Is it OK for "abused" wife to hire hitman to kill husband

[zz000ter]

The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments Thursday (http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/top-court-hears-landmark-spousal-abuse-case)on whether victims of domestic abuse can hire a hit man to kill their partners, a controversial issue which tests the limits of the defence of duress.

The case involves a Nova Scotia woman (http://www.thecourt.ca/2012/06/19/r-v-ryan-when-a-woman-prefers-being-behind-bars-than-being-free/), Nicole Doucet, who tried to hire an undercover RCMP officer to kill her husband Michael Ryan.

The high school teacher was arrested in March 2008 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2008/04/28/boudreau-ryan.html) and charged with counselling to commit murder.

She was acquitted of the charge (http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1608662)two years later after the Nova Scotia Supreme Court accepted her argument (http://nicolemueller.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/supreme-court-decision1.pdf) that she thought she had no other way out of an abusive 15-year marriage to a man who repeatedly threatened her and her daughter.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20120614/470_ryan_nicole_120614.jpg

[Mars2012]

That's a slippery slope.

[arclite]

In before: two wrongs don't make a right

[jaxx lite]

She looks wimpy
so it's understandable that she would be too wimpy to leave her husband

-

[Agafaba]

No, its never ok to hire a hitman to kill anybody. There are other avenues to deal with these situations besides resorting to premeditated murder.

[al3x89]

absolutely not.

[LaserEnvy]

No, but the authorities should have done a better job of listening to her story and giving her adequate protection (if her story is true).

[Moot]

More people should take matters into their own hands instead of relying on our pathetic excuse for a justice system. Hitmen need to make money too.

[007craft]

I dont get this kind of thinking today. Its 2012, not 1175. If you have an abusive husband, leave him. Hes not going to club you over the head and drag you back to his stone hut to remain his wife.

She has no excuse for hiring a hitman.

[arclite]

I dont get this kind of thinking today. Its 2012, not 1175. If you have an abusive husband, leave him. Hes not going to club you over the head and drag you back to his stone hut to remain his wife.

She has no excuse for hiring a hitman.

"Love" is blind. Maybe she has grown to be too dependent on him. If she knew he was a ***** in the beginning and still stayed with him, then it is clearly her fault. A lack of better judgement.

[pablonutribar]

I dont get this kind of thinking today. Its 2012, not 1175. If you have an abusive husband, leave him. Hes not going to club you over the head and drag you back to his stone hut to remain his wife.

She has no excuse for hiring a hitman.

What bothers me the most about cases like this, is that if the roles were reversed, and the man were hiring a hitman to kill his abusive wife, he would - without a shadow of a doubt - be going to jail for a long time.

[tsat]

Why do people need others to do their dirty work?

If you can't be bothered to get your hands dirty, you don't want it done bad enough.

[D-Roc]

There is no slippery slope about it. This should never be allowed. While extremely difficult for some women to leave their abusers, this does not justify hiring someone to kill your spouse.

[Simaahoy]

It's still murder.

[flashy_mcflash]

I dont get this kind of thinking today. Its 2012, not 1175. If you have an abusive husband, leave him. Hes not going to club you over the head and drag you back to his stone hut to remain his wife.

She has no excuse for hiring a hitman.

No, but he might just murder his wife for leaving him.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-21/wife-stabbed-murder-guests-new-year/3841530

For the record I don't think that premeditated murder is ever the answer, but I don't think any of us can really say what we'd do if pushed this far.

[Cafe_333]

What bothers me the most about cases like this, is that if the roles were reversed, and the man were hiring a hitman to kill his abusive wife, he would - without a shadow of a doubt - be going to jail for a long time.The difference is that women generally have far less upper-body strength than men. Therefore men can physically defend themselves from the threat of imminent death. This is simply not the case for spouses in abusive relationships. She hired the hitman because she believed she was in fear for her own life.


No, its never ok to hire a hitman to kill anybody. There are other avenues to deal with these situations besides resorting to premeditated murder.I disagree. Sometimes there are no other avenues when you are in fear for your own life. The law recognizes this and as such there have been well documented cases of spouses who have been acquitted of premeditated murder. The law already says it's okay when you do it yourself, so why wouldn't it be when you hire someone else to do it. Both scenarios are premeditated - it makes no difference who does the killing.


