[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Title:	Topics of Interest to Women
Notice:	V3 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:	REGENT::BROOMHEAD

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1078
Total number of notes:	52352

730.0. "When Battered Women Kill (AP feature)" by SA1794::CHARBONND (You're hoping the sun won't rise) Thu Mar 14 1991 19:36

From the Sunday Republican, 3-10-91

New legitimacy for battered woman syndrome
==========================================

With the governors of two states granting clemency to dozens of
women accused of killing their mates, attention has focused on
the "battered woman syndrome" as a plea of self-defense. And 
that raises some thorny questions. Is a woman really acting in
self-defense if, say, she kills her husband while he is asleep?

By Kay Bartlett

AP Newsfeatures Writer

  New York - (AP) - Richard Celeste, Ohio's outgoing governor, may have 
sparked a bigger chain reaction than anyone foresaw when he granted 
clemency to 26 battered women serving time for killing their boy-
friends or husbands.
  He reviewed the cases of more than 100 women last December and decided
these 26 had acted in self-defense.
  Women's advocacy groups hailed his action as courageous and said it should
set a precedent for all governors. Prosecutors protested that Celeste
may have just as well posted a sign announcing, "Open season on men."
  Sue Ostoff of the National Clearing House for Battered Women in
Philadelphia countered that it was time to put an end on open season on
women and children.
  The debate focused attention on "battered woman syndrome" as a 
self-defense plea, a defense that has been around for over a decade,
but one some attorneys did not even know existed, much less know how to 
use.
  In late February, Maryland's Governor William Schaefer commuted the 
cases of eight incarcerated women and commuted the sentences on the 
basis that they acted in self-defense. Rep. Constance Morella, R-Md., a 
champion of women's rights, invited Schaefer to speak at the Maryland 
Correctional facility.

				* * *

  According to statistics gathered by Morella, a woman is beaten in her 
home every 15 seconds. At least four women are murdered by their husbands 
or boyfriends every day. Every year, 3 million to 4 million women are
assaulted by their spouses.
  Morella has introduced three bills in Congress dealing with domestic 
violence and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., has introduced in the Senate a 
sweeping bill directed at violence against women.
  It was ironic that Ohio WA one of the few states that had neither 
precedent nor law dealing with the battered woman syndrome as a self-defense 
plea before 1990. before that, only two states, Missouri and Louisiana, 
had laws specifically allowing the plea, the introduction of the expert 
witness, and testimony backing up the charges of battering.
  The rest, except for Wyoming, relied on precedent in a rather unequal 
way. Some judges used their discretion to reject the testimony and,
unless the attorney was prepared to appeal it, it may die right there.
  Others were tougher.
  "In Florida, no judge would try that," says Kathleen Haugue, assistant
district attorney in Miami. "Everyone was aware of the precedent."
  Wyoming is the only state without a clear-cut precedent.
  "We didn't get many of those cases out here," says an assistant district
attorney. In one case that did reach the Wyoming high court, it was ruled 
that the issue was not applicable.
 
				* * *

  California and Texas are likely to pass statutes soon. In the last 
session of the Texas Legislature, the bill passed both houses unanimously,
but was vetoed by the governor.
  Now, with Governor Ann Richards in office, the bill's sponsors have
high hopes. In California, the sponsors themselves pulled the bill out 
of committee to amend parts of it. It is expected to sail through.
  Osthoff says other states, including New York, Washington, Arizona,
and Texas are also considering reviewing cases for clemency.
  Women's rights groups estimate that about 800 women now in prison
should have their cases reviewed,
  This is not to say all would walk. Celeste granted clemency to only 
about one fourth of those he investigated. It must be remembered that
a battered woman does not have a license to murder. She may or may not 
have a case  of self-defense, a self-defense that at first looks like 
murder.
  Many now serving time, however, were tried before the "battered woman 
syndrome" was admissible. Others were tried in states before there were 
laws or precedents. Still others may not have even told their attorneys
they had been battered.
  Those who grew up in violent households may have seen the beatings as 
a normal part of marriage and may not have mentioned it to the lawyer. 
They themselves viewed their actions as a way to stop the beatings and 
were willing to go to jail to end them.
  Even today, there are women who are being convicted who probably would
be acquitted, or perhaps not even brought to trial, if all the facts were
brought out first and if they got the right lawyer.

