Stabbing The Hubby

[Tea&Biscuits]

This type of thing is so complex and must be treated as individual, there are no hard and fast rules regarding this.

 

Spousal abuse is an invisable monster - people in that situation often dont realise until it could be too late (for the victim or the abuser). Therefore sometimes the "systems" that are put in place to deal with domestic abuse are often not viable. There is still so much stigma attached to domestic abuse.

 

It is all very well saying "well thye have no excuse to murder their abuser as there are systems in place" to me shows a real lack in understanding of domestic abuse. The fact that Chinahand states that these people who have killed in self defence (which is often extreme cases of ongoing terrible abuse) should be sectioned and locked away until they realise what they did is wrong is appauling to me to be honest. (they knew what they did was wrong) However I do understand there has to be a need for absolute assurance that some people may use self defence as an excuse.

 

I dont think anyone can judge on this type of situation until they have first hand experience. I unfortunatly know that when you are faced with any domestic abuse (whether it is aimed at you or someone you love) and you dont know what to do, where to get help, that there is a constant adrenalin fear in your heart, there is the shame, and there are often the well meaning "systems" "authorities" that just seem to make you feel worse, there is the confidence that that abuser has knocked out of you to make you think you need them etc, all of this rolled into one - if this goes on for years and years, one day there may be a possibility of snapping, and actually some people who have gone to this extreme measure have fought for their life. Does that mean then that they should be locked up for that?

 

While writing this I wonder what people would think of a child killing their abuser? Chinahand would your opinon still be the same? that the child be locked away and sectioned?

[Chinahand]

The fact that Chinahand states that these people who have killed in self defence (which is often extreme cases of ongoing terrible abuse) should be sectioned and locked away until they realise what they did is wrong is appauling to me to be honest. (they knew what they did was wrong) However I do understand there has to be a need for absolute assurance that some people may use self defence as an excuse.

 

Killed in self defence Sorry T&B but I honesty believe these issues are complex and the state must be very cautious about mitigating the seriousness of killing.

 

I am mainly looking at the example given - a drunk abuser returns home, tells the wife he's going to do her when he wakes up and falls asleep. She gets a knife and kills him in his sleep.

 

The Minister was saying that fear should be allowed as a mitigation and used this specific example. I was shocked by that. I do not think this is right. No matter what this monster has done the wife has clear opportunity to act to protect herself - to say when she cuts the throat of her abuser she is acting in self defence is in my mind to distort this massively important tennent of law too far.

 

I do think that if she is unable to escape from such a situation and does act that way then she must have been driven mad by the abuse and so can use madness as a mitigation, but that has to be her defence and not the starting point for the prosecutor who should start with the assumption that an act like this is murder.

 

I dont think anyone can judge on this type of situation until they have first hand experience.

 

Fine words, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. Judges, prosecuters, defence lawyers and expert witnesses in psychiatry etc do have to examine and make judgements on these types of cases without first hand experience.

 

Certainly specialist courts, and defence and prosecution teams are vital in ensuring justice, but society has to make judgements and to say that cannot be done is just too idealistic.

 

I unfortunatly know that when you are faced with any domestic abuse (whether it is aimed at you or someone you love) and you dont know what to do, where to get help, that there is a constant adrenalin fear in your heart, there is the shame, and there are often the well meaning "systems" "authorities" that just seem to make you feel worse, there is the confidence that that abuser has knocked out of you to make you think you need them etc, all of this rolled into one - if this goes on for years and years, one day there may be a possibility of snapping, and actually some people who have gone to this extreme measure have fought for their life. Does that mean then that they should be locked up for that?

 

I absolutely want to make sure that nobody lives in fear. Every community must have a shelter and systems set up so that people who fear abuse can be protected - that is the point society is responsible, people must not take these matters into their own hands.

 

When you say fought back I have to question what you mean - if you mean using self defence to escape from the actions of an abuser then the situation is very different from cutting the throat of a sleeping man - and the current law understands that. It is the change that concerns me.

 

While writing this I wonder what people would think of a child killing their abuser? Chinahand would your opinon still be the same? that the child be locked away and sectioned?

T&B my entire point is about criminal responsibility - a child doesn't have responsibility - if a woman has been so abused that she doesn't have responsibility then it is up to her defence to show that - I have no difficulty with that, but for the state to start with that premise in a case like the example given by the minister then I believe it is a step to far - I hope due to bad reporting of this matter.

[StuartT]

The fact that Chinahand states that these people who have killed in self defence (which is often extreme cases of ongoing terrible abuse) should be sectioned and locked away until they realise what they did is wrong is appauling to me to be honest. (they knew what they did was wrong) However I do understand there has to be a need for absolute assurance that some people may use self defence as an excuse.

 

Killed in self defence Sorry T&B but I honesty believe these issues are complex and the state must be very cautious about mitigating the seriousness of killing.

