Morning ladies,
Following on from the recent studies about how a frightening amount of people in the UK think that domestic violence is justified in certain circumstances, have a look at this storyin the news today.
Although obviously it's a victory for the victim, her family, and sufferers of DV that the murderer received a 'life' sentence, what undermines the impact of the sentencing is the fact that judge felt the need to mention that the murderer's "uncontrolled temper had been triggered on the night by something the victim said or did." Because we all know that angry words from your wife trigger you pushing a knife into her neck, right?
It's also telling that ITN, reporting the story, felt the need to present it thus: "A man who stabbed his partner 177 times in a brutal attack triggered by nagging has been jailed for life. "
I'm so stunned and dismayed by the victim-blaming in this article I'm tempted to complain both to those who reported it, and the judiciary. When will people understand? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DID, WHAT YOU SAID, OR WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE, NOTHING MAKES A MAN HIT OR HURT YOU EXCEPT THE MAN HIMSELF!!!
arrrgh.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: If your wife nagged you, expect to get a reduced sentence for stabbing her to death.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12454
The judge's decision sounded well reasoned to me, and included just a brief footnote that he accepted that there was some triggering event as opposed to completely random violence. I don't think you can really say that the actions of a victim are always totally unrelated to violent responses. You don't need to in any way excuse the violence because of the trigger, you can't say that he would just as certainly have stabbed her to death if she had just been sleeping in the next room.
Oh, and the reason you make a footnote like the judge did is because society wants to consider it worse when someone does just randomly stab to death someone who was sleeping in the next room. Just like this case is worse than if he had stabbed her to death after she had violently attacked him. Circumstances are important.
What I have a problem with is a judge, and the media, in a country where we already don't take DV seriously enough already, making a point of saying that the attack was in any way 'triggered'. Why does this need to be included in the judge's summing up, or the media reporting? What does it matter if they argued before? Do you really think any amout of 'nagging' could MAKE your significant other stab you 177 times? Any mention of 'nagging' just immediately seems like they are pleading mitigating circumstances. If I was a member of the victim's family I would be seriously angry about the way this was reported. Isn't it bad enough that this woman died in the most horrific way possible (pleading for her life, as is reported) - must her memory be sullied by both the judiciary and the media trying to make excuses for her murderer's actions? I just think this article reflects the frightening confusion that goes on in people's minds about DV. On one hand, we have a great message being sent out with a serious sentence being handed down for a DV murder. And on the other, we have the judge and the reporter undoing a lot of this good work by feeling the need to blame the victim in the way they sum up and report the case. No wonder this country is so f-ed up when it comes to attitudes to DV and rape.
Under common law, "provocation" is what separates voluntary manslaughter from murder. I'm not sure what laws were being used in the article you linked, since I'm not familiar with law in the UK, but as laws were codified from common law into statutes and splintered into things like 1st degree murder vs. 2nd degree murder, etc., different degrees carried different requirements. For example, one state may decide that 1st degree murder requires planning ahead of time, while 2nd degree murder is in response to something that happens right there.
The article quotes the judge listing a lot of factors, which tells me that he's justifying the sentence based on requirements of the law he was sentencing him under.
(ie: "I accept that this was the case of a frenzied attack rather than sadistic or gratuitous mutilation of the body. There is no doubt that you intended to kill her and I accept that this killing was not premeditated. This was a case of murder committed by a man in a drunken rage.")
As I said, it is the judge's job to take note of anything that can distinguish this case from other similar cases as a means of refining when different approaches to conviction of different crimes and sentences are appropriate. Perhaps another man walks into an adjacent room and without conversation begins frantically stabbing his partner. That might be a reason to consider that act premeditated as opposed to an act that was committed in the midst of an altercation, which might not be premeditated. Judges acting as fact finders want to be as clear and complete as they can be with their descriptions, and reporters want to do the same. The "nagging" wasn't emphasized in any way or used to explain anything, it was just mentioned because it is potentially relevant.
WTF... 177 times!?!?!?!? That's friggin' crazy. That's beyond an "accident" or "manslaughter". I can't believe that he's eligible for parole in 18 years. It should have been life, with no chance of parole. Ever.
One has to ask themselves though, why did she let a heroin addict, ex-convict live with her? Talk about putting yourself in a bad situation. Obviously no one deserves this, but srsly, don't let a crazy, drug using, alcoholic who just got out of prison, live with you. Another example of someone making a poor choice and unfortunately losing their life because of it.
I wonder exactly what she nagged him about. Not that it matters, but 'take out the trash' could be considered nagging, and 'you're a worthless pile of shit who needs to stop being such a little pussy' would also be nagging. The latter is something men sometimes hear all their life, and later lash out for. It's not justified at all, just saying, this is an example patriarchy hurting men, and helping them hurt women.
'you're a worthless pile of shit who needs to stop being such a little pussy'
I'd consider that verbal abuse, not nagging. However, I do see your point. It's possible she said something like that, and there is a difference between that and something like "honey, did you remember to take out the trash?"
