New UK Law Would Allow 'Women Who Kill in Cold Blood to Escape Murder Charge'
August 1st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Many of you have written to me about the new English law proposal which will make it easier for allegedly abused women who plan the murders of their husbands to defend themselves legally. I discussed the proposals and the general issue of domestic violence on the BBC last week.
According to the article Go soft on killer wives: Women who kill in cold blood could escape murder charge (Daily Mail, 7/29/08), under the new law:
Women who kill abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence. Under a major government review, they will be punished for the lesser offence of manslaughter, sparing them a mandatory life sentence. They must establish only that they were responding to a 'slow burn' of abuse.
The change sweeps aside the existing requirement in any defence of provocation that they killed on the spur of the moment after a 'sudden' loss of control.
In cases where a husband kills, the existing 'partial defence' of provocation if a wife was having an affair is scrapped altogether.
The Ministry of Justice said this was in response to long-standing concerns that the centuries- old measure impacts differently on men and women. In the first major changes to homicide laws in 50 years, ministers have ruled that other categories of killer, as well as domestic violence victims, should be offered new partial defences of provocation.
They include those 'seriously wronged' by an insult.
Beneficiaries of this change may include those who strike out after long and bitter disputes with neighbours, or victims of a serious crime who are taunted at a later date by the attacker.Instead of receiving a mandatory life sentence for murder, they too could escape with a manslaughter conviction. Women's groups had long campaigned for changes to the law to protect victims of domestic violence who hit back in desperation.
But the proposed new partial defence for killers who feel 'seriously wronged' by 'words and conduct' took experts completely by surprise.
Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused Ministers of introducing 'gang law' into the legal system.
He said: 'To take someone's life because they say something that offends you is the law of gang culture.
'Are we really going to introduce into our criminal justice system that it is a defence to say "I was insulted"?'
He also voiced concern about the plan to give special protection to certain groups.
Mr Whelan said: 'By creating all these special categories, the Government are making some people more equal than others before the law.
'It seems some lives are worth more than others.'
Lyn Costello of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression described the changes as 'utter madness'.
She warned: 'We need clear laws, not more grey areas. This is not the sort of message to send out.
'You will have some very clever lawyers who will twist this around to suit their clients.
'Unless there are really exceptional circumstances, such as self defence or protecting yourself or family, then there is no excuse for killing someone and it should be murder.'
I don't claim to be an expert on this new proposal, but I do believe it is a problem. One of the points I made on the BBC is that there is a huge, huge difference between being "seriously wronged" by "words" and being "seriously wronged" by "conduct." Yet this new law seems to lump the two together.
If a mitigating factor in murder comes down to a woman feeling "seriously wronged" by her deceased husband's alleged "words," no woman who kills her husband will ever be convicted of murder. I also wonder what conduct is necessary to allow this defense, and what proof will be needed that such conduct actually took place.
As an aside, while laws and morality are two different things, I can't help but think that what this law implies will also be harmful. Some women already have the bad habit of feeling continually wrong by the men in their life or by men in general. It's possible that this law will in effect say to them "Yes, you've been wronged. And no, it doesn't matter that your husband did not physically abuse you (i.e. 'conduct'). He wronged you with his words, so harming him is okay."
One of the points I made on the BBC is that the problems and challenges faced by abused women vary greatly from country to country. I have no doubt that there are countries where a sorry excuse for a man can beat his wife continually and make her life miserable and know that there is little likelihood that the police or the government will do much to protect his wife or to stop him. However, England is not one of those countries. Nor is the United States, nor the countries of Europe.
There are many, many provisions and policies in place to help protect abused women. I could see this law as being fair if it only applied to women who are battered and who already exhausted these remedies and still found themselves stalked by their batterers.
I pointed out that in the United States a woman who feels she is being mistreated can have her husband kicked out of his own home and barred from contacting her or his children simply on her word alone. That certainly is not to say that there aren't abused women who try and fail to escape their abusers, but there are many options besides murder.
Erin Pizzey discussed the new law in a recent column Erin Pizzey, champion of women's rights, says radical feminist plans to let victims of domestic abuse get away with murder are an affront to morality (7/29/08).
Erin makes some good points. However, while I have great respect for her, the article would have been more enlightening and convincing had she stuck to the facts and details of the new law, as opposed to devoting much of the article to venting her long-standing grudge against English feminists. (I've discussed Pizzey's good work on many occasions -- to learn more, click here.)
"));
19 queries. 0.399 seconds.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
Reading this made my blood run cold.
Just what is the world coming to?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:16 am
Excellent article... How did we get to this point? Well first you spread misandry (hatred of men) and then you legalize misandry (hatred of men) with further legislation such as this one.
