Ed Murder is fine ... if you're a woman

[Naive1000]

...[snip]... The study of and response to spousal/partner abuse should be removed from gender - not only for men but also for the LGBT community. It would be better to do this with factual information instead of a single, nearly unique anecdote.

I agree but it's hard to find research in the area. But, I have found some.

Wife defendants less likely to be convicted:
Wife defendants had a lower conviction rate than husband defendants —

• Of the 222 wife defendants, 70% were convicted of killing their mate. By contrast, of the 318 husband defendants, 87% were convicted of spouse murder.
• Of the 100 wife defendants tried by either a judge or jury, 31% were acquitted. But of the 138 husbands tried, 6% were acquitted.
• Of the 59 wife defendants tried by a jury, 27% were acquitted. But of the estimated 91 husband defendants tried by a jury, none was acquitted.

Convicted wife defendants sentenced less severely:
An estimated 156 wives and 275 husbands were convicted of killing their spouse. Convicted wives were less likely than convicted husbands to be sentenced to prison, and convicted wives received shorter prison sentences than their male counterparts —

• 81% of convicted wives but 94% of convicted husbands received a prison sentence.
• On average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands.
• Among wives sentenced to prison, 15% received a sentence of 20 years or more (including life imprisonment and the death penalty); among husbands, it was 43%.
(Link)

Despite the unexpected data produced by this justice Department study--that wives kill husbands much more frequently than media accounts suggest and that they are treated more leniently than husbands who kill--the press release issued by the justice Department to accompany the report buried this politically incorrect data under the following politically correct headline: "Wives are the most frequent victims in family murders." But even that conclusion obscures the real picture: that for all family murders--which includes killing of parents and children as well as spouses--55.5 percent of the victims were males and 44.5 percent females, and "female defendants were more likely than male defendants to have murdered a person of the opposite sex." (Link)

ETA:

The Federal criminal sentencing guidelines struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 required that males and females who commit the same crime and have the same prior criminal record be sentenced equally. Using data obtained from the United States Sentencing Commission’s records, we examine whether there exists any gender-based bias in criminal sentencing decisions. We treat months in prison as a censored variable in order to account for the frequent outcome of no prison time. Additionally, we control for the self-selection of the defendant into guilty pleas through use of an endogenous switching regression model. A new decomposition methodology is employed. Our results indicate that women receive more lenient sentences even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history.

Source: "Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence Because You Are a Woman? An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines" from IZA Discussion Paper No. 2870, June 2007

 

[iknownothing]

Naive1000, sorry if I came across as angry or accusing you. Sometimes my quickest responses are not my most polite.

It's complicated, because I agree that violence by women against men is downplayed. But I see these threads get so extreme that I want to fight back against the extreme comments early on.

As for the woman with the fire and the craziness. If it had been a man who had done something like that, with that kind of reasoning, I would think he was mentally ill. Which I also think of the woman. Not that mental illness should be an excuse either.

I don't think it's as easy as some are suggesting to leave an abusive spouse. And it can complicate the issue if you're a stay-at-home mom with no financial resources (primarily a problem for women). Or if there are kids and you are afraid of losing custody to the abusive spouse and thus being less able to protect them. I used to think it was simple, but I've seen 3 friends go through it in the last few years and it was not simple at all. Amazing how real life is messier than theory.

Do courts go easier on women who use a battered wife defense? Do they go harder on men who use a battered husband defense? Has any man ever used a battered husband defense?

 

[joesixpack]

... Has any man ever used a battered husband defense?

The guy who killed my neighbor did. At least during the sentencing phase of the trial. He had already plead guilty to Murder. The jury didn't deliberate very long and they gave him zero leniency. If anything, I think his claims of her abuse were treated as a further crime against the victim.

 

[myowninvention]

The guy who killed my neighbor did. At least during the sentencing phase of the trial. He had already plead guilty to Murder. The jury didn't deliberate very long and they gave him zero leniency. If anything, I think his claims of her abuse were treated as a further crime against the victim.

Yes, it's an unfortunate fact of trial by one's peers that the so called 'court of public opinion' is impossible to remove from the real court. That is to say that without a vast shift in how we as a society view these types of incidents, and view male victimization in general, the bias will pursue us into the courtrooms.

