Battered women's syndrome what do you think about it. There is a woman at the moment up for stabbing her?

Question

husband to death and another who dressed in army greens hid under the house with a gun and when her husband came home she shot him and in this example she got off. There must be a lot of examples . Do women have a right to kill a man in cold blood and claim they have battered women;s syndrome after all the guy is not around to defend himself he is DEAD.

Answer 1

It has happened. Women always get lighter setences than men for any crime. Ever heard of a woman on death row? I honestly haven't. And then some idiot comes up with this "battered women's syndrome".

She does NOT have the right to get drunk and kill him over a computer(referring to your posted story). Then cry and say "he hit me" when her own son saw what really happened.

W/e, she'll get off, or if she doesn't, she'll serve six months max

Answer 2

It's going overboard to "protect" victims of abuse.  Actually, I should say it only protects female victims of abuse.  You'll never see a man pull this defense off.

Basically, it's legitimizing revenge.  It's about the only time we allow people to take revenge on others.  While I can see where they might want revenge, it sets a dangerous precedent when we allow women to kill men who may or may not have been abusive.  And there is another problem-often, there is no evidence supporting abuse one way or the other, but we take the woman's word as infallible because we've all had it drilled into our heads about how serious abuse against women (not men) is.  So we're ready to make the victim (the man) the enemy just to placate all those people who talk about domestic violence.  And don't get me wrong, it is a serious problem, but what ever happened to looking at evidence?  

Basically, I don't see why women worry much about murdering their husbands these days.  All you have to do is kill him, then cry abuse, and if there's even a hint of it ever happening, you're likely to get off easy.  That's on top of the fact that women already get lesser sentences than men for serious crimes like this.

Answer 3

Things answer was spot on.. and very fair.

Thumbs up for thinking mate :)

Answer 4

I would like to see people convicted of murder if they intentionally kill someone and it is not in self defence.

I guess if you do actually have  post traumatic stress disorder there is a good chance of getting off a murder charge (and enjoying revenge against an abusive partner) if you dress in army greens and pretend you are having a flashback and believe that you are  being attacked.

If it can be proved that the victim of the murder was a majorly violent abuser of the murderer then I don't care if the murderer doesn't go to jail. But I would still like to see them convicted of murder and be forced to do community service for at least 20 years.

Answer 5

A woman ran over her husband with her car and their shocked daughter inside.  The woman claimed mental abuse and got off with no jail.

The main problem (besides a dead human) is that historically when one Citizen can kill another Citizen without being punished, that often leads to revolutions/social unrest.  And more dead bodies.

Answer 6

Murder is not  the answer. If it gets to that point then a woman should leave and if he follows or keeps harassing her then she needs to get the authorities involve to prevent this. Leave and stay gone don't go back cause then he will  think it's okay for him to do it again.

Answer 7

EDIT: So I guess the geniuses here think people just turn up at court and say 'he beat me' or 'i had a lousy childhood' and the judge says 'poor you, go free'? Have any of you ever heard of 'evidence'? Yeah, it's a little known fact, but when people make a claim in court they usually have to show proof why they should be believed. Way harsh, eh.

~*~*~*~*~

So called 'Battered Wife Syndrome' is just another description of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a recognised result of traumatic events in a person's life, usually over an extended period of time.

As no-one can really say how the mind works and what the triggers are, it is likely that these people were suffering from some form of PTSD, just as many war veterans do.

We have seen instances where soldiers exposed to terrible events during war time have behaved in ways which are violent and weird ~ we expect it because we expect such men to be violent.

We don't expect women to be violent and so the actions of these women is viewed differently.

At this stage of our understanding of psychiatry, it is probably best to continue dealing with such people on a case by case basis.

Not everyone claiming PTSD is going to be a real sufferer, but some are genuine.

It is up to the courts to figure out which.

Cheers :-)

Answer 8

If a man is battering his wife he deserves his a** getting a good and proper kicking. However if the woman was just using battery as a excuse she deserves the full weight of the law to stick in her jail. Killing a man in cold blood makes no sense either way, because there the laws are so massively on the side of women that men can be arrested in most countries very easily indeed (see 'Domestic Violence' here http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluat...

Answer 9

I understand the situation; only why don't they get out.  That's always a famous question.  Is it more worth it to kill some one; end up in a straightjacket or go to prison; when it would have been better for them to keep searching till they find away.  The answer is no..

Answer 10

The guy was dead the day his wife first got angry with him.

Had the guy not got killed and instead had chosen to retaliate he would have been arrested and tried  in courts for domestic violence and it would have been even more conclusive that it was guy's fault, since there would propbably have been visible marks on woman caused in self defense by the guy.

The woman I think acted a little foolish...With the current set of laws, she was better of making the man suffer in courts for years instead of awarding a one shot redemption, in case she really wanted to avenge more satisfactorily.

Answer 11

no murder is not ok, I'm sorry but prior to such an act there were many opportunities for these women to take controll of their lives, & leave.

Answer 12

This sounds like premeditated murder to me. I understand to kill in self defense but is that what happened? I think not

A better question would be if a woman is being beaten, battered etc why in h**l would she stay and not get the heck out of dodge? I don't think society can help someone if they refuse to help themselves or at least ask for it.

Answer 13

thing550, Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler don't really fall in that category of people who need evidence to prove abuse.

As the asker said, the dead guy isn't around to prove himself innocent, so the woman already has an advantage going to court. Andrea Yates (who killed 5 children) and Mary Winkler (who murdered her husband) didn't need to strain too much.

PMS and BWS are ambiguous defences which are accepted as 'evidence' more often than not. If the judge asks for concrete proof, he'd surely be labelled sexist, just like the Canadian government was attacked for keeping divorce laws gender-neutral. One of the leaders of the attack said that women were better parents, so divorce laws should be written in their favour, and anything else would be sexist.

It's funny how feminists put pressure on people to get women all sorts of freedoms and then deny having done anything.

Answer 14

You could have the most docile and good-natured dog as a pet. But if you abuse it and harass it over a long period of time it may just 'snap' and turn around and bite you.

The dog suffers the consequences (it gets put down), but is it the dogs fault?

the incidence of domestic violence is higher than most people think (1 in 3 women), but the number of women that eventually 'snap' and turn around and kill their husbands is lets face it, pretty rare in comparison.

Psychological and physical abuse over an extended time period, as far as I'm concerned, accounts for this desperate act of 'insanity'. But the law is the law and it's about getting the law involved before it gets to that stage!