Spreading Misandry:
http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1323
Legalizing Misandry:
http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1966
August 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank accused Ministers of introducing 'gang law' into the legal system.
He said: 'To take someone's life because they say something that offends you is the law of gang culture.
'Are we really going to introduce into our criminal justice system that it is a defence to say "I was insulted"?'
Rober Whelan calls it "gang law" I call it HATE LEGISLATION because that is exactly what it is. It reinforces the notion that men are beasts by their very nature so violent or prone to violence extreme action such as murdering them should be condoned. Similar to putting down a rabid dog roaming the streets which is foaming at the mouth.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:41 am
Isn't this the law in the US? If it's not on the books, it certainly is in the courtroom. Women are blaming DV for everything evil they do. And it works!! The most recent one was of couse the Mary Winkler case. He had asked her to wear high heels during sex, she shot him in the back, claimed DV, gets 6 months of counseling. We're years ahead of England on this tact. We just haven't had anybody write a law for it.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:01 am
and the best part for women is they don't have to prove abuse - they just have to say - he called me a bitch - boom instant get out of jail free card.
So Doc/Jeanna etc - please explain to me how the law is gender neutral and never wrong again? I am sure you both would fully support a law like this.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:11 am
This is an extension of the "thought crimes'" prosecutions/persecutions used in political correctness. I was a victim in my mind, therefore I can kill. What he did offended me, so therefore I can take his life. Political correctness now justifies murder.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Maybe all of us men should get a sex change and even this playing feild out a bit!
August 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Excerpt from Spreading Misandry....
Ideological feminists want revolution, but they see no need for military tactics. Feminists of all stripes have found much more effective ways of producing radical social, economic, and political change in democratic societies - that is, societies in which public order relies on public opinion. To change public opinion, they have exploited debates over major public events such as the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas, the trial of O.J. Simpson, and so on. Then too, they have relied on the fact that many men consider shame, as they have for countless generations, a "fate worse than death." In other words, men - especially political, religious, and other leaders - can be "manipulated easily" through fear of public humiliation for feeling "threatened" by women.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Help me understand???
If I turn on my television, women are smart and men are dumb.
I have heard plenty of women say"I don't need a man."
Why couldn't the superior female sex just leave? Why do they have to kill and justify killing?
August 1st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
First, I think it is important to realize that they are saying these cases are mitigating factors that a defense can use to avoid a life sentence conviction. So, to say that they are getting away with murder might be incorrect (I don’t know if the Brits have Murder 1, Murder 2, etc, or if their version of Murder 2 is Manslaughter), but we might argue that women are getting an unfair mitigation defense. However; the Mary Winkler case aside (it was/is an EXCEPTIONALLY BAD example, and thus isn’t a base case to make a law off of), it seems reasonable that chronic abuse might be a mitigating factor in reducing a charge from a life sentence to a 15 to 30 sentence.
Second, I find it a bad idea to remove the “heat of passion” defense of catching your wife banging another dude, but allowing a chronic abuse defense in. So, losing control is out as a mitigating factor, but in cold blood killing is in. That does seem unequal that one gender can catch a break for a mental/emotional breakdown, but the other can kill out of non-imminent danger fear (I would argue that while the fear might be real, it is still not in the heat of passion, and thus it is in cold blood).
Third, I think the hateful words protection is bunk. I think it is a reasonable expectation that an adult should endure insults without having to kill the insulter. Now, if someone is intimidating another, making overt threats, etc, and the threatened person kills the threaten-er; then I can see knocking it down from a life sentence to 15 to 30. I do think it would be interesting to measure the level of politeness and civility pre and post-law enactment.
In conclusion I would have to say this change to the law in GB seems off base. I think “in the heat of passion” defenses have their place, I think extreme fear in-cold-blood defenses need to be narrowly defined as to when they can be applied, and I think that switching out the former for the latter is a really poor idea. I think laws like this will disenfranchise men from society, and cause men to further disengage society.
Later,
B
August 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
FRAMED,
Then there'd be a lot of ugly women runnin 'round!
GR
Our regards to the missus!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I'm confused by the Daily Mail ariticle. Is the law itself written gender-neutrally or does it specifically say that an abused woman cannot be charged with murder?
(Not that it matters much how the law is written - we all know how Jim Crow laws like these are applied in practice). I'm just wondering if a husband who has endured years of nagging and put-downs in public by his wife be able to avail himself of this defence.
The Daily Mail's photo of a smug Harriet Harman says it all. Laws like this are not so much about the criminals, but a feminist supremacist message designed to further shift the balance of power in male-female relationships. In short, to men:
"She can cheat on you but you'd better not get angry. But don't make HER angry, or else. Big Boyfriend (i.e. the government) will always back her up."