Hmmm. I still feel like I'm hearing victim-blaming here. Why does it matter what she nagged him about? Why does it matter what words were used? I feel like this approach not only implies it's up to the woman to tiptoe around men as if men are constantly volatile, but it also portrays men as 'ready to blow' at any moment. Not a healthy picture to paint of either sex. We're all adults with the ability to control our emotions and walk away from a situation. Any man can reject the supposed 'provocation' in any words, however obscene they are, and remove himself from the situation. I just find it troubling that even in a feminist forum people relentlessly focus on the woman's actions in a case of DV - just like defenders Chris Brown are doing re: his attack on Rihanna.
Think about it this way; why distinguish between any two acts of violence where the result is a death?
Man number one is in a big fight with his wife and she starts hitting him, he hits her back and she falls down and hits her head, and dies.
Man number two comes home from work, finds his wife watching TV and calmly starts beating her to death in front of his children who are sitting in the room.
This is a ludicrous example, but the point is that different circumstances warrant different reactions. Judges note circumstances as a guidepost for other judges and society in general. Journalists note what judges do in order to be more accurate.
"People" aren't relentlessly focusing on her actions. You made this whole post saying that the judge shouldn't have mentioned her actions at all. The judge said that the man "had been triggered on the night by something the victim said or did". Why did he mention that at all? He mentioned it to distinguish this case from a case when the perpetrator had not been triggered at all by anything the victim said or did.
Yeah, I see what you are saying. The killer was in a drug and alcohol induced stupor of his own doing, and yet his perception of the events are all we have to go on. My problem here is that it's well documented that drugs cloud the judgment and perception. From the extent of his substance abuse, it's likely that his perceptions of the events were not even necessarily the truth, and I think that fact should have been highlighted more.
I mean, if a drunk driver drives a carload of people off a cliff because she thought one of the passengers told her to turn the corner just then, I think few people would consider "the bad directions" a mitigating circumstance.
The court did not lessen the sentence because he had more of a reason to kill his wife (she nagged him, of course he should've stabbed her), but rather that it was evidence that the killing was not premeditated. It's a perfectly sound legal stance that has nothing to do with the age old sexist stereotype of the nagging wife.
um, except for the use of the word 'nagging' both in the title and the body of the article....admittedly the reporter's choice of the words, not the judge's, but just shows how easily 'the age old sexist stereotype of the nagging wife' rears its head in the British media.
True enough. Thank God it wasn't in the court's decision.
>>>Man number one is in a big fight with his wife and she starts hitting him, he hits her back and she falls down and hits her head, and dies.
That example is not an example of an action 'triggering' actual murderer. It's an example of an action *probably* triggering actions that led to accidental death.
That is completely different from a situation where a woman 'nags' or verbally abuses her husband, and we somehow interpret this as a 'trigger' for him stabbing her 177 times. As I have repeatedly said, the link between the two actions is what is the problem. By accepting the judge's words as necessary to distinguish between cases involving and not involving 'triggers', we are accepting the idea that nagging somehow 'leads to' violence or murder. We are saying that verbal abuse is sufficient provocation to murder. I don't accept this in any way, and think it was offensive and harmful of the judge to make any implication that a verbal confrontation in any way 'triggers' a frenzied stabbing attack.
I honestly feel the way this article was reported, as well as the judge's words themselves, does unecessarily highlight the victim's actions in a way that mitigates/detracts from the seriousness of the crime. I also feel this is not an accident. The British media is fond of reporting about 'have a go heroes', bystanders who have intervene when groups/individuals are behaving thuggishly, and who have ended up attacked or murdered for it. Not once have I seen a story where the papers or judiciary implied the victim 'shouldn't have intervened' or 'shouldn't have provoked' people who were clearly already in a nasty state of mind. No one ever implied that their intervening in a potentially ugly/violent situation was a 'trigger' for them being kicked to death or stabbed. Yet, make it a DV case, and suddenly the behaviour of the female victim becomes important. Can't help but feel this is not coincidence.
"we are accepting the idea that nagging somehow 'leads to' violence or murder. We are saying that verbal abuse is sufficient provocation to murder"
Those two statements aren't at all the same. If in this case the woman would not have been stabbed if not for the fact that she was nagging him, then it did "lead to" her death. Recognizing that there is a causal correlation in no way suggests that verbal abuse is "sufficient" provocation for murder. And wanting to strongly remind people that there is no justification for violence is not a reason to deny the reality that the victims actions may indeed have been what led to violence, completely independent of value judgments about the situation.
You say you haven't seen papers suggesting that these "have a go heroes" "shouldn't" have done this or that. Neither did they say here that this woman "shouldn't" have been nagging. It simply isn't necessary to say in the "heroes" case that "provoking clearly violent people is probably what led to violence", that is obvious on the face of things. But the reality is that some sociopathic people commit DV with no provocation at all.
Consider this, do you think that this judge and reporter highlight the victim's actions unnecessarily strongly, or do you think that mentioning them at all is always the wrong thing to do. I feel like you don't want to say anything about the victim, when there are clearly reasons that it is indeed relevant.
