Chinahand Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I have to say I am slightly unsettled by the proposed reforms concerning Murder. BBC LINK The press reports are focusing on wives who are abused over a sustained period of time and then pre-meditatedly murder their husbands to escape the abuse. If my understanding is correct I think this is totally the wrong approach. Society has to provide people an escape from abuse - shelters, support, the police. But I pretty firmly believe it is unacceptable for anybody who has failed to get this support to use this as an excuse for homicide. Society must attack the cause - women (and in a tiny tiny number of cases men) who are totally trapped in an abusive relationship - rather than allow the abused take matters into their own hand. I believe psychologists could make a stronger case that these people were driven insane by their abuse and hence they should be sectioned until it can be shown they recognise the wrong they have done and that society is no longer at risk of them relapsing if they are once again in a similar situation. I realise I may have an odd attitude, but I believe the law is responsible for punishing abusers and restricting their freedom to act within society; and if someone is at risk of attempting to kill them then that person should also be excluded from society. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Society has to provide people an escape from abuse - shelters, support, the police.Thoughts? I think you have to be realistic and say that in the case of a murdered spouse, that murder really was the last resort after everything else had failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted July 30, 2008 Author Share Posted July 30, 2008 I don't know - the Minister is giving the example of a wife who's terrified of her abusive husband. He's come home drunk and said when he wakes up he's going to do her. She decides to kill him as he sleeps. This isn't lashing out at the abusive so and so. Its cold deliberate killing when the victim isn't reacting to them. The threat to do her in is an assault - the police should be able to arrest him just on that - I find the idea that the wife's actions can be mitigated disturbing. It really doesn't seem the last resort to me at all which is why I find these proposals so disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I don't know - the Minister is giving the example of a wife who's terrified of her abusive husband. He's come home drunk and said when he wakes up he's going to do her. She decides to kill him as he sleeps. That's a bent example. She should just leave rather than kill him. You don't need preconception for murder as I recall? The threat to do her in is an assault - the police should be able to arrest him just on that - I find the idea that the wife's actions can be mitigated disturbing. It really doesn't seem the last resort to me at all which is why I find these proposals so disturbing. I'd like to see some better examples, some specific cases, but it's certainly an area where I often have a 'what the f..' moment. Even the recent local case was bizzare and anything that clarifies the law has to be an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 (and in a tiny tiny number of cases men) I think you don't realise how widespread the problem is. I also think you are a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Society must attack the cause - women You had the answer all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellemort Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I have to say I am slightly unsettled by the proposed reforms concerning Murder. BBC LINK The press reports are focusing on wives who are abused over a sustained period of time and then pre-meditatedly murder their husbands to escape the abuse. If my understanding is correct I think this is totally the wrong approach. Society has to provide people an escape from abuse - shelters, support, the police. But I pretty firmly believe it is unacceptable for anybody who has failed to get this support to use this as an excuse for homicide. Society must attack the cause - women (and in a tiny tiny number of cases men) who are totally trapped in an abusive relationship - rather than allow the abused take matters into their own hand. I believe psychologists could make a stronger case that these people were driven insane by their abuse and hence they should be sectioned until it can be shown they recognise the wrong they have done and that society is no longer at risk of them relapsing if they are once again in a similar situation. I realise I may have an odd attitude, but I believe the law is responsible for punishing abusers and restricting their freedom to act within society; and if someone is at risk of attempting to kill them then that person should also be excluded from society. Thoughts? I was disgusted by the interview that I saw as the excuse I didnt know what I was doing etc.. it has just given the green light for the male offender to use that excuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Take Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 As long as it's applied correctly (so relies on judges to direct the juries as such) I don't see a problem with the changes. It should be do-able to distinguish between a case of someone who has genuinely suffered over time to the extent that their rationalisation process has been so damaged that they can't make a clear judgement regarding taking another life and a case where someone is trying to exploit the law. I don't think that a single one of us who hasn't experienced long term systematic abuse can put ourselves in the shoes of someone who feels that murder is the only path to release. It's very easy to say 'she (or he) should just walk away' but that isn't a realistic possibility for some of these people - or their mental state is such that they are unable to see it as a possibility. These people are so damaged that they are convinced that wherever they go they will be found and that the abuse will never end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellemort Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 As long as it's applied correctly (so relies on judges to direct the juries as such) I don't see a problem with the changes. It should be do-able to distinguish between a case of someone who has genuinely suffered over time to the extent that their rationalisation process has been so damaged that they can't make a clear judgement regarding taking another life and a case where someone is trying to exploit the law. I don't think that a single one of us who hasn't experienced long term systematic abuse can put ourselves in the shoes of someone who feels that murder is the only path to release. It's very easy to say 'she (or he) should just walk away' but that isn't a realistic possibility for some of these people - or their mental state is such that they are unable to see it as a possibility. These people are so damaged that they are convinced that wherever they go they will be found and that the abuse will never end. I agree Having trained as domestic abuse counsellor, for many reasons women do not leave a violent relationship.however to have to rely on a judge/jury to understand the trauma suffered by the victim is why so many victims do not come forward or drop all the charges. Some do not even understand that they are in a destructive relationship and view their circumstances as normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I agree Having trained as domestic abuse counsellor, for many reasons women and men do not leave a violent relationship.however to have to rely on a judge/jury to understand the trauma suffered by the victim is why so many victims do not come forward or drop all the charges. Some do not even understand that they are in a destructive relationship and view their circumstances as normal. Let's have it correct please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I cant agree to say assault is acceptable, nor can i say that murder is acceptable. Surely the law is fine at present, murder proved with previous abuses taken as plea for mitigation. If this means time seved as a sentance then fine, no problem. Snag is we have innocent people, mainly men, shot to death by Govt agents and no crime commited, to allow a new law to legalise the violent killing of specifically men does seem so wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 I thought they already had this through Diminshed Responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 But the verdict would be guilty---due to diminished responsibility. I may be old fashioned but in my mind if someone dies due to the violent act of another then somebody should be taken to account. Men who hurt their wives and children, jail em then brand the tw@s on the forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartT Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 Anyone listen to Harriet Harpy's interview? I think she sends a very clear message that she percieves men as always being the demon in the cases, and of women being the innocents - eg in the case of adultery killing which is unnacceptable she casts the woman as an adulterer and the man as the murderer, while in the case of domestic violence she casts the man as the abuser and the woman as the victim. One has to question along with her proposed positive discrimination policies for the work place(designed to discriminate against men - but she doesn't see positive discrimination to encourage men into female dominated professions as equally desirable as discrimination in favour of women entering into male dominated ones) whether she is a fit individual to be occupying a position where she has the opportunity to influence new legislature. While we should have equality in society, what she seems to propose is just a reverse hierachy with men as a disadvantaged group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 "He was really horrible to me" seems like a good enough reason to kill someone to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.