 

I am mainly looking at the example given - a drunk abuser returns home, tells the wife he's going to do her when he wakes up and falls asleep. She gets a knife and kills him in his sleep.

 

The Minister was saying that fear should be allowed as a mitigation and used this specific example. I was shocked by that. I do not think this is right. No matter what this monster has done the wife has clear opportunity to act to protect herself - to say when she cuts the throat of her abuser she is acting in self defence is in my mind to distort this massively important tennent of law too far.

 

I do think that if she is unable to escape from such a situation and does act that way then she must have been driven mad by the abuse and so can use madness as a mitigation, but that has to be her defence and not the starting point for the prosecutor who should start with the assumption that an act like this is murder.

 

I dont think anyone can judge on this type of situation until they have first hand experience.

 

Fine words, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. Judges, prosecuters, defence lawyers and expert witnesses in psychiatry etc do have to examine and make judgements on these types of cases without first hand experience.

 

Certainly specialist courts, and defence and prosecution teams are vital in ensuring justice, but society has to make judgements and to say that cannot be done is just too idealistic.

 

I unfortunatly know that when you are faced with any domestic abuse (whether it is aimed at you or someone you love) and you dont know what to do, where to get help, that there is a constant adrenalin fear in your heart, there is the shame, and there are often the well meaning "systems" "authorities" that just seem to make you feel worse, there is the confidence that that abuser has knocked out of you to make you think you need them etc, all of this rolled into one - if this goes on for years and years, one day there may be a possibility of snapping, and actually some people who have gone to this extreme measure have fought for their life. Does that mean then that they should be locked up for that?

 

I absolutely want to make sure that nobody lives in fear. Every community must have a shelter and systems set up so that people who fear abuse can be protected - that is the point society is responsible, people must not take these matters into their own hands.

 

When you say fought back I have to question what you mean - if you mean using self defence to escape from the actions of an abuser then the situation is very different from cutting the throat of a sleeping man - and the current law understands that. It is the change that concerns me.

 

While writing this I wonder what people would think of a child killing their abuser? Chinahand would your opinon still be the same? that the child be locked away and sectioned?

T&B my entire point is about criminal responsibility - a child doesn't have responsibility - if a woman has been so abused that she doesn't have responsibility then it is up to her defence to show that - I have no difficulty with that, but for the state to start with that premise in a case like the example given by the minister then I believe it is a step to far - I hope due to bad reporting of this matter.

 

I agree with Chinahand, if someone is in the mental state where they feel they have to plan an individuals murder while not in any immediate danger, then indeed they do need to be sectioned because clearly they are going to have some sort of mental health issues as a result of their experiences. In that way sectioning probably is a far better option than sending someone straight to jail or letting them off scot free for committing a murder out of fear of what the potential consequences may or may not have been if that murder was not committed.

 

Definitely some sort of mental health invovlement is a necessity and would serve to protect the individual involved and society as a whole from an individual who has actually committed a crime regardless of what their motives were.

 

Indeed that individual may well be in immediate danger from themselves - what if they felt a certain amount of regret and remorse for what they had done and attempted to commit suicide for their actions?

 

Or what if they went on to kill a non violent partner because they felt that something reminded them of being in a situation with their violent partner?

[StuartT]

The fact that Chinahand states that these people who have killed in self defence (which is often extreme cases of ongoing terrible abuse) should be sectioned and locked away until they realise what they did is wrong is appauling to me to be honest. (they knew what they did was wrong) However I do understand there has to be a need for absolute assurance that some people may use self defence as an excuse.

 

Killed in self defence Sorry T&B but I honesty believe these issues are complex and the state must be very cautious about mitigating the seriousness of killing.

 

I am mainly looking at the example given - a drunk abuser returns home, tells the wife he's going to do her when he wakes up and falls asleep. She gets a knife and kills him in his sleep.

 

The Minister was saying that fear should be allowed as a mitigation and used this specific example. I was shocked by that. I do not think this is right. No matter what this monster has done the wife has clear opportunity to act to protect herself - to say when she cuts the throat of her abuser she is acting in self defence is in my mind to distort this massively important tennent of law too far.

 

I do think that if she is unable to escape from such a situation and does act that way then she must have been driven mad by the abuse and so can use madness as a mitigation, but that has to be her defence and not the starting point for the prosecutor who should start with the assumption that an act like this is murder.

 

I dont think anyone can judge on this type of situation until they have first hand experience.

 

Fine words, but hopelessly out of touch with reality. Judges, prosecuters, defence lawyers and expert witnesses in psychiatry etc do have to examine and make judgements on these types of cases without first hand experience.

 

Certainly specialist courts, and defence and prosecution teams are vital in ensuring justice, but society has to make judgements and to say that cannot be done is just too idealistic.