				* * *


  It's a difficult decision for the defendants. Should they plea bargain
or gamble that a jury will believe that theirs was a case of self-defense.
  They risk a life sentence,  maybe even a death sentence, if they lose 
on a self-defense plea.
  One of the reasons the sentences tend to be harsh is that the battered 
woman who fears for her life finds it necessary to overpower her tormentor 
on a physical level.
  A high percentage use guns, which, it can be argued, equals the odds.
Men can beat women to death with their fists. Women rarely have such
an option.
  If she chooses to use a gun, she cannot risk a violent husband disarming
her. So she may starting when he is most vulnerable - asleep, with his back 
turned, or when he is drunk.
  Nonetheless, an armed person shooting an unarmed one usually brings
the state's most serious charges, such as aggravated murder.
  She also almost always empties the gun.
  "They are so afraid, feel so powerless,and believe he is omnipotent
and about to rise up at any time and beat them that they keep shooting,
even when it would be clear to most people that the first bullet has 
killed him," says Dr. Lenore Walker of Denver.
  In "The Burning Bed," a movie starring Farrah Fawcett in which the 
battered wife takes the kids and kills her husband by pouring gasoline 
around his bed and igniting it, the jury finds her innocent by reason of 
temporary insanity.
  The "battered woman syndrome" takes a different tack. It attempts to 
put the jurors in the woman's shoes and demonstrate that her perception 
of imminent death or serious bodily harm is reasonable and sane. thus,
shooting the husband, or live-in boyfriend was not only a sane and 
reasonable thing to do, but a matter of self-defense, even if she shot
him while he was asleep.
  lawyers say these cases may be easier to win on a temporary insanity
plea in states where that plea is admissible, but they say that is
missing the issue. They, and the expert witnesses they call in, argue that
the woman has become so terrorized, so brainwashed by years of beatings,
that she believes her life is in imminent danger at all times.

				* * *

  The experts say she really doesn't want to kill the man. She just 
wants the beatings to stop, but that is the only way she knows to 
accomplish that end.
  "It is not an insane act," Walker says. "I feel it is often the 
sanest thing she has ever done."
  Walker and other well-known expert witnesses, such as Cynthia A. 
Gillespie of Seattle, say some women tell them their husbands had
threatened to kill them for years. So why did they finally take action?
  "They just do. There is something different in the way he said it,
in the look in his eyes. They are convinced he means it this time,"
Gillespie says.
  Prosecutor Haugue in Miami doesn't agree that a snoring man is
an imminent threat.
  "A pre-emptive strike is murder, no matter what the circumstances,"
she says.
  Haugue has tried eight such cases in Florida in the last three 
years. There are others she would not even bring to trial since they 
were obviously self-defense and in some others she recommended a
suspended sentence.
  "I got five convictions and the jury walked three," she says. "I
don't think the cases against the three who were acquitted were
weaker, I just think the jurors took such pity on those women and what
they had been through, they just let them go. They ignored the law 
and let their hearts take over."
 Walker says the killing must be viewed in context. A jury must 
understand what it is like to live a life under siege, to understand 
that to a battered woman, the threat was both real and imminent.
  "She is so terrified, she fully expects him to get up at any
moment," says Dr. Angela Browne of Boston, a psychologist and 
researcher. "It is also why the women are often charged with what-
ever the state will allow, things like aggravated murder."
  The experts also must always explain away the questions that
seem reasonable to those not living under this dread. 
  Why didn't she just leave? Why didn't she call the police?
  The answers to those questions rest in a deeper problem - domestic
violence - the experts say.
  The woman may not have left because she tried before and was severely
beaten. Statistically more women are killed when they make a run for 
it than at any other time.
  Economic considerations may be another deterrent. She literally has 
no where to go. By leaving she may also forfeit the right to her
children or put them in danger.
  Why don't they call the police?
  Domestic violence gets low priority in most police departments. Too
many women refuse to press charges if the police do act, some perhaps
out of fear.

