Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

riciglia1 · Apr 13, 2004, 11:01 pm

If a wife kills her husband because he beat her again and again (this is just thought i dont know of a case where this happens off the top of my head) and gets off in court, is that justifiable?

RightThinker · Apr 13, 2004, 11:14 pm

Not if she plans it and kills him. That is pre-meditation and that murderer should be prosecuted. A judge could take her problems into consideration at sentencing. Now if she kills him while he is beating her then that is a totally different story. We can't allow vigilantes to get away with murder. That is why we have police stations and womens shelters. If we let her get away with it what is to stop the next wife that is just cheating on her husband and wants to get rid of him from killing her man and claiming he beat her?

riciglia1 · Apr 13, 2004, 11:32 pm

yeah but in some cases the women do it in an instant after they snap, no pregonition or anything. just slap, snap, stab. period.

mojo_the_migo · Apr 14, 2004, 07:21 pm

Depends on what you mean by "snapping". Like right said, that should be taken in to consideration in sentencing.

Apr 14, 2004, 09:06 pm

I agree, if it was pre-meditated it would be murder. A better question is what is she doing staying with an asshole that beats her on a regular basis? Why is he not in jail or force counseling?

Suburbanite · Apr 14, 2004, 09:57 pm

I dont know about the laws, but I can tell you that I see his death as no great loss.

mojo_the_migo · Apr 14, 2004, 09:59 pm

Ditto, but law and order must be taken in to question.

Impenitent · Apr 15, 2004, 01:03 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (riciglia1,)
If a wife kills her husband because he beat her again and again (this is just thought i dont know of a case where this happens off the top of my head) and gets off in court, is that justifiable?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

yep, and it has happened many times...

castille · Apr 16, 2004, 09:56 am

If you kill someone after getting pissed (and within the immediate area/time period) it can be argued as manslaughter. One of my friends killed this Indian guy after the Indian was found beating up his girlfriend, and he only got 5 years for manslaughter. I think the Indian guy was beating her with intent to kill (explains the baseball bat, gloves, balaclava, and gun).

However if you plan it, the court isnt as sympathetic.

SVMc · Apr 16, 2004, 01:11 pm

There's been a debate on this subject in most countries for several years. Generally Battered Wife Syndrome has been recognized as a psychological medical condition that can result in violent behaviour towards and attacker. Most countries (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and more) have Justifiable Homicide laws on the books, these laws are directly related to self-defense statutes but generally stipulate that the danger must be immidate and life threatening.

There is a movement to on two fronts: First many juridictions do not allow testimony of spousal abuse in a murder / manslaughter trial where a woman has killed her spouse. Second, many organizations would like to see evidence of Batterd Wife Syndrome not only admitted as a mitigating factor (reduces sentencing time) but as a defence (possible explanation that can result in a not-guilty charge).

The irony is that women still face longer sentences on average for killing men than men for killing women (source: Upper Canada Law Society). Attorney General in Seattle Cynthia Gilliespie in her book Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense and the Law she argues for a reiview of the above legal disconnect especially considering the longer sentences usually issued to women who cannot entre Battered Wife Syndrome into defense arguments.

Impenitent · Apr 16, 2004, 03:06 pm

battered fish is better than battered wives... what to do with the hush puppies?

Mia · Apr 16, 2004, 04:50 pm

There are some cases where the man will NOT let go. She can leave, she can run, she can hide. But he WILL find and kill her. It has happened so often there are programs like witness protection for women to go into and STILL the husband will find her. In these cases, she has no choice but to kill or be killed.

**Pooeypants** · Apr 16, 2004, 05:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,)
There are some cases where the man will NOT let go. She can leave, she can run, she can hide. But he WILL find and kill her. It has happened so often there are programs like witness protection for women to go into and STILL the husband will find her. In these cases, she has no choice but to kill or be killed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You make it out that those husbands are like trained killer assassin types, but maybe the law does need to be firmer on these events.

Suburbanite · Apr 16, 2004, 06:12 pm

Well, you guys are talking about imprisoning these women. You have to think about it. What threat does she pose to society? I'd say none. She killed her abusive husband, which to me shows she had to have tolerated a lot of abuse before she even resorted to killing him. Second, is it not in self defense if he was going to hit her again? How many times does the man come home and say "Hunny, I realized the errors of my ways and I am going to stop hitting you." and then she kills him. So can she only kill him when he is in the process of hitting her? Because he is constantly in the process of abusing her, hitting her or not. Frankly, if I was on the Jury case to her murder, I'd say she was innocent.

Mozart1220 · Apr 18, 2004, 10:28 am

My Dad used to beat my Mom regularly, and my brother and I as well. He died in 1966 and my Mom, who is now 73 still suffers the effects. The bastard is better off dead.

SVMc · Apr 18, 2004, 02:01 pm

The amazing thing is that it is only recently that testimony of spousal abuse was permissible in child custody hearings. Many women (perhaps like the mother above) did not leave abusive marriages because they would have nothing financially, and when the court heard testimony for custody, the father would be in a better position to support the children financially and the court would not allow testimony on spousal abuse, which in something like 90% of cases later results in child abuse.

Apr 19, 2004, 02:09 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mozart1220,
My Dad used to beat my Mom regularly, and my brother and I as well. He died in 1966 and my Mom, who is now 73 still suffers the effects. The bastard is better off dead.

Now I understand your anger towards men who own guns and act "macho."