 

I unfortunatly know that when you are faced with any domestic abuse (whether it is aimed at you or someone you love) and you dont know what to do, where to get help, that there is a constant adrenalin fear in your heart, there is the shame, and there are often the well meaning "systems" "authorities" that just seem to make you feel worse, there is the confidence that that abuser has knocked out of you to make you think you need them etc, all of this rolled into one - if this goes on for years and years, one day there may be a possibility of snapping, and actually some people who have gone to this extreme measure have fought for their life. Does that mean then that they should be locked up for that?

 

I absolutely want to make sure that nobody lives in fear. Every community must have a shelter and systems set up so that people who fear abuse can be protected - that is the point society is responsible, people must not take these matters into their own hands.

 

When you say fought back I have to question what you mean - if you mean using self defence to escape from the actions of an abuser then the situation is very different from cutting the throat of a sleeping man - and the current law understands that. It is the change that concerns me.

 

While writing this I wonder what people would think of a child killing their abuser? Chinahand would your opinon still be the same? that the child be locked away and sectioned?

T&B my entire point is about criminal responsibility - a child doesn't have responsibility - if a woman has been so abused that she doesn't have responsibility then it is up to her defence to show that - I have no difficulty with that, but for the state to start with that premise in a case like the example given by the minister then I believe it is a step to far - I hope due to bad reporting of this matter.

 

I agree with Chinahand, if someone is in the mental state where they feel they have to plan an individuals murder while not in any immediate danger, then indeed they do need to be sectioned because clearly they are going to have some sort of mental health issues as a result of their experiences. In that way sectioning probably is a far better option than sending someone straight to jail or letting them off scot free for committing a murder out of fear of what the potential consequences may or may not have been if that murder was not committed.

 

Definitely some sort of mental health invovlement is a necessity and would serve to protect the individual involved and society as a whole from an individual who has actually committed a crime regardless of what their motives were.

 

Indeed that individual may well be in immediate danger from themselves - what if they felt a certain amount of regret and remorse for what they had done and attempted to commit suicide for their actions?

 

Or what if they went on to kill a non violent partner because they felt that something reminded them of being in a situation with their violent partner?

 

Curious also what burden of proof is there on the defendant if they use the potential violence of a partner as a defence? Does it have to be beyond reasonable doubt or not?

 

Indeed what would you say the appropriate actions would be for an individual who is murdered who has a temper but has never actually been physically violent to their partner if their partner then turned round and said "well they never actually hit or threatened me during the relationship, but I felt like I was in danger on this occasion and therefore felt I had no option but to kill or be killed"?

[Miss Take]

Indeed what would you say the appropriate actions would be for an individual who is murdered who has a temper but has never actually been physically violent to their partner if their partner then turned round and said "well they never actually hit or threatened me during the relationship, but I felt like I was in danger on this occasion and therefore felt I had no option but to kill or be killed"?

 

I don't understand the question - there is no defence in this particular situation. They haven't sustained long term abuse leading to their mental condition to be such that they feel killing their partner to be the only option and they are not in immediate physical danger leading to a genuine 'kill or be killed' situation.

[Domino]

I absolutely want to make sure that nobody lives in fear. Every community must have a shelter and systems set up so that people who fear abuse can be protected

 

I think we all know the answer to this is quite simple, these shelters are full of women who just wouldn't do as they were told. If they did, they wouldn't be in them, and there wouldn't be any need for them and we could all have a bit of peace.

[StuartT]

Indeed what would you say the appropriate actions would be for an individual who is murdered who has a temper but has never actually been physically violent to their partner if their partner then turned round and said "well they never actually hit or threatened me during the relationship, but I felt like I was in danger on this occasion and therefore felt I had no option but to kill or be killed"?

 

I don't understand the question - there is no defence in this particular situation. They haven't sustained long term abuse leading to their mental condition to be such that they feel killing their partner to be the only option and they are not in immediate physical danger leading to a genuine 'kill or be killed' situation.

 

At the moment the law allows for that. However the proposal is that the law be changed to allow premeditated murder to be mitigated for because the individual felt that they were in physical danger - ie an abused wife cutting the throat of her sleeping husband after years of abuse can be used as mitigating circumstances which is something the present law would not allow for. Therefore is it really that far a leap from that to an individual claiming that although they had not previously been physically abused that they felt their life was in real danger in this particular instance?

[manshimajin]

It seems a dangerous move to create opportunities to bring the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought under the heading of manslaughter. On the other hand it would make sense to allow more latitude in sentencing IF there was incontravertable evidence that a person had been put into a state of very great personal fear by the person they killed. This would be for a jury to decide on the evidence presented. They could then advise the judge acordingly for sentencing.

 

I understand that the majority of murders are committed within families not by total strangers so this proposed change in legislation could affect a high percentage of all murder trials.

 

Also it would be sensible not to promote this as a gender related issue as wives kill husbands and husbands kill wives.