusion.
If she had, she'd be arrested. If she had a good lawyer, he could probably get her off by producing medical records both before the final beating, when she miscarried, and after, when he beat her for losing the child.
Under the conditions cited, the District Attourney would probably plea bargain her and get her some councelling, as well. She may still have to do some time.

If she went home, either it's murder, or she's not fit for trial. So the question can't be answered until we hear from the psychologist.

Women beat men. It's terrible. It's devistating to be abused, no matter what your sex.

My father was 5'9" and weighed 128 lbs. My mom is 5"6' and weighs over 250 lbs. Neither of them were abusive, thank the lord.
What if a man, after years of such abuse, shot a woman?

If a man killed an abusive partner, he'd be charged with murder the same as anyone else.

You just said that she, "Yes, legally, she has committed murder," and you're right.

This reminds me of a quote from a Welshman who went to fight for the International Brigades against Franco's fascist rebellion. It was later used in a Manic Street Preachers song:

"If I can shoot rabbits, I can shoot fascists"

And if you can shoot fascists, you can shoot moronic, violent, woman-hating scum. There's not much difference between them, to me.

Reminds me of another MSP lyric -

"Give them the respect they deserve"

You could wind up with a problem if you start letting people kill eachother whenever they want. It would lead to chaos. The decsion to execute people should be left to the legal system.

Not that I'm saying that these idiots don't deserve it. I would sympathise with the murderer, but I'd still prosecute.

Yeah, she would still be tried with murder. There would just be good chances she would be given a practically non-existent punishement. Do you know the hottie Charlize Theron, a model who can actually act. Her mother shot her father because he was abusive.

Personally, I would never pull the trigger. I'd leave. Anyone who wouldn't is either too mental to think straight, or felt that murder was a solution to their problem.
The trial(and, hopefully, the evaluation by a police psychologist) would be needed to find out which it was.
Under the circumstances described, that woman is toast.She went home to the man who killed her kid.
Under different circunstances, who knows. That's why a trial is needed. IRL, she'd probably get a token sentence. But, to go home, when she was right there in the hospital, just a phone call away from help, makes me think that she wanted to kill him.
My own family has seen domestic violence, and abuse, although not this severe. My sister married an abusive man. She left. She didn't kill anyone.