				* * * 
 
  Far more men than women kill their spouses or lovers each year. The men
kill at a rate of almost 1,500 a year in the US, while women kill at
a rate of 500 to 750 a year. It is estimated that 40 percent of those  
are self-defense, but experts such as Angela Browne suspect that is a 
low figure. Men rarely kill in self-defense in spousal homicide.
  Louise Ann Bauschard, executive director of Women's Infinity Network
in St. Louis, says that new inmates often tell her that they finally
feel safe. It is only when they are behind bars that the fear leaves them.

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
730.1	yes!	TLE::DBANG::carroll	get used to it!	`Thu Mar 14 1991 20:35`	7
	What about a battered child syndrome? If a woman is brainwashed by the beatings, and believes that the only way to stop them is through killing, then surely a child, who has always known the beatings since s/he was a baby, is even more brainwashed? D!
730.2		MAMTS5::MWANNEMACHER	let us pray to Him	`Wed Mar 20 1991 20:17`	10
	We people here in Maryland know that good old William Donald Schaeffer has lost quite a few of his marbles. But that's besides the point. Getting beat is no justification for murder. Get out of the situation and have the son of a gun locked up. PEace, Mike
730.3	Oof!	BUBBLY::LEIGH	Bear with me.	`Wed Mar 20 1991 21:10`	2
	I'm not going to try to get anyone locked anyone up, but I am going to get out of this topic...
730.4		SA1794::CHARBONND	You're hoping the sun won't rise	`Thu Mar 21 1991 09:48`	7
	re.2 Unfortunately 'get out of the situation' isn't so simple, for reasons the article mentions. (I used to wonder, "Why not just leave?" myself.) The argument is not simply that 'getting beat' is justification for murder, but that _repeated_ beating, abuse that accumulates and convinces a person she is in grave danger, is.
730.5		WRKSYS::STHILAIRE	When I think about you...	`Thu Mar 21 1991 12:00`	9
	re .2, .4, I agree that beating, especially repeated beatings, can be justification for murder. I'm small enough that almost any man who beat me up could kill me. Keeping that in mind, I always figured that if any guy ever did beat me up and I lived through it, that I'd kill him later. Even if it meant having Nancy B. teach me how to use a gun!!! Lorna
730.6		BOOKS::BUEHLER		`Thu Mar 21 1991 13:49`	13
	.2 I saw the tape of the woman who had "gotten out of the situation," had her husband incarcerated (locked up); and then when he was released for the weekend, he went back and kicked her and beat her to death in front of the neighbors and children and police with the butt end of his rifle. So let's talk again getting out of the situation and locking the guy up. Yeah, right.
730.7	gotcha Lorna ;-)	DCL::NANCYB		`Fri Mar 22 1991 01:24`	26
	re:.5 (Lorna St.Hilaire) > Keeping that in mind, I always figured that > if any guy ever did beat me up and I lived through it, that I'd kill > him later. Even if it meant having Nancy B. teach me how to use a gun!!! Lorna, I had to reply to this just in case you ever delete .5 so there's still a record of your last sentence ;-) ;-) ;-). > I agree that beating, especially repeated beatings, can be > justification for murder. I'm small enough that almost any man who > beat me up could kill me. I've heard Massad Ayoob (author of _The Truth About Self-Protection_) describe a case in Miami where he was the expert witness for a woman accused by the state of Florida of murdering her husband. (I believe she borrowed a neighbor's gun when she was living alone after they separated.) He described the battered woman's syndrome and justified her actions based her ex-'s (separated) threats that he would kill her. He nearly did through beatings before. I wish I remembered more of the details; Ayoob told quite a chilling story. The woman was acquitted. nancy b.
730.8		WRKSYS::STHILAIRE	When I think about you...	`Fri Mar 22 1991 12:03`	6
	re .7, wondered what you'd have to say about that! ;-) I know, you're thinking why doesn't she just learn now?! Lorna
730.9		USWRSL::SHORTT_LA	Total Eclipse of the Heart	`Fri Mar 22 1991 21:57`	12
	In a way I agree with .2. I was there and I got out. But, then he didn't threaten me after I moved 800 miles away. However, I would have joyfully killed him on many occasions and gone to jail for it. And I would have done it at night while he slept. Like Lorna, I'm small enough that killing me wouldn't have been a problem for him. L.J.
730.10	Have the abuser locked up--by whom?	TOOK::PURPL::TWEXLER		`Mon Mar 25 1991 20:12`	29
