Sudden Anger and Founding a Partial Defense to Murder Essay

Capital Punishment is an issue that has been argued over from the dinner table in

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).

The Law Commission had proposed removing the loss of control criteria completely. This was because it was recognised that women in abusive relationships may kill from a combination of anger fear, frustration and a sense of desperation. The government decided not to follow this proposal. D must prove loss of self-control. The only concession is that loss of control need not be sudden. It is probable that some abused women will not be able to use the defence.

To be found guilty of first degree murder, it must be proven that killed someone with malice aforethought, meaning it was planned, premeditated. First degree murder is to kill malevolence, to kill either intentionally and deliberately or recklessly with the utmost disregard for human life. Premeditation may be fashioned immediately and does not require a lengthy period of contemplation. The death penalty is recognized in Thirty-eight states. Capital first-degree murder or aggravated first-degree murder is categorized in killings viewed as deserving of capital punishment. Life imprisonment or death penalty is the punishment resulted in a conviction. States who do not recognized the death penalty, aggravated murder carries life imprisonment.

Walker’s Battered Woman Syndrome sought to explain the actions of an abuse victim who fought back and killed her attacker in the process. It suggests that a woman in this situation was justified in killing her abuser as a result of the circumstances she found herself in. This meant that any woman had tools with which to defend herself in the courtroom, and that any reasonable woman would use force in such circumstances when presented with the opportunity. It was an instinctual response to a

In R v. Runjanjic and Kontinnen (1991), Chief Justice King explained the effects of ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’; a theory which is used to invoke why women kill their abusive partners “their (women) reactions and responses differ from those which might be expected by persons who lack the advantage of an acquaintance” (Lenore Walker, 2012). Walker argues that the syndrome would influence the abused individual to make decisions which appear illogical to a typical person. A common person would leave an abusive relationship rather than kill for self-preservation, whilst the syndrome would influence the victim to kill. In the case R v. Runjanjic and Kontinnen (1991) the loss of this ability is clear as the defendant’s lawyer claimed , “Though she doesn’t consciously remember her decision-making process, Kontinnen grabbed a shotgun and shot Hill in the back of the head”(Bradfield, 2011). The fact that Kontinnen cannot remember what caused her to make the decision to kill the deceased displays the effect violence has had on her mental health. Defendants using the defence of ‘Killing for preservation in an abusive relationship’ should have the opportunity for a full acquittal, as their damaged mind takes control of their decision

Public often perceives domestic violence as the projection of physical abuse onto victims, overlooking psychological abuse (Carlson and Worden, 2005). Jill is a domestic violence survivor who filed a restraining order against her husband. Jill remained with her husband despite being abused because she felt threatened to leave the relationship. Her frighten behavior triggered the battered-women syndrome. Battered-women syndrome refers to male batters’ pattern of violent behavior towards female victims and her response towards the abuse (Walker, 1984b).

One of the most common defense arguments used in domestic violence homicide crimes, is the act of self-defense due to battered woman syndrome (BWS). Battered woman syndrome is a theory that was developed by clinical psychologist, Dr. Lenore Walker during the 1970’s. Her approach towards BWS explains why battered women kill their abusive partners, instead of ending the relationship. According to Dr. Walker, many victims of domestic violence find it difficult to end an abusive relationship due to “learned helplessness” (Rodgers, 2017). Dr. Walker also discovered that most women with BWS follow a pattern called “The Cycle of Violence”. She explains that the cycle consists of three different stages:

My first reasons against this plea states that Battered Women Syndrome is morally wrong because women are suggesting that they do not have the same capacity for self-governance as men by holding themselves to different standards and special treatment under this plea. Battered Women Syndrome can often be called in this case as a “get out of jail free card” (Veinsreideris, 619) because the woman murders her abuser preemptively and in most cases receives little to no sentence for the act committed. Battered Women Syndrome often acts as an “excuse when dealing with murder; which is misleading and not suitable to justify self-defense because they are too “narrow and unresponsive to evolving biological and social scientific understandings of human behavior” (Morse, 331). I believe that women feel insecure about their reasoning abilities to justify murder in front of a jury. She feels the need to hide under the “shield” of Battered Women Syndrome for protection. I am arguing that women do this in order to deflect the severe consequences that come with murder whether it was preemptively

What type of homicide is featured in this case? (Note: Be as specific as possible) The type of homicide featured in this case is known as intimate homicide. The reason for this is because the victim and offender were in a relationship which involved living together and the victim and offender were engaged to be married. What had happened here is I believe it was a build-up of rage from the offender over a period due to the domestic violence he had influenced upon the victim.

I got out of it for two reasons. Number one being I never wanted to do it for a career and I knew if I stayed there for too long I would be stuck. Many of my peers in the criminal defense world said you either stay two or three years and you get out or if you stay beyond that you are pigeon hold and you never get out. So people that are around the seven or eight year point, they have got to punch out quickly or otherwise, you’ll be stuck working there until you die. I never wanted to stay in the criminal defense world because I still believe that the vast majority of them are guilty but, my position evolved over time to say that they are presumed innocent and it’s the States job to prove them guilty and if they cant do that, then the system works to let them go. The second reason I got out of criminal defense is I got a case handed to from my boss that was a man in his 50’s that abducted and raped a 12-year-old girl. Now when I got this case, I told my boss I couldn’t take it because I have 3 daughters and at the time they were 3,6 and 8. I couldn’t imagine having to defend a man that could do that to a girl that almost resembled one of my children. I looked over the case file and it said the mans DNA was found on the girl in multiple locations. When I walked into the jail to meet him, because you had to meet all your clients face to face, he immediately said “I didn’t do it”. Which, as you can expect is the go to response in the criminal defense world. I asked him

boy empties out; cylinders back to a tallness of grave soil and deafening elements; is never only jim, until violence takes him out of the reach of all forms of possession - by blood relation, by family, by girl whose face in a field of insect waltz devastates his heart and turns it to a dragged corpse. nothing in his songs lies untouchable. in peeling apart chests, in answering the signal to inter, child is determined by bullet. hong creates situations where foray equates to conflict, and voyage to crossroads after crossroads suffused with bone dust. no rewards arise for successful acts of violence except continuation, a passage persistent not to be considered a blessing.

Specifically, provocation acknowledges that humans cannot help being emotional at times, especially when they are being harassed or abused to the point of losing control. As Criminal Lawyer Sam Horton stated ““It was introduced with domestic violence victims in mind, so the person who believes they had to kill a person in defense of themselves…would use this [defense of Provocation] as opposed to murder.” This is an example of how provocation was introduced to recognise our humanity as a society, by allowing exceptions when actions are based upon fundamental human nature. When used correctly, provocation is a fair and effective defence that meets the needs of society, and allows flexibility in sentencing for varying severity in crimes.

Domestic violence occurs between family members; married or de facto couples and or their children. There have been cases where women have been subject to domestic violence and have killed their spouse, (R.v Heather Osland 1996). ‘Battered woman’s syndrome’ is a complex of psychological adaptations that lead women to kill, which can now be used as self-defence and provocation.

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