Family Violence and Law - Case Study Example

?Family Violence Family violence is a huge social problem within many countries and the United s is no exception. Physical and psychological abuse often occurs as a result of family violence. In most family violence cases, the victim usually is the wife and the offender is the husband. There are many cases in which family violence often leads towards the killing of either the victim or the offender. “Self-Defense” arguments raised by battered women have encountered the greatest objections in cases in which a woman claims that a history of abuse led her to killing her partner as he slept” (Reutter). This paper analyzes the arguments in favor of and against treating Marcia as guilty. The Case Marcia Norman, 39, and her husband, Mitchell, had been married for 25 years and had several children. Mitchell did not work. He forced Marcia to make money by prostitution, and he made fun of that fact before family and friends. He beat her if she resisted going to a truck stop and offering her body. On a few occasions, he made her eat out of the pets’ bowls and insisted that she bark like a dog. He threatened to kill or maim her numerous times.  Marcia and Mitchell got along very well when he was sober. But early one morning, he was intoxicated when he went to a highway rest area where Marcia was prostituting herself and assaulted her. He continued beating her all day after they got home. She called the police and was told to come in and file a complaint, but she was afraid that he would kill her if she had him arrested. She ingested a bottle of pills, then panicked and called EMS. Her husband cursed her as the paramedics treated her and urged them to let her die. After they left, Mitchell continued to slap, kick and throw objects at Marcia. At one point, he put a cigarette out on her upper torso, causing a small burn. After he fell asleep, Marcia took their baby to her mother’s so that she would not wake him, returned with a pistol and killed him.  At trial, Marcia pleads self-defense, which is defined as “the necessity, real or reasonably apparent, of killing an unlawful aggressor to save oneself from imminent death or great bodily harm” (Given Case). When we consider the case North Carolina v. Judy Ann Laws Norman, we can argue that Marcia is not guilty even though she killed her sleeping husband. Judy Norman suffered a lot from the hands of her husband. Her husband forced her into prostitution and when opposed, she suffered a great deal of physical and psychological abuse from her husband. It was difficult for her to defend herself when she and her husband were in a physical encounter. So she killed him while he was sleeping. “A three judge panel of the intermediate appellate court, in a unanimous opinion held that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge of reasonable self-defense” (Angel 21). The above verdict is applicable in the case of Marcia also. She had no other way to escape from the brutalities of her husband. It should be noted that Mitchel (husband), disrespected her individuality and identity and forced her to live in accordance with the guidelines given by him. He used his physical and domineering strength to attack her both physically and mentally. Mitchel was denying Marcia the right to live on an equitable level as him. If Marcia had failed to kill him, he would have killed her. Using the “Self-Defense” argument could be a reasonable defense within this case. Under these circumstances, Marcia can argue that she tried to save her life from a certain death. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito “self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present” (Killing in Self-Defense). “The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him”(Hobart). Marcia believes that her life is in danger and her husband may kill her at any time. It is reasonable for Marcia to believe in such a way based on the activities of her husband in the past. Under such circumstances, killing her husband before being killed can be justified with respected to the laws related to self-defense. “For self-defense to justify a killing, the defendant must have genuinely and reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect them from an unavoidable, imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm” (Killing one’s abuser: premeditation, pathology or provocation? 770). It should be noted that at the time of the killing, Mitchel was sleeping. In other words, at the moment of killing Mitchel was not causing any threats to the life of Marcia. “The most difficult cases arise when the defendant killed a sleeping or resting victim or when the defendant engaged in other behavior inconsistent with self-defense” (Rosen 14). “One can hardly argue that a sleeping abuser presents a truly unavoidable threat. Hence, courts that stretch the traditional self-defense requirements to accommodate battered women distort the traditional elements of the law and may encourage violent self-help” (Killing one’s abuser: premeditation, pathology, or provocation? 771). It is lawful to repel force by force. American laws allow a victim to use forces if he/she is attacked by others. However, the killing of a person while sleeping cannot be justified using such laws related to self-defense. “Sometimes the problem arises because the woman’s perceived actual or threatened force to be deadly when, objectively, it was not” (Rosen 13). The judgment of Marcia with respect to the behavior of Mitchel may or may not be correct. Sometimes, Mitchel may not have any intention to take her life. He might have wanted to intimidate her just for power or enjoyment. If that is to be true or argued, the killing of Mitchel cannot be justified and that life is precious and nobody can return it once it is taken. Categorizing “self-defense” as a justification rather than as an excuse causes the defense to be defined in narrow terms. This is detrimental to the needs of battered women defendants who kill in nontraditional self-defense situations. Accommodation of the conflicting needs of society and battered women who kill can be achieved by a system of criminal defenses based on a revived distinction between justification and excuse (Rosen 17). It is difficult for the criminal justice system to justify the killing of a person who is sleeping even if that person causes immense threat to the life of others. A person can be labeled as a criminal only after a trial within the courts. In other words, only the courts have the authority to declare an accused as criminal or innocent based on evidences not the victim. In this given case, Mitchel may have been charged and convicted of a crime if Marcia was able to prove her argument for self-defense in the court. However, she failed to do so and in front of the court, Mitchel is not a criminal, but an innocent person. Under these circumstances, the court should not accept Marcia’s arguments or justifications for the killing of Mitchel. According to Kit Kinports, a law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law, “a battered woman cannot hope to satisfy the “reasonableness” requirement of the self-defense standard because her belief that force was necessary was objectively not reasonable” (Reutter). Conclusion It is extremely difficult to declare a battered woman like Marcia as guilty or not based on the existing laws of American legal system. The people have the right to protect their life. However, protection of one’s life should never be at the expense of another person’s life. In Marcia’s case, it is extremely difficult to decide whether Mitchel had intentions to kill her or not. Moreover, Marcia never registered any complaints previously about her husband’s behavior in courts. She could have registered a complaint against the behavior of her husband either in family courts or in criminal courts. Instead of doing that she decided to kill her husband. At the same time, Marcia might have been threatened by her husband for a longer period and he might have monitored her activities continuously so that she could not register any complaints in courts. Court should go through all these details before giving final verdict in this case. Courts may accept self-defense decisions based on the arguments of defendants and the accused. In the given case, the accused is already killed by the defendant and therefore it is impossible for the court to hear his argument. At the same time, it is difficult for the court to take any decision based on the arguments of the defendant alone. In short, Marcia definitely committed a crime and her arguments with respect to self-defense may not stand since she killed her husband at a time when he was sleeping. Works Cited Angel, Marina. “Why Judy Norman Acted In Reasonable Self-Defense: An Abused Woman And A Sleeping Man”. Web. 02, March 2012. Hobart, Peter. “Self Defense Law and the Martial Artist”. Web. 02 March 2012. “Killing One’s Abuser: Premeditation, Pathology, or Provocation?”. 2010. Emory Law Journal. 2010. Volume 59. Issue 3. “Killing in Self-Defense”. 2010. The Crime Report. Web. 02, March 2012. Reutter, Mark. “Battered Women Who Kill In Non-Beating Situation Have Self-Defense Right”. 2005. Web. 02, March 2012. Rosen, Cathryn Jo. “The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill”. Web. 02, March 2012. Read More