So you'd better shut up about your stressful job and wash those dishes as soon as you get home from work - and bring some flowers with you, just in case. And take her to a fancy restaurant, for which she'll want a new dress and matching shoes....
This is what feminist politics has come to. Much respect for Erin Pizzey for continuing to speak truth to power.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
August 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
It's been a while now since I had any respect for the United Kingdom. It is a victim-feminist misandric hellhole (and that charge may carry some weight, coming from a Scandinavian).
The men of not-so-great Britain must make a stand before their second class citizenship is fully and formally enacted.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
this law is total insanity. getting away with murder because someone insulted you? how can anyone defend this absurdly anti-male bigotry? even doc and jeana, bigots that they are, can't seem to muster a defense of this one.
i love this comparison: A man come home to find his wife in bed with his best friend. He snaps and kills them. Gets the book thrown at him. Sorry, betrayal, abuse and shock are not mitigating factors.
Another man calls his wife "a bitch", she kills him and gets away with it.
And we live in a patriarchy?
August 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
(Glenn wrote) -- "I don't claim to be an expert on this new proposal, but I do believe it is a problem. One of the points I made on the BBC is that there is a huge, huge difference between being "seriously wronged" by "words" and being "seriously wronged" by "conduct." Yet this new law seems to lump the two together."
Actually Glenn, it is already worse than that scenario.
I believe a woman with sufficient legal counsel could argue that she was "seriously wronged" just by accidentally visiting your web blog.
If an unwanted glance or look can be called "domestic violence," how much longer do you think it will take to classify words on a screen as abuse?
Because words are conduct. Looking is conduct. Every bit of body language is conduct.
Thoughts not publicly expressed will soon be conduct.
As will the suspicion of having thoughts that you are unwilling to express.
Criminalize all human interactions. Why? Profits for the keepers of the sheep.
"Brave New World" redux. 1984. Animal Farm.
Life imitates art yet again.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Maybe Hardy should not have written Tess of the D'Urbervilles.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
"a pure woman faithfully presented" and prefacing it with Shakespeare's words "Poor wounded name! My bosom as a bed/ Shall lodge thee."
Isn't that a fair description of Hannah Montana?
August 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
When women kill it's not really murder. Everybody knows that.
Sheesh!
August 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Thanks for covering this Glenn - this law illustrates just how messed up things are in the uk right now.
It will be pretty difficult for a dead man to defend himself against the charge of domestic violence and these laws essentially compel female murders to invent false allegations.
It really troubles me that the government create these insane laws, yet won't even touch the various issues of importance right now, such a family breakdown and fatherlessness.
I have to say that I find it suprising that the bbc allowed Glenn on the air - they are usually extremely pro feminist and anti-male. Anyone know which show it was on and which channel? thanks
August 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
What options now do still-living men have if they think their wife fears them and is capable of murder?
Is killing such a wife admissible self-defence?
If not, why not?
Ultimately, it comes down to the relative value of men and women - and we left equality behind on that score long before I was born.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Glenn was on the BBC? I should really watch more tv. Anyway we might see a sudden rise in insurance premiums and knife sales. Also a sharp drop in murder charges and an equal rise in manslaughter charges.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 am
The UK is being run by halfwits. At least in the old days of the duel if you were offended you'd challenge the other guy and at least he had a chance to fight back but this is simply lunacy. I dont even see it as the usual Chivalry Gone Wild as it applies to neighbors and such. It's inexplicable.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
"New UK Law Would Allow 'Women Who Kill in Cold Blood to Escape Murder Charge'
Yet, more woman good, man bad.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
One more step down a road travelled many times this century, most of it in Europe. But we can't talk about the similarities...because it makes one look "nutty"....
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Erin Pizzey says "Harriet Harman recently made a leaden attempt at self-deprecating humour. In response to a House of Commons question about her leadership ambitions, she said that she could not possibly become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country."
Can anyone imagine a government minister making a joke about any other group wanting to leave the country if they became Prime Minister?
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I think if someone (man or woman) kills someone in self defence and when their life is put in danger by the person who is attacking them then it's justifiable to spare them any kind of punishment.
If a man is lunging at a woman with a knife with the intent to kill her and it can be proven in a court of law that she killed him to stop him from killing her then she should be spared jail.
What the issue here though is about women who kill their husband's in cold blood. Women who have allegadly suffered abuse at the hands of their spouse who apparently suddenly snap and then when their partner's guard is down (like he's sitting around watching TV or asleep in bed) they kill him.
