What do you think about the change to the defence of murder law allowing "fear of violence" as a valid defence

Question

...for a wife murdering a husband. And what do you think about adultery no longer being a valid defence of murder?

Theoretically, a wife could commit adultery and then murder her husband and use fear of violence as a valid defence.

Frankly, I think men in the UK are better off remaining single because the law is completely stacked against them.

Answer 1

The UK is just handing there country over to them sad really.

Answer 2

having been in a physically violent marriage i do empathize with the victims, male and female. i opted for divorce rather than murder but i can see how victims can be pushed to it. on one occasion while being beaten as i was trying to prepare dinner i did turn on my ex with the knife i was using. one of the children chose that time to fall and hurt himself in the garden and his cries of pain brought me to my senses. had i injured or killed my ex, what would happen to my children while i was locked up? in the end i was in that relationship for ten years and the joke was that i probably would have served less if i had murdered him.

the other thing is that if you are an abused man you have an uphill battle to prove it. getting people to take it seriously can be very difficult. when you talk about an couple where one of the partners is being abused people automatically think the abused is the woman.

this law is not going to solve anything. it will just give the excuse for anyone who wants to get rid of their other half without punishment to do so.

watch the flood gates open.

Answer 3

I don't agree with it all; it implies that killing is an acceptable way to deal with your problems, and I think the law will be abused. What constitutes "fear of violence"? An argument? An insult? If man an finds out his wife has cheated on him and, understandably, becomes angry, can she kill him and then say she was "afraid"?

The only justification for killing someone is self-defence during a violent encounter, if your own life is being threatened. It isn't pre-meditated.

A law like this basically absolves people of responsibility for their actions. Provocation shouldn't ever be a partial defence for murder, because we should all be capable of controlling ourselves. If you kill your abuser, you are just as bad as they are.

It does apply to both sexes, but I think women are more likely to be believed; the law already treats women as if we're victims. No one should get away with murder.

Answer 4

I think men everywhere should stay single, not have s*x, stop playing sports, stop talking if it's going to be a negative comment, etc..etc..

Mind control on the male population would be sooooooo cool. Could you imagine, no boxing YAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!

Answer 5

This new law actually works both ways, although not all news articles about it have mentioned this - men can use it as a defence too.

Answer 6

Supposedly men can use this too, but let's get real.  Do you really think this will ever work for a man?  Of course not.  People who said that forgot human nature.  So it's a sexist law in effect.  More importantly though, it's just stupid.  I guess anybody can just say "I was afraid" and get off now, right?  This is one of the dumber laws I've ever heard.

Answer 7

So this can be used to men too .... is that before or after people are done laughing at the sissy man who got beat by  a girl?

Yea in theory it does help only in the situations of abuse .... just like vawa does ... o no that's a lie its used more for leverage in family courts. And has actually harmed DV because of it.

Mmm - any know of the black widow concept of murder?

How difficult will that be to get away with?

Or is this the new feminist idea on redistrubiting wealth of patriarchy?

Cynical yes - would I put that last one part feminism - maybe the like of many of the feminists here wouldnt - but they aint the ones with a major hunger for power .....  

Men never had the right or the effective right to murder women (as far as I know) but since the bais is against men on believing they are victims of DV too this basically gives women the right murder.

How will women of this period be remembered :)

Seeing things like this ... <shakes head>

I think I will sleep with a katana than a woman.

One with out the scabbard is probably safer.

Answer 8

With these laws in existence, a man who doesn't rival Murdoch or Trump in wealth, is better off staying single than get married. As Eoghan said, even if the law sounds good both ways, a man may use this as his defense in the court. Proving it is an entirely different matter.

Answer 9

Fear of violence is a ridiculous defense.  SELF defense is more acceptable.  If a 6' 200 lb man tried to use this defense regarding the murder or his 5'4" 115 lb wife, I can bet a jury would never believe him.  So you can basically say that this is a "woman's defense".  Totally unfair.

Also, adultery should not be considered an "excuse" for murder either.

Cheers

Answer 10

Murder is not a 'VALID' response to adultery.  Divorce is.  The law allows for self-defence as a valid reason for taking anothers' life, though you should use 'reasonable force' - if you are burgling my house and I have my shotgun, wounding you with one shot, with you struggling to survive, no longer a threat to me, is reasonable.  Finishing you off with another shot is not.