	>" Getting beat is no justification for murder. Get out of the situation > and have the son of a gun locked up. > > > PEace, > > Mike " Well... Men who beat their female partners do not go to jail ... The rare exception, I am quite certain, is out in less than two years (the average term for a convicted rapist). And, I am certain it doesn't matter whether the items used in the beating were fists, boots, sledge hammers, or oak chairs... or whether the woman had several ribs broken on the occasion of the attack..., ie, or whether the woman came close to death the last time. Also, keep in mind that once the woman attempts to try the process through the court system, it will likely be one to two YEARS before the trial... and her abusive partner will be free and available... None too happy, I'ld imagine. Getting out of the situation, particularly if there are children and the woman has no means of supporting them alone, or has been hunted down previously... is not a possible option for some. Some reach the point where fear dominates their lives... and incapacites them. The answers to this are not as simple as you suggest, Mike. I wish they were. Tamar
730.11	Child beating?	DUCK::SMITHS2		`Thu Mar 28 1991 10:47`	14
	I wonder whether the defence would hold up if a woman killed her husband/lover because of the beatings he was giving her/their children? I've seen a couple of cases recently where a father/boyfriend has killed a little child and the mother hasn't stopped him (through fear?), but what if she did try to stop him and killed him in the process? I should hope that that would be just as good a defence but I'm not so sure ... Sam
730.12	it never went to trial	NOVA::FISHER	It's Spring	`Thu Mar 28 1991 10:53`	4
	I think I just heard of a case like that. The prosecutor didn't bother to take it to trial though. I'll see if I can find more info. ed
730.13		SA1794::CHARBONND	You're hoping the sun won't rise	`Thu Mar 28 1991 12:06`	2
	re.11 By law you are allowed to use force in defense of yourself or of anyone entitled to your protection.
730.14		TOOK::LEIGH	Bear with me.	`Thu Mar 28 1991 12:14`	7
	I reacted quickly to .11 and .12 with "Oh, sure, the prosecutor probably realized that it would be hard to convict a woman of homicide for protecting her children, even against their father." But killing to protect herself... that's not so easy to defend? I think that says a lot about the status of women in our legal system (and our society).
730.15		SA1794::CHARBONND	You're hoping the sun won't rise	`Thu Mar 28 1991 15:13`	13
	RE .14 It is hard to defend oneself against a charge of murder unless one is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily harm. That is, one is being threatened by someone who has demonstrated both the willingness and immediate ability to hurt. A sleeping wife-beater may indeed be a threat, but it is damned hard to communicate this to a jury. My personal belief is that a woman who feels she must attack her abusive spouse while he is asleep is better off copping a plea of temporary insanity. (Unless she is fairly certain that the 'battered wife syndrome' will hold up in court.) dana
730.16	License to kill????	LEDS::LEWICKE	Redneck in training	`Thu Apr 18 1991 18:15`	15
	Are people saying her that it is OK for any abused woman to murder her husband? Do people think that a politically motivated governor can decide guilt or innocence more fairly than a jury which has listened to all of the evidence in the case and can consider both the evidence and the likelihood that the woman may have had little choice? Self defense has always been a valid defense, and I am sure that juries would listen to it even before it was dignified by the term "battered woman defense". Is it safe for any husband who has been seen to argue/fight with his wife to remain anywhere near said wife? If frinsance Pamela Smart could demonstrate that her husband had once been in some way abusive would that justify her crime? Would anyone prefer to live in a society where guilt or inocence is decided on the basis of what has happened in some other well publicized cases rather than the facts of the case at hand?
730.17		SA1794::CHARBONND	You're hoping the sun won't rise	`Thu Apr 18 1991 18:42`	8
	re.16 Normally lethal 'self-defense' is only justifiable when one is in _immediate_ danger of death or grave bodily harm. The point of this 'syndrome' is that these women feel they are in such danger even though their abuser is asleep. Apparently many states have concluded that this is valid. The governor in question lives in a state where there is no such presumption, thus he felt he had to directly intervene using the powers of his office.