Unfortunately, the sort of societal shift we are talking about is slow to arrive, and difficult to work for. If you consider that the women's rights movement started nearly a century ago, and still we as a society have not shifted away from the 'women are the weaker sex' p.o.v., you can see what a long battle is ahead to shift the views of society towards men as well.

What I don't see as productive is blaming woman's rights advocates for the negative view taken of male victims. Certainly there is some over the top hyperbole going on there, but I think the problem has a lot more to do with the general societal view of what a "man" is, which view advocates for women's rights are not responsible for.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think the OP was a bit hyperbolic, but the point that should be made is that social acceptance of violence committed by women against men has not decreased as it has with the acceptance of violence committed by men against women. Simply following this thread you see a number of posters defending the woman's actions, accepting the ruling without the slightest skepticism about her claims of abuse, and in some cases even endorsing and cheering the murder of her husband.

The courts may or may not be biased (and in murder cases, I don't generally think they are), but the court of public opinion certainly is. Assertions made about this man abusing his wife for 22 years are accepted without a shred of proof given in the article. The total lack of substantiation of her claims against the dead (and mute) victim says volumes about what the general public expectation is for men's behavior. Do you think an abused man would receive the same sympathetic response from readers of that article?

Try this one on for size;

All I did was change the gender and names of the victim and the killer. Would you have some serious questions after reading this? I know I would, but the writer of this article certainly didn't feel obligated to give any more detail than this, and few (if any) posters on this very thread seemed to care. Why? Because it was a woman killing a man and popular narrative is of a victim fighting back.

Do you think the general readership would have the same emotional response to both those stories? I certainly don't. Do you think Johnny Ray would get anywhere near the support, sympathy, or benefit of the doubt that Rajini got. I certainly don't.

Do women get away with murder? I don't generally think so. Do they face lessor sentences for the same domestic violence crimes that men do? Most certainly they do, and they always will as long as Intimate Partner/domestic violence is treated exclusively as a woman=victim/man=abuser narrative.

What bothers me about the case outcome is that this is very far from the original story.

When she set him alight, Mr Narayan jumped out of bed and knocked over the substance, causing the fire to spread.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7812875.stm

Regardless of her being found guilty of a lesser charge, what happened to the original intention? Abused or not, she was still trying to mutilate his penis. That's a pretty hefty penalty for having an affair.

 

[myowninvention]

What bothers me about the case outcome is that this is very far from the original story.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7812875.stm

Regardless of her being found guilty of a lesser charge, what happened to the original intention? Abused or not, she was still trying to mutilate his penis. That's a pretty hefty penalty for having an affair.

Yeah- to be honest, she sounds like she is in need of some serious psychiatric help, and I'm confused by the way it is presented in the other article.

 

[joesixpack]

What bothers me about the case outcome is that this is very far from the original story.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7812875.stm

Regardless of her being found guilty of a lesser charge, what happened to the original intention? Abused or not, she was still trying to mutilate his penis. That's a pretty hefty penalty for having an affair.

I've skimmed several articles and have yet to find a single one that presents any documentation for his abuse. I would have liked it if it had said "twenty years of documented abuse". At least that gives some indication that the reporter had fact checked. This is troubling because it's a reflection of how easily news consumers will accept this narrative without question.

 

[Naive1000]

Naive1000, sorry if I came across as angry or accusing you. Sometimes my quickest responses are not my most polite.

No, it's my fault. Just not use to dealing with the how the written word can create impressions that we don't mean them to, in Internet conversations. I've always been terse in my writing which I'm sure makes my intentions unclear or possibly seem rude and uncaring. I guess I need to think out my responses more before putting pen to paper, so to speak.

It's complicated, because I agree that violence by women against men is downplayed. But I see these threads get so extreme that I want to fight back against the extreme comments early on.

As for the woman with the fire and the craziness. If it had been a man who had done something like that, with that kind of reasoning, I would think he was mentally ill. Which I also think of the woman. Not that mental illness should be an excuse either.

I don't think it's as easy as some are suggesting to leave an abusive spouse. And it can complicate the issue if you're a stay-at-home mom with no financial resources (primarily a problem for women). Or if there are kids and you are afraid of losing custody to the abusive spouse and thus being less able to protect them. I used to think it was simple, but I've seen 3 friends go through it in the last few years and it was not simple at all. Amazing how real life is messier than theory.

Do courts go easier on women who use a battered wife defense? Do they go harder on men who use a battered husband defense? Has any man ever used a battered husband defense?