Is fear of murder by your wife going to keep you from forming a relationship which would lead to marriage?  What a strange fellow you are!

Answer 11

It sounds a bit contradictory doesn't it?  They fear violence so they create it?

Then again, the men (and women) should not die, but it seems quite obvious that the fearful person should get out of the situation and be given help if need be.

Answer 12

Australia has it already. It is called 'battered wife syndrome' and isn't a full defence, it is more like a mental illness. This means the culpability is reduced, so murder may actually be judged to be manslaughter instead (a lower crime). As a result, the judge has more flexibility in sentencing.

I don’t think it should be a full defence because it should depend on the situation. It might be used as an easy excuse for women to murder in mildly violent (but still totally unacceptable) relationships.

Answer 13

It depends on the definitions and judicial interpretation of the provisions.  "Fear" of violence is capable of quite broad application and interpretation. It seems that in a crime as serious as murder the courts would interpret the defence extremely narrowly.

Answer 14

It's only stacked against you if you're the type of man that frightens women and gets into a situation like that.

I agree "totally" with the new law having had a very violent childhood.

Answer 15

Eohan hit the nail on the head. What are the odds a man could use a law like this in our society?

I don't think being scared that someone may become violent is a valid excuse to kill them. Run the h**l away from them maybe, but not kill them.

Answer 16

If a man used this as a defence, would any court or jury believe him?

Answer 17

Another brick in the wall of feminist discrimination against men

"Women who kill abusive partners could escape conviction for murder if they can prove they lived in "fear of serious violence"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...

Answer 18

If resonable belief that violence was forthcoming can be proven (i.e. death threats, etc.), it's not entirely ridiculous. I think that's the only instance in which the provision would be applied. At best, one would get a reduced sentence for that, but not be let off scot-free.

Answer 19

"I was very afraid of my wife....I had to kill her"

hahahahaha....yeah okay..I can use "fear of violence" as a defence, too? I feel so much better now. ::feel that sarcasm::

If a woman can kill me because she is afraid of me... I should be allowed to kill the BlTCH  that I just caught cheating on me or the guy shes cheating on me with.

Answer 20

Clara Harris in Houston a Dentist ran over her Husband for cheating on her. With her Step Daughter in the car begging her not to kill her Father. Funny thing, Clara was having an affair on her Husband at the time. Her Dead Husband's parents verbally defended Clara. Joseph Farrah the Editor of Worldnetdaily.com said her Husband deserved his fate. So Adultery now justifies Capital Murder. Mary Winkler shot her husband in the back with a 12 gauge Shot gun and pulled the phone cord out of the wall so Matthew her Husband could not call for help.

She served less than 6 months and got paid $450,000 for her interview on Oprah. Matthew's crime and her justification for killing him? He liked having s*x while she wore "s**y Lingerie and High Heels". So wearing Fetish clothing is now justification for Killing your Husband in the US. Her 9 year old Daughter disputed her testimony that Matthew abused her.

A Woman in Houston shot her husband in the head with a .45 ACP killing him. Got a $10,000 fine and 10 days in Jail. She got an Insurance settlement of $600,000 to split with her Lover. Who she killed her Husband to be with.

So the UK wants to declare Open Season on Men. So be it. When that c**p comes to the US. You will need Bull dozers to fill the mass graves of the Women who will be murdered by their Thug boyfriends and Male partners. This is insanity for any culture to permit and tolerate violence by one against the other and for the Government to sanction it is beyond insane.

But this is how Feminists regard Men. As disposable. This is proof Per Se of this reality. Men need to wake up to what is happening. Women who are silent about this policy are in fact permitting it to happen. Men should reject any Woman who agrees with it as Mentally unhinged.

Answer 21

Helen N is quite correct in her statement about the law working both ways.  Whether it in effect will is open to question, especially if both parties in a dispute 9a man and a woman) both make the claim.  Hopefully it wont be like domestic violence laws that automatically consider the man as guilty and the woman as the victim.

As a man who was abused by his wife, I found it absurd that I was in hospital with a fractured skull, broken ribs and ruptured kidney and liver and had coppers wanting to arrest me for violence against a woman who I had never touched, even though I called them.  She later did jail time, but it was uphill all the way.

Sorry, any laws that leave open the risk of abuse need to be very carefully monitored.  Your assertion about using it as an affirmative defence to cover for a murder is a concern of mine.