730.18		BTOVT::THIGPEN_S	Be The Falcon	`Thu Apr 18 1991 18:48`	20
	.16, ::lewicke, your points are well taken; dispensing in/justice from the executive branch is one of the things our government was designed to prevent, as a general rule. I think the key is "as a general rule" -- each of the branches serves as check on the other two. In this kind of case, the governor may have decided that the _law_ was insufficient in this kind of case. (I just zapped a long run-on sentence; bear with me...) In other words, there are under the law several degrees of murder and manslaughter, and any given killing is charged as one of those degrees of crime, depending on the motives, premeditation, and circumstances surrounding that killing. The jury hearing the trial is to consider what the law has to say about the charge in particular and the case under consideration -- those lines in courtroom scenes where the judge instructs the jury about the law as it applies to the facts of the case. It may be that the governor decided that the _law_ does not sufficiently consider all the motives etc (see above), and so those convicted were not given a fair shake by the system itself. Not pleading the case in either direction, just examining a possibility.
730.19		GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Thu Apr 18 1991 20:49`	12
	re .16, The governors decided that, had the juries been permitted to hear the battered women syndrome self defense plea, then they might have decided differently, as juries that have been permitted to hear the plea have done. [By "jury permitted to hear" I mean "the defense permitted to present that argument to the jury".] The governors were not overturning the verdicts of juries that had considered and rejected that argument. Dan
730.20	If it goes around, it can come around	NECSC::BARBER_MINGO		`Fri Apr 19 1991 19:25`	33
	I was given to understand that most abuses do not occur in public. I was also given to understand that they were ignored or hidden many times when they did sneak into the public. If the men who have been abusive in public have not been taken to jail... I think they SHOULD have something to think about. Consider the scenario: A man walks up to you, yells at you, and then punches you in the face in broad daylight. If there were witnesses, he could go to jail. Now imagine that you were told you had to live with that man. Also imagine that if you called the police, and requested that this man be arrested, they told you it was a family matter and they could not become involved. Now imagine that he threatens to do the same or worse to you the next time. He says he will find you and kill you if you leave. So the police will not help you. You are afraid to leave. You have been abused. You perceive it will be done again. You feel that the next time might REALLY be your life. What do YOU do? Do you feel YOU may be justified in removing the threat by any means? If not, what alternatives do you feel the above scenario affords? Cindi
730.21	Why have jury trials at all?	LEDS::LEWICKE	My other vehicle is a Caterpillar	`Fri May 03 1991 17:59`	14
	It is not at all difficult to conceive of a case in which a woman has been abused and/or threatened justifiably murders her abuser while he is sleeping. It is also not difficult to conceive a case in which a woman has been abused or threatened but does not perceive herself to be in any real danger and murders the abuser for gain or spite or the furniture. A jury seeing all of the evidence is likely to make the right decision. A governor doing what is effectively a data search that looks for: women who have murder husbands with some history of abuse, is very likely to release some genuine first degree murderers. To somehow grant the women in question retrials would be fair and reasonable. To grant them pardons based upon less evidence than was presented in court is an injustice, and a betrayal of our society. John
730.22	Think about it.	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Fri May 03 1991 19:17`	9
	Why, yes, John, it is possible to "conceive" that some of these desperate, terrified women who have spent so much of their lives in fear, degradation, and the hospital are not willing to kill someone to escape, but are willing to kill that very someone to make a few bucks. But is it sensible? Ann B.