Those two statements aren't at all the same. If in this case the woman would not have been stabbed if not for the fact that she was nagging him, then it did "lead to" her death.
But there is no "fact" that she even nagged him. Isn't this just hearsay? And I'd honestly like to know what constitutes nagging for a person who was admittedly bingeing on heroine and booze all day long. What if he had said that horns grew out of her head and she started speaking in tongues? Likewise, there is a high probability that his perception of what triggered him was not rooted in reality and someone should have mentioned this possibility when making the assertion that he was triggered by something she said or did. Sloppy.
The brutality committed, his demonstrated lack of impulse control and empathy, and that he was heavily intoxicated on multiple substances are the facts that we have here. The killer certainly has a right to use whatever excuse he can to save his ass, but the judge should be sticking to the facts.
It is only hearsay if they're asserting it to prove something (like if "nagging" was an element of a crime).
Sometimes, what matters is what the perpetrator thought, not what was actually happening. It explains their motivations and intent, which are important in deciding which crimes a person can be charged with. It doesn't matter if the wife was nagging for real or not - if the perp says, "I killed her because she was standing there nagging me," that helps prove that it wasn't a premeditated act (premeditiation could be proved if he said, "She'd been nagging me all week long, and I started wishing she was dead. So I got a gun on Tuesday, and on Wednesday I waited for her to come home, and when she walked in the door, I blew her head off."). The perp acted because of something going on in the moment - whether it actually happened or not is a moot point.
Of course, at this point I'm losing track of what was only in the article and what was actually said in court, but this is why a court might be interested in what the perp said happened without caring if it's true or not.
After reading a brief summarizing article written by a reporter who may not even have been present for any amount of the trial, you are criticizing the sloppiness of a judge who no doubt listened to hours of testimony and days of evidence, and knows all the relevant standards of law. I would just tend to trust his authority over my intuition unless I was a particularly renowned legal expert.
Keeping in mind like alixana pointed out that what you interpret something to mean isn't necessarily what the legal significance of it actually is.
The killer himself pleaded on grounds of "diminished responsibility, claiming the alcohol dependency syndrome from which he suffered amounted to an abnormality of mind." So, it is likely sloppy journalism or a sloppy statement from the judge or both.
When judges make rulings such as this they have a greater responsiblity here to be precise as possible. If it was taken out of context, then I will stand corrected.
What the judge said is that he "accepts" that the event was triggered by something she said or did. Which only means that when deciding whether to believe that version of the story or not, he believes it.
"there is a high probability that his perception of what triggered him was not rooted in reality"
Your basis for saying this is your knowledge that he was on drugs, and drinking. The judge can not only hear his testimony, but can hear how detailed his story is, and how consistent it had been, and testimony from other people about how she had acted before, and how they had acted together before, and a huge number of things, none of which you can look at or think about. I don't understand how you can not only make a positive claim at all, but say it is a high probability claim, and that you are sure of this high probability even though it is in direct contradiction to the judgment of the person who had access to all the evidence.
Your basis for saying this is your knowledge that he was on drugs, and drinking.
Um, no, my basis is the quoted statement from the killer's defense assuming the article was accurate: abnormality of the mind due to substance abuse.
How do you interpret abnormality of the mind then?
I don't understand how you can not only make a positive claim at all, but say it is a high probability claim, and that you are sure of this high probability even though it is in direct contradiction to the judgment of the person who had access to all the evidence.
Based on widespread scientific evidence of the effects of intoxication and the judge's statements about it being a "drunken rage" and the comments to the effect that the woman was likely begging for her life, and the exaggerated nature of the killing (177 stabs). Also the judge made a statement that woman had shown him kindness when she was alive...
Where am in direct contradiction of the judge? My whole problem is with the language and how it can be perceived by lay folk as victim blaming.
"I don't understand how you can not only make a positive claim at all, but say it is a high probability claim, and that you are sure of this high probability even though it is in direct contradiction to the judgment of the person who had access to all the evidence."
this part was supposed to be in italics as a quote.
Thank your for having me.
I think that if we agree that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is the starting point, then I feel that you are debating extremes here and perhaps drifting away from the fundamentals: Nagging as violence.
Nagging is defined as 'continual fault-finding' using words, attitudes, gestures and innuendo that strive to de-power, demean and belittle the victim.
(I call it verbal Chinese water torture).
It can also be considered a form of abuse not too far removed from bullying, which is a well-known form of violence.
The root of nagging lies in the perceived status of the aggrieved partner, who does not 'know his place' (who are you to take on airs?) and cannot do anything without it being faulted as being 'not quite good enough', so no matter which way the partner moves, left or right, up or down, he is condemned.
Whatever he does will be the wrong choice.
Psychologist call this a 'double-bind' situation: Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The victim of nagging often gives up and just does nothing, knowing that he will be persecuted whether he does or does not.
It's easier to do nothing.
At which point, of course, the nagging intensifies as there is no opposition argument or defense on the part of the victim, who may resort to a slap on the face of the persecutor.
Until she understands that violence begets violence.
And stops the harassment: It's an easy win-win solution, much better than murder or a divorce.