I never meant to create the impression that leaving was easy. I'm sure the reality is anything but easy or clean. I'm just wondering why killing someone seems more acceptable to people though. And, I guess that I'm different than most as the abuse I've seen has come from women not men, so it might skew my perception a bit. Unlike what people seem to perceive my intentions as with this, what I want is more protection not less. Just more equitable protection. That we rely on proof and fact instead of emotion and assumption. We should also have more shelters available to all and a system that allows for resolving marital issues before things get to the point of violence. We should be pushing to stop violence in general. Not just boys are not suppose to hit girls, but that no one should be hitting anyone. Ultimately, I just wonder why it seems that skepticism stops where certain issues start.

 

[sgtbaker]

I've skimmed several articles and have yet to find a single one that presents any documentation for his abuse. I would have liked it if it had said "twenty years of documented abuse". At least that gives some indication that the reporter had fact checked. This is troubling because it's a reflection of how easily news consumers will accept this narrative without question.

I don't know if the court transcripts are not public or something because I couldn't find them. I've read a lot of articles and so far the only thing I've found is that her kids testified to the abuse. That does tend to hold some weight in court. I don't feel comfortable sitting in judgement of a situation where I know very little. It is quite possible that she was abused, maybe she has scars and corroborating stories from the children.

Austrailia has a provocation clause, which reduces a murder crime to voluntary manslaughter if the aggressor was provoked. In abuse situations, whether it be mental or physical, each offense (to the victim) is not an isolated event, it's a continuation of a pattern so just calling an abuse victim is not a moment where a person says something they will regret, it's reinforcing behavior. Basically, being called a fat bitch in the heat of an argument is something that I (personally) could get over. Being persistently called names in a bully type relationship would probably have a much more devastating effect on my psyche.

With that said; the facts that are actually known is she was attempting to scar her husband's penis as a means of revenge. Something happened and the husband ended up engulfed in flames, then survived for something like 20 days before dying from the injuries. The conviction of voluntary manslaughter isn't what bothers me, it's a suspended sentence. Grant it, I may be a little bit of a bleeding heart and have a hard time cheering when a victim is able to exact over-the-top revenge on their persecutor, but seriously, the act that started the fight was she was mutilating his penis as revenge for cheating on her. Even if the judge wanted to show leniency for the murder, there should have been a seperate charge of aggrivated assault or something.

 

[iknownothing]

And, I guess that I'm different than most as the abuse I've seen has come from women not men, so it might skew my perception a bit.

That does affect your perception, for better and worse; it does mean you're more aware of that than those of us who haven't seen it, so I should listen and not dismiss that.

Unlike what people seem to perceive my intentions as with this, what I want is more protection not less. Just more equitable protection. That we rely on proof and fact instead of emotion and assumption. We should also have more shelters available to all and a system that allows for resolving marital issues before things get to the point of violence. We should be pushing to stop violence in general. Not just boys are not suppose to hit girls, but that no one should be hitting anyone.

Agreed. It disturbs me when, for example, sitcoms play it for laughs when a woman slaps or pushes a man. There's way too much acceptance of violence in general.

 

[sgtbaker]

snip...
Agreed. It disturbs me when, for example, sitcoms play it for laughs when a woman slaps or pushes a man. There's way too much acceptance of violence in general.

I was watching an episode of King of Queens last night. I don't know the names of the characters on the show because I haven't seen it that often. The wife convinced the husband to go to a cello concert. The husband was making his discontent extremely obvious. The wife puts her hand up and mouths, very clearly, "I am going to slap you." The audience laughed. In all honesty, had there not been so many discussions, here, about that, I never would have picked up on it but the truth is, if the roles were reversed, there would have been groups holding vigils and demanding that everyone boycott the show. There is no doubt that there is a double standard.

 

[leftysergeant]

I don't know if the court transcripts are not public or something because I couldn't find them. I've read a lot of articles and so far the only thing I've found is that her kids testified to the abuse. That does tend to hold some weight in court. I don't feel comfortable sitting in judgement of a situation where I know very little. It is quite possible that she was abused, maybe she has scars and corroborating stories from the children.

Too much of that sort of thing, dismissed at first, can lead to horrendous acts down the road when the victim can no longer keep it in check. You could say that the deceased sort of put the weapon to his own head.

