Arguments Emphasizing That the Brutal Man Provoked the Lethal Response
Victim-blaming arguments proceed from the prem- ise that the departed was responsible for his own demise. The wife or girlfriend who emerged as the victor was reluctant to fight at the outset. In his final moments, however, the husband or boyfriend became a casualty because he incited his law-abiding mate through inflammatory insults, challenges, threats, gestures, and physical assaults that no longer could be ignored, endured, or evaded. Under attack and facing serious bodily harm, the female repelled his aggression with self- protective measures. The male expired as a result of an act of self-defense and not revenge. In these incidents, the party that should be faulted is the dead man who was the loser in a battle he started. He drove her to kill him in order to save her own life at a point when he was on the verge of murder- ing her. In a sense, the man got what he deserved by setting up a life-and-death struggle from which the woman could extricate herself only by resorting to lethal force. The killing should be classified by the police and prosecutor as a justifiable homicide and not a murder. He is not a genuine victim but an offender who died during his final assault.
Victim blaming asserts that these slain males are different from other men and that their extreme attitudes and behaviors are the causes of their
V I C T IMS O F V IOL E NC E B Y LO VE RS AND FAM IL Y MEMB ER S 313
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
demise. If they had changed their ways when they had a chance, they never would have met such a fate. Specifically, the men who provoke their inti- mates to slay them are more abusive than the typical batterer. They attack their partners more often and more viciously and are more likely to carry out sex- ual assaults. They tend to drink more heavily and to use illicit drugs more frequently than other batterers. Also, they are more inclined to threaten to kill their partners and to drive them to harbor suicidal fantasies and self-destructive impulses, according to an analysis of 41 cases (Browne, 1987).
In a study of 100 battered women who killed their violent mates compared to 100 who didn’t, those who struck back were more isolated socially and economically. They had suffered more severe beatings, their children were more likely to have been physically abused, and their partners were heavier drinkers and drug takers (Ewing, 1987). Additional studies confirmed that compared to other battered women, abused women who kill their tormentors have suffered more severe attacks, have experienced an escalation in the level of vio- lence, felt trapped because they had fewer resources to be independent in terms of education and employment, were involved in more traditional relationships (legally married, together for many years, raised children), and had turned to the police for help after previous assaults (Block, 2003).
Husband-blaming arguments point out that for many battered wives, escape was not a realistic option, or they tried to leave but failed. The ques- tion presupposes that fleeing her home would put an end to the dangers she faced. But in many cases the possessive husband would not tolerate her departure. Although she felt she could no longer live with him, he felt he couldn’t let her live with someone else or on her own. He became infuriated by what he per- ceived to be rejection, abandonment, or desertion. With that mind-set, he was likely to stalk his wife, track her down if she was hiding, and use force to bring her back. As a result, the battered woman actu- ally was held captive, trapped in a no-win situation she couldn’t end.
An understanding of the battered woman syn- drome helps explain why some women seem stuck
in destructive relationships. The assaults inflict a type of posttraumatic stress disorder of learned helplessness that undermines her self-esteem and sense of control. Gripped by fear, with beatings following a predictable pattern, the woman can believe she is in constant danger even when the man is not on the offensive (Walker, 2009). As a result, the demoralized and terrorized woman might choose to fight back at a moment when he is not acting in a threatening manner. This can explain why she might seize the element of surprise and strike with whatever weapon is at hand when he is distracted, asleep, or has passed out from drinking or drug taking.
The battered woman syndrome is recognized as a legitimate defense in court proceedings. Pre- senting this cycle of tension, conflict, and tempo- rary reconciliation as an explanation of her reactions is explicitly permitted by laws passed in various states and by Congress and is admissible subject to the judge’s discretion elsewhere. Expert testimony during a trial about the cumulative psy- chological consequences of periodic beatings can help explain why a woman killed a violent mate who was not advancing menacingly at the time of his death (Kristal, 1991; Sargeant, 1991; Gibbs, 1993b; Stevens, 1999; and Schneider, 2000). A content analysis of the media coverage surround- ing cases of battered women killing their tormen- tors determined that many of the articles at first medicalized and then criminalized her actions in an attempt to explain what happened: she went mad and then turned bad (Noh et al., 2010). Rely- ing on expert testimony about the battered woman’s syndrome places an emphasis on her learning to become helpless and her subsequent personal pathology. However, in certain cases, expert witnesses could advance a different expla- nation and successfully argue that her resort to lethal force was reasonable and justifiable under the circumstances (Terrance et al., 2012).
Legal Questions If the battered woman is believed by authorities to have acted in self- defense in a kill-or-be-killed showdown, then no charges will be pressed against her. However, if she
314 CH APT ER 9
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
appears to have shot or stabbed him after delibera- tion or premeditation at a time when she was not in imminent danger, then she can be indicted for first- degree murder. If there was no evidence of advance planning, but she did act with malicious intent at the crucial moment, then she may be indicted for the lesser crime of second-degree murder. If the prosecution believes that the dead man’s provoca- tions caused her to kill him in a spontaneous fit of rage or in sheer terror, then she could face the less serious charge of voluntary manslaughter. If the death of the man appears to be merely the out- growth of her reckless disregard for his well- being, then the charge will probably be involuntary manslaughter, which carries the lowest penalty, per- haps just probation (Austern, 1987; and Bannister, 1992).
The possible outcomes in these cases range from no arrest, to no indictment, to an acquittal by a jury of all charges, to conviction for murder or manslaughter and a lengthy term of imprison- ment. Usually, the case is resolved when the woman’s lawyer strikes a deal with the prosecutor to allow her to plead guilty to a lesser charge, with the understanding that the judge will hand down a reduced sentence. In a small proportion of cases, the women elect to stand trial; of those, most argue that they suffered from diminished capacity or tempo- rary insanity at the time of the confrontation. The bolder alternative is to raise an affirmative defense against the murder or manslaughter charges and assert that the women were compelled to lash out in self-preservation and should not be punished (Browne, 1987).
When female defendants claim they are not guilty by reason of diminished capacity or temporary insanity, they are offering an excuse for the act. By using such a defense, the woman concedes that tak- ing the man’s life was wrong. But she argues that she should not be punished for killing him because her mental state was so impaired at