If it can be proven she was driven to this by years of abuse then maybe sending her to jail won't be right.
However what worries me is that the man hating wing of the feminist lobby want women spared any kind of trial for killing their husbands in cold blood based purely on their word alone that he was abusing them. Sorry but that is something that must be tried in a court of law.
These are the same man haters who believe all men accused of rape are guilty and we should skip any kind of trial and just chuck the bastards in jail.
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Including the dead!
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
".... venting her long-standing grudge against English feminists"
What is wrong with that? Only a person who thinks society cares about men, their rational reasons, civil pleas and problems - enough to act on issues - would say something like that. Have we not learned enough already?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Things are quickly de-evolving into a scenario of a wild-west shootout. Shoot somebody down in cold blood, then you can make up any story you want as the only other witness is dead.
But it's only shoot first make story later for WOMEN ONLY.
Amazingly, I had discussion about this with another anti-feminist friend after the Mary Winkler verdict.
Now, the female sentencing discount is to be enshrined into law.
Amazing
August 4th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Nick S wrote:
"become Prime Minister because, if she did, then the nation’s airports would be filled with men trying to flee the country."
With the implied message being "men have it coming".
We've been on top pissing on women for too long. Of course at a time when "male privelege" was supposedly at it's worst it was "women and children first" on the titanic.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Sick stupid Women have been beating and slapping men for decades. TV is always showing men as the bad guy and getting slapped or hit by some emaciated female idiot. Now I know why Muslims kill over 1,000 women a year. But what really is the source of this abuse and persecution. Our government is run by the enemy who consist of anti-family perverts, queers, fagots, lesbians who are not Christians and anti God. They serve only Satan and the Bible provides their destiny at Gal 6:7, Romans 1:27-32, and 1Cor 6:9-10.
True Men obey God and are the leaders, the builders, and our spiritual foundation blessed by God whose fruitage sustains all man kind, both women and men.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Mike Brentnall Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
These following comments would likely, I'm guessing, be appreciated by very few except the frequent blogger "menscollegeactivist." I'd like to reproduce the most succinct point I'm about to make in every blog category but afraid that this point will be lost.
Much of the blogging generated by the stories Glenn Sacks writes about here in this web-site is very good in not only that no such concentrated discussion existed before Glenn's site but also in that many who write in are informed to the moment. Prior to this web-site I'm aware of a few civil gender and men's issue sites. Attention to the sickening plight of the legacy of feminism was limited somewhat to men's group associations and those of us lucky enough to find those of kindred intellect and observation - random chance.
But here is my main point - much of the stories that we read and comment on are reactions to what passes for the ordinary in our culture today. What passes as the ordinary today has had its genesis from mainly "women's" studies programming. That so much propaganda has gone on for so long without as much as any type of rigorous examination is truly astounding. Huge amounts of publicly generated money has been sunk into a belief system where most of its central tenents has never been verified as factual and falls apart in a MRA web-site from comments by ordinary people.
Then bring in the chivalrous and mostly male politicians who believe that they are serving all of womankind and the rest of society by promoting into policy and law claims made by a minority group whose belief system is virtually built on a house of cards and not even subject to scrutiny.
How can a feminist advocasy movement claim to demand equality for women to men when these advocates know so little about the state and condition of men? The findings of all of this advocasy has not yet been properly verified nor produced equality between the sexes. And we go along with it as though what gets spoken about in numerous and sheltered women studies environments were true. This unexamined advocasy has resulted in a blind faith (non)reality where the common man is shouldering a demise that he never asked for. Challenge the findings of and cut off the funding to the base of this hydra. This is part of the root of the problems being written about here.
The good news is that many a contributor to these blog discussions are providing the challenge.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
By providing women with the defense of provocation where they claim to have a slow burn simply encourages those who are bitter to kill.This defense should be replaced with something more clear.Provocation should therefore be clearly defined to avoid the unfairness associated with it.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Why couldn't the woman move away or go to the police or something along those lines?
Oh, I'm wondering if a woman abuses a man, and the man kills the woman will this law apply?
July 28th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Maybe because the police are useless and do stuff all to actually protect women who are being abused? Because women who leave abusive men often fear for their lives? Maybe because a huge majority of the crimes in this country are committed BY men, AGAINST women? Maybe because women can't walk alone in the dark, or alone in the daytime if they are in a remote place? Maybe because if we actually attempt self-defence from all of these male attackers, we get charged with possessing an "offensive" weapon instead? Get a grip, guys. The male is still dominant, and you're still pissing on us. Stop whinging and learn how NOT to be sadistic rapists and killers instead. Centuries hasn't changed this fact; I have little hope.