Should an illegal act committed by a defendant should be excused in accordance to what a reasonably prudent person in the defendant’s position would have thought or concluded? Or by what the person who committed the crime genuinely believed at the time they committed the crime and, further, which position a jury should take when considering cases of women who suffer from an abusive relationship, and perhaps battered woman’s syndrome killing their abusers, even if the murder occurs at a time that may not be considered immediately dangerous or threatening to the victim.
An example of this kind of case, presented by VandeWalle, of a defendant suffering of battered woman’s syndrome who killed her husband at a time that may not have been considered immediately dangerous is State v. Leidholm (1983). In the case presented, Janice Leidholm and her husband, Chester, were involved in a relationship that suffered from alcohol abuse and violence, which resulted in Janice suffering from battered woman syndrome. VandeWalle’s description of the crime found in Appeal from the District Court of McLean County, the Honorable Dennis A. Schneider, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL Opinion of the Court by VandeWalle, Justice states the following “ Early in the evening of August 6, 1981, Chester and Janice attended a gun club party in the city of Washburn where they both consumed a large amount of alcohol. On the return trip to the farm, an argument developed between Janice and Chester which continued after their arrival home just after midnight. Once inside the home, the arguing did not stop; Chester was shouting, and Janice was crying. At one point in the fighting, Janice tried to telephone Dave Vollan, a deputy sheriff of McLean County, but Chester prevented her from using the phone by shoving her away and pushing her down. At another point, the argument moved outside the house, and Chester once again was pushing Janice to the ground. Each time Janice attempted to get up, Chester would push her back again. A short time later, Janice and Chester re-entered their home and went to bed. When Chester fell asleep, Janice got out of bed, went to the kitchen, and got a butcher knife. She then went back into the bedroom and stabbed Chester. In a matter of minutes Chester died from shock and loss of blood.” (334 N.W.2d 813-814)
Following the crime Janice does admit to being responsible for killing Chester, but she claims self-defense. At trial the court instructs the jury that it is to find Janice guilty unless the jury finds evidence to support the claim that a reasonably prudent person in Janice’s position would have also come to the conclusion that Chester was about to kill or seriously harm him/her. In response to this, Janice made the argument that it was wrong for the court to give these instructions to the jury. In particular, Janice argued that what matters is not what a reasonably prudent person in her position would have believed, but rather what it was reasonable for her to believe. This response alludes the the fact that Janice’s behavior should be evaluated, keeping in mind that suffered from battered woman syndrome at the time she committed the crime.
It is estimated that between 40 to 80% of women who are convicted of murder acted in self-defense against their abusers, and male aggression is prominently present in almost all homicide cases, including cases when women are the ultimate offenders. In addition, unlike many men who are prosecuted in homicide cases, most women who commit acts of homicide do not have criminal histories. Inferring from the previously presented information, women who kill their abusers do not present a risk of killing other people in the general population. Women suffering from battered woman’s syndrome kill out of fear for their lives, and often for the lives of their children as well. Because of their reasoning behind their crime they are not a threat to the rest of the population as a cereal killer, or someone who kills their spouse for the life insurance, could be. Information presented in a study conducted by the Michigan Women’s Justice & Clemency Project (see Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 2007) states that of all homicide convictions and sentences in Oakland County (Michigan) over a period of three years (1986 -1988) revealed startling levels of discrimination against defendants who were victims of domestic violence “domestic violence victims had higher conviction rates (78%) and longer sentences than all others charged with homicide, including those with previous violent criminal records (62%). African-American women were convicted at a higher rate (80%) than all others. Overall, a white female defendant who killed a white person could expect an average sentence of 10-30 years; however, if the woman was a victim of domestic violence her predicted sentence was life. ” (Carol Jacobsen, solidarity-us, October 5 2007) In cases such as these, judges often fail to state that any testimony or evidence about abuse is sufficient to establish battering, and in states such as Michigan, the evidence and testimony of battered women could not be presented during trial until 1992, in the case of People v. Geraldine Wilson.
The legal definition of Battered Woman’s Syndrome is as follows: “a criminal defense involving a pattern of psychological dependency among women caught in long-term relationships with abusive male partners.”
When it comes to the use of expert testimony pertaining to battered woman’s syndrome, numerous problems for the court can arise. First (identified by Dr. Lenore Walker in The Battered Woman, 1979) battered woman’s syndrome is often criticized by many feminist scholars for potentially, pathologizing women. Because many women cannot fit into the victim mold that is often associated with battered woman’s syndrome, it’s can easily become a somewhat abstract concept that incites a stereotype that excludes many women who face abusive relationships, especially strong women, women who are physically fit,women who hold responsible jobs, etc. This can allow prosecutors to make claims that the defendant this is not a perfect victim, and therefore does not suffer from battered woman’s syndrome. Battered woman’s syndrome acts as a defense in court, but it is more accurately, just an explanation for an abused woman’s state of mind. Because of this, the focus of judges and juries shifts to a question of “does she suffer from battered woman’s syndrome?” rather than, “was she acting to save her own life?.” Furthermore, battered woman’s syndrome acts to completely exclude victims of an abusive relationship that are male (homosexual or heterosexual) or women who are involved in a homosexual relationship. This means that the standard by which a case of homicide as an act of self defense induced by an abusive relationship is most often judged, only applies to only a portion of the population.
Currently, women are eight times more likely than men to be killed by their intimate partner, and often in cases of homicide, only males commit murder by beating or strangling their victims. Women are more likely to stab or shoot their victims, this opens women to vastly harsher sentences with legal enhancements for use of a weapon in the commission of the crime if an abused woman who commits homicide is not found to have been acting in self defense.
An objection that may be raised in a case involving a claim of self-defense, that the accused’s belief that force was necessary to protect him or herself against imminent unlawful harm was reasonable then their actions (murdering the abuser) should be treated as an act of self defense, is that this claim should only prevail if the act of self defense against the abuser occurs during a time where the defendant is in oblivious danger of death or serious bodily injury, otherwise self-defense is not a valid claim when the person claiming it is not in immediate harm. Although the point can be made that if a person is under the impression that someone wants to kill them, so they kill that person first without any indication of immediate harm, self defense is not a valid excuse, that is not comparable to abused women killing their abusers at times when they are not being beaten. In these cases of abuse, often the woman involved has received numerous death threats from her abuser, she has been at least physically abused (if not sexually and mentally) by him multiple times in the past, and is often too weak physically or mentally to try overpowering him during the time she is being abused. Some might ask, why doesn’t she just leave him? To which I would respond, the majority of abusers threaten to kill their victims if they leave them, and if a victim has strong enough psyche to leave her abuser, often times he locates her and abuses her worse than he has in the past. Throw in the presence of children, and financial dependency, women in an abusive relationship often have no way out, even when they are not in a traumatic mental state. Because of these factors, many times the only conclusion an abuse victim can come to is killing their abuser at a time when they are unsuspecting, like when they are sleeping. This is the only way abuse victims can defend themselves.
In conclusion, a woman who is abused, and kills her abuser, even if the murder occurs at a time that may not be considered immediately dangerous or threatening to the victim, should be tried with the possibility of claiming self-defense. And her actions should be assessed with the belief that force was necessary to protect him or herself against imminent unlawful harm was reasonable then their actions (murdering the abuser) should be treated as an act of self defense.