Apr 13, 2004, 11:01 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
riciglia1 Molten Ash Location: Amherst, NY Posts: 57	If a wife kills her husband because he beat her again and again (this is just thought i dont know of a case where this happens off the top of my head) and gets off in court, is that justifiable? Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC), The Bacchae, circa 407 B.C.

Apr 13, 2004, 11:14 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RightThinker Molten Ash Location: St. Thomas U. S. V. I. Posts: 146	Not if she plans it and kills him. That is pre-meditation and that murderer should be prosecuted. A judge could take her problems into consideration at sentencing. Now if she kills him while he is beating her then that is a totally different story. We can't allow vigilantes to get away with murder. That is why we have police stations and womens shelters. If we let her get away with it what is to stop the next wife that is just cheating on her husband and wants to get rid of him from killing her man and claiming he beat her? "This country was founded and built by people with great dreams and the courage to take great risks." -Ronald Reagan- January 26, 1983

Apr 13, 2004, 11:32 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
riciglia1 Molten Ash Location: Amherst, NY Posts: 57	yeah but in some cases the women do it in an instant after they snap, no pregonition or anything. just slap, snap, stab. period. Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Euripides (484 BC - 406 BC), The Bacchae, circa 407 B.C.

Apr 14, 2004, 07:21 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	Depends on what you mean by "snapping". Like right said, that should be taken in to consideration in sentencing. Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary

Apr 14, 2004, 09:59 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
mojo_the_migo Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 90	Ditto, but law and order must be taken in to question. Meat tastes like murder and murder tastes pretty *** damn good - Denis Leary

Apr 14, 2004, 09:06 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	I agree, if it was pre-meditated it would be murder. A better question is what is she doing staying with an asshole that beats her on a regular basis? Why is he not in jail or force counseling?

Apr 14, 2004, 09:57 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	I dont know about the laws, but I can tell you that I see his death as no great loss.

Apr 15, 2004, 01:03 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (riciglia1,) If a wife kills her husband because he beat her again and again (this is just thought i dont know of a case where this happens off the top of my head) and gets off in court, is that justifiable?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yep, and it has happened many times... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 16, 2004, 09:56 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	If you kill someone after getting pissed (and within the immediate area/time period) it can be argued as manslaughter. One of my friends killed this Indian guy after the Indian was found beating up his girlfriend, and he only got 5 years for manslaughter. I think the Indian guy was beating her with intent to kill (explains the baseball bat, gloves, balaclava, and gun). However if you plan it, the court isnt as sympathetic. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Apr 16, 2004, 01:11 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	There's been a debate on this subject in most countries for several years. Generally Battered Wife Syndrome has been recognized as a psychological medical condition that can result in violent behaviour towards and attacker. Most countries (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and more) have Justifiable Homicide laws on the books, these laws are directly related to self-defense statutes but generally stipulate that the danger must be immidate and life threatening. There is a movement to on two fronts: First many juridictions do not allow testimony of spousal abuse in a murder / manslaughter trial where a woman has killed her spouse. Second, many organizations would like to see evidence of Batterd Wife Syndrome not only admitted as a mitigating factor (reduces sentencing time) but as a defence (possible explanation that can result in a not-guilty charge). The irony is that women still face longer sentences on average for killing men than men for killing women (source: Upper Canada Law Society). Attorney General in Seattle Cynthia Gilliespie in her book Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense and the Law she argues for a reiview of the above legal disconnect especially considering the longer sentences usually issued to women who cannot entre Battered Wife Syndrome into defense arguments. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Apr 16, 2004, 03:06 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	battered fish is better than battered wives... what to do with the hush puppies? "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Apr 16, 2004, 04:50 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	There are some cases where the man will NOT let go. She can leave, she can run, she can hide. But he WILL find and kill her. It has happened so often there are programs like witness protection for women to go into and STILL the husband will find her. In these cases, she has no choice but to kill or be killed. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Apr 16, 2004, 05:44 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mia,) There are some cases where the man will NOT let go. She can leave, she can run, she can hide. But he WILL find and kill her. It has happened so often there are programs like witness protection for women to go into and STILL the husband will find her. In these cases, she has no choice but to kill or be killed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You make it out that those husbands are like trained killer assassin types, but maybe the law does need to be firmer on these events. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Apr 16, 2004, 06:12 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	Well, you guys are talking about imprisoning these women. You have to think about it. What threat does she pose to society? I'd say none. She killed her abusive husband, which to me shows she had to have tolerated a lot of abuse before she even resorted to killing him. Second, is it not in self defense if he was going to hit her again? How many times does the man come home and say "Hunny, I realized the errors of my ways and I am going to stop hitting you." and then she kills him. So can she only kill him when he is in the process of hitting her? Because he is constantly in the process of abusing her, hitting her or not. Frankly, if I was on the Jury case to her murder, I'd say she was innocent.

Apr 18, 2004, 10:28 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Mozart1220 Igneous Magma Posts: 687	My Dad used to beat my Mom regularly, and my brother and I as well. He died in 1966 and my Mom, who is now 73 still suffers the effects. The bastard is better off dead. Big Jr is watching you!

Apr 18, 2004, 02:01 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	The amazing thing is that it is only recently that testimony of spousal abuse was permissible in child custody hearings. Many women (perhaps like the mother above) did not leave abusive marriages because they would have nothing financially, and when the court heard testimony for custody, the father would be in a better position to support the children financially and the court would not allow testimony on spousal abuse, which in something like 90% of cases later results in child abuse. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.