With that said; the facts that are actually known is she was attempting to scar her husband's penis as a means of revenge. Something happened and the husband ended up engulfed in flames, then survived for something like 20 days before dying from the injuries. The conviction of voluntary manslaughter isn't what bothers me, it's a suspended sentence. Grant it, I may be a little bit of a bleeding heart and have a hard time cheering when a victim is able to exact over-the-top revenge on their persecutor, but seriously, the act that started the fight was she was mutilating his penis as revenge for cheating on her.

Doesn't bother me much at all. Maybe if more bullies had to worry about the Bobbit solution or the "Goodbye, Earl" solution, they might be less inclined to turn violent.

 

[Polaris]

Too much of that sort of thing, dismissed at first, can lead to horrendous acts down the road when the victim can no longer keep it in check. You could say that the deceased sort of put the weapon to his own head.



Doesn't bother me much at all. Maybe if more bullies had to worry about the Bobbit solution or the "Goodbye, Earl" solution, they might be less inclined to turn violent.

See post #147.

 

[Naive1000]

...[snip]...
Doesn't bother me much at all. Maybe if more bullies had to worry about the Bobbit solution or the "Goodbye, Earl" solution, they might be less inclined to turn violent.

Now this is the kind of response that disturbs me. The casual way people are okay with violence against men, especially by men. Somehow men don't deserve to be treated with human decency. If this was turned around no one would find this attitude acceptable.

 

[sgtbaker]

snip...Doesn't bother me much at all. Maybe if more bullies had to worry about the Bobbit solution or the "Goodbye, Earl" solution, they might be less inclined to turn violent.

I would certainly file that under cruel and unusual punishment. I can't fathom a situation where I could rightfully agree that someone deserves to have their genitals removed or mutilated.

 

[tyr_13]

I would certainly file that under cruel and unusual punishment. I can't fathom a situation where I could rightfully agree that someone deserves to have their genitals removed or mutilated.

Without due process no less.

Now that may sound like a joke, but I'm being serious. Even if one accepts that genital mutilation, genital removal, death, or death by being burned alive are acceptable punishment for abuse or cheating, how does one determine if the claims of abuse are true?

It's a horrible, uncivilized thing to advocate for and sounds a lot like the reactions that people use to justify water boarding accused terrorists and holding them without trial.

 

[Naive1000]

Now should he have killed his fiancee? Quotes from the different articles here:

Williamson, who is now serving a seven-year jail sentence for causing grievous bodily harm, also lit cigarettes and shoved them up her partner’s nose after falsely accusing him of having an affair.

He said attacks usually began after Williamson, 34, asked him questions about previous relationships, or accused him of not telling her that he loved her often enough. "It would result in assaults with a whole host of household weapons," he said. "Having a kettle of water poured on your groin, having it re-boiled and poured on you again whilst you are in absolute agony has stayed in my mind and always will do. The worst case I was kept awake for three days with no food. Cigarettes were stubbed out on my chest, they were lit and put up my nostrils for the whole evening."

"My arm was so badly beaten that the hospital thought they were going to have to amputate my arm. It was just a horrendous ordeal and I am just so thankful for the neighbour who made an anonymous call [to the police] and the work the police did when they rescued me from my home."

"She began ranting and raving about previous partners of mine. Then, all of a sudden, she switched the vacuum cleaner off, grabbed the nozzle and whacked me across the face with it. I could feel my cheek split."(Link) (Link) (Link)

 

[joesixpack]

Now should he have killed his fiancee? Quotes from the different articles here:

Well, if Leftysergeant had any say, he'd have been jailed for the emotional abuse he'd been causing that poor gal. Unless, of course, he was south asian, in which case he should have been executed.

 

[joesixpack]

Too much of that sort of thing, dismissed at first, can lead to horrendous acts down the road when the victim can no longer keep it in check. You could say that the deceased sort of put the weapon to his own head.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about here.

Doesn't bother me much at all. Maybe if more bullies had to worry about the Bobbit solution or the "Goodbye, Earl" solution, they might be less inclined to turn violent.

Oh ******* great, you're referencing a pop song about intimate partner violence! That's an excellent source of reliable statistics about abuser profiles.

 

[Naive1000]

Without due process no less. ...[snip]...

That's kind of my point. It's really hard to put up a defense or give your side when you're dead. This only leaves the killers side which I wonder why we are so apt to believe.