Lavallee's Case

Intimate partner violence has been a significant issue for centuries in all countries. "Since 1974, nearly 2,600 spousal homicides have been recorded in Canada" (Bunge, 2002). Of these homicides, more than three-quarters have been against women. Although through feminism and the women's liberation movement, there has been a slight improvement in the incidences of violence against women, there has also been a drastic change in the perception of the issue by society. After reviewing the most recent literature on violence against women and victimization through intimate partners, it has become prevalent that there are now two crucial stances that are taken. The first position is that of the women being victimized as the

Tanya Mitchell frantically called 911 to report a shooting-a shooting she committed. In an act of self-defense against her abusive husband who, at the time, was threatening to kill her, she did what she had to do to save her own life. From her reports, her husband was not only abusive, but that he gave men in his “motorcycle club” permission to gang rape her-while he watched. Specific example of his sadistic abuse include him telling her they were going to get married while holding her at gunpoint, making her play Russian roulette, and even trying to rip off her nails. Her attorneys were going to use Battered Woman Syndrome (to take her psychological health based off of her abuse) as a factor in the case but were not confident it would

The law today is far too lenient upon men who abuse and kill their wives and claim ‘provocation’ to lessen the charge. Women are constantly beaten by their partners and some kept prisoners in their own home and eventually killed. In the case R.v. Thornton the defendant was a battered wife who killed her husband. Her husband after threatening her, the husband fell asleep, she went to the kitchen and returned with a knife stabbing him while he was asleep.

For centuries domestic violence has been perceived as a private matter private of which the government has not been concerned about nor was it considered the government’s business to intervene on behalf of a battered spouse. The unlawful nature of this failure for state or federal government intervention against this crime contributed to the systematic abuse of women in the family. The traditions, customs, and common law found in both British and American societies continued right up until the last decade of the 20th century and left the battered wives and very frequently, her children, at the mercy of the husband. It wasn’t until the 1990’s when the government began to do something to protect mothers, wives, and lovers from intimate

Because woman strike back at their abusers; battered woman’s syndrome has been used in courts as a plea when their actions were believed to be in self-defense (Hodell et. al, 2011). And when a battered woman kills her abuser, they must convince a jury of the rationality of her lethal actions to successfully advance a plea of self-defense (Schuller et al., 2004). When jurors believe that under the given circumstances a defendant’s behavior was justified under the law a jury can find a defendant not guilty by reason of self-defense (Hodell et al., 2011). Recent research in case’s of self-defense suggest that when using the battered women’s syndrome certain characteristics of the defendant could interfere with the accused sentencing (Russell, Ragatz, & Kraus, 2012).

Domestic Homicide is the killing of one person by another within the household. Many cases of domestic homicide take place each year. A third of all murders are committed by women. There is also a forty-one percent chance that a woman was the murderer in a spouse murder trial (Dawson 1). Women should have their cases taken seriously and not with sympathy just because they are smaller and weaker than their counterpart. There are Laws and Protection Orders provided throughout the United States, so women should not have to deal with any type of violence or abuse. If they aren’t treated with violence, then there shouldn’t be any reason for women to try to kill their abusive husband. Women should be tried for murder of their

Lavallee was a women that was abused by her significant other. Women all over the world are abused by their significant others, but only some women actually speak up and do something about it. Obviously killing a person is not the way to solve a problem. In this case Lavallee felt like if she didn’t kill or shoot Rust, he would have ended her life. The outcome of the court’s decision was appropriate to the fact that Lavallee suffered from battered women syndrome.

(Battered Woman's Syndrome). If it is confusing because BWS is not a legal defense but the

According to Senior Senator Dianne Feinstein, "Domestic violence causes far more pain than the visible marks of bruises and scars. It is devastating to be abused by someone that you love and think loves you in return. It is estimated that approximately 3 million incidents of domestic violence are reported each year in the United States." It is because I agree with Senator Feinstein, that domestic violence must be stopped, that I must affirm the resolution. A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence. My value for this round is that of Justice, defined as Retributive Justice. For justice to be served,

Domestic violence became a realization and a serious concern in the mid 1970’s for many Americans. “This realization is due to the women advocating on behalf of the battered women movement”

The appellant’s second submission concerned the way the judge in the first instance referenced sudden and temporary loss of self-control to the jury in the direction. The appellant submitted that this direction was incorrect. He also proposed that the learned Judge’s direction regarding the appellant’s characteristics in an attempt to use the model set by Lord Diplock in DPP v Camplin. The counsel for the appellant criticized the learned judges direction on two grounds: Firstly, that the Judge did not mention that the appellant was suffering from a condition known as the battered woman’s syndrome which so affected her personality that it put her in a state of learnt helplessness. Secondly, that the list of characteristics should have been left open so that the jury may pick up on the fact that she suffered from a

In order for the Battered Woman Syndrome claim to be used expert testimony is essential. This is needed in order to give matter to the argument that justifies what the woman did. It is also needed because there needs to be an explanation of the Syndrome to juries, in away they can understand. Learned helplessness and other scientific knowledge need to be explained in order for the jury to understand. To understand what the woman is going through, what she was thinking at the time she committed the crime, and that she did it (murder her abuser) it because she honestly felt that it was the only solution in getting the “cycle of violence”. First, the women must show that she is able to prove either through her own testimony or through the testimony of other witnesses that she is a “battered woman”. She must then provide proof that the expert who she has chosen is qualified in the field. Some think that the defense based on Battered Woman Syndrome is an insanity defense, because of the experts who are brought in to explain the characteristics of the syndrome, psychologists or psychiatrists. Also because the word “syndrome” is often used to describe mental illnesses. “First her husband, now the courts”, is what one of the signs read at a march during

Domestic violence used to be considered a private family matter and was not considered a societal problem until feminists in the 70's started pushing the matter. Beginning in the 1970’s, social policy toward female victims of domestic assaults focused on improving legal response and

The subject of husband-battering had finally been addressed, but not to the great satisfaction of anyone. Although it had finally been shown that there was violence being perpetrated both by wives and husbands, there was no information about relative frequency or severity, or who initiated the abuse and who was acting in self defense. Furthermore, some researchers became concerned that the use of police or social services references in choosing subjects to study might be biasing the results. In short, they recognized that battered husbands might be nearly invisible next to their female counterparts.

On the original hearing, Ahluwalia was convicted of murder as the law on provocation required the loss of self control to be immediate, not premeditated and this may have been the case as the defendant waited for her husband to sleep before murdering him. However, the law has since developed and provocation now recognises 'battered woman's syndrome' and the slow burn effect it may cause. If this is the case, then surely a defendant in such a situation cannot face the full wrath of 'fault' when much of what surrounded the killing was not out of their choice. Even though the actus reus and mens rea in this case, and also similar cases of R v Duffy 1949 and R v Thornton 1992, were present, the law's introduction of a Domestic Violence Bill is perhaps confirmation that the concept of fault can only be appropriately applied when the full circumstances are looked at. This signifies the importance of defences, as it is here that the law can decide whether or not a person is to blame for their actions and to what extent it was their fault that the actus reus and mens rea were