I dont get this kind of thinking today. Its 2012, not 1175. If you have an abusive husband, leave him. Hes not going to club you over the head and drag you back to his stone hut to remain his wife. She has no excuse for hiring a hitman.This is why i laugh every time i hear people like Doctor Phil say "it's simple! he hits you, you leave!" and everyone applauds. What a joke. This statement would be true if they got hit while on the first date - but that is never the case. Psychiatrists who specialize in domestic violence have provided expert testimony on the mindsets of these battered woman who have suffered for years at the hands of spousal abuse. They addressed why these women could not simply just get up and leave - the fact is they were mentally incapable out of fear and dependency, until they are pushed to the brink of life or death.

[Agafaba]

The difference is that women generally have far less upper-body strength than men. Therefore men can physically defend themselves from the threat of imminent death. This is simply not the case for women in abusive relationships. She hired the hitman because she believed she was in fear for her life.

I disagree. Sometimes there are no other avenues when you are in fear for your own life. The law recognizes this and as such there have been well documented cases of spouses who have been acquitted of premeditated murder.

This is why i laugh every time i hear people like Doctor Phil say "it's simple! he hits you, you leave!" and everyone applauds. What a joke. This statement would be true if they got hit while on the first date - but that is never the case. Psychiatrists who specialize in domestic violence have provided expert testimony on the mindsets of these battered woman who have suffered for years at the hands of spousal abuse. They addressed why these women could not simply just get up and leave - the fact is they were mentally incapable out of fear and dependency, until they are pushed to the brink of life or death.

Thats simplifying things a bit, its not exactly difficult for anyone to kill anyone if they really want to. 10 year old girls could just as easily kill you with things they find in the kitchen as a 20 year old male boxer could with his fists.

Sometimes there are no other avenues yes, but I hardly see how its the only or best option when killing your husband involves hiring a hitman. This wasnt a crime of passion, it involved a lot of time and a lot of money.

And thats why there are ample support groups out there to help abused individuals escape. Should all abused individuals simply kill there abusees, or should we be striving towards a more rational response?

[flashy_mcflash]

10 year old girls could just as easily kill you with things they find in the kitchen as a 20 year old male boxer could with his fists.


While I generally agree with the rest of your post, you cannot possibly believe this.

[divx]

It's still murder.

it's self defense.

[Agafaba]

While I generally agree with the rest of your post, you cannot possibly believe this.

They generally wouldnt, but its very possible that they could. Most kitchens are full of a large assortment of items that can be used to stab/poison a person should someone really want to do so.

[D-Roc]

I disagree. Sometimes there are no other avenues when you are in fear for your own life. The law recognizes this and as such there have been well documented cases of spouses who have been acquitted of premeditated murder. The law already says it's okay when you do it yourself, so why wouldn't it be when you hire someone else to do it. Both scenarios are premeditated - it makes no difference who does the killing.


There are always other avenues. If a woman kills her husband when her life is danger, she can be excused for the crime. However, hiring a hitman requires planning and in doing so she can not say her life is in danger at that point. If she can leave the house on her own to meet a hitman and make all the arrangements then she has ample time to plan her escape from the abuse. Allowing this type of defense will open it up to being abused (no pun intended).

[D-Roc]

it's self defense.

Only if her life is in immediate danger.

[flashy_mcflash]

If she can leave the house on her own to meet a hitman and make all the arrangements then she has ample time to plan her escape from the abuse.

Yeah that is basically the sticking point with this, for me. If she could get out and do this sort of planning then her priority should've been to get the hell out of there and ensure her safety, rather than whatever sketchy channels one has to go through to hire a professional killer. In some cases there are financial or logistic constraints that prevent the person from leaving their spouse but neither of these seem to be a factor here.

[desidealer49]

No. Murder is murder and should be punished accordingly.

Unless it is in self-defense which means the guy was about to kill you and you were in immediate danger.

Otherwise hiring a hit man to kill someone you dislike for whatever reason makes perfect sense too.

[mrperfect]

Its not OK to hire hitman.

[flashy_mcflash]

Its not OK to hire hitman.

Discriminating against Hitman is wrong and it should be stopped. You are interfering with his freedom

:razz:

[Cafe_333]

There are always other avenues. If a woman kills her husband when her life is danger, she can be excused for the crime. However, hiring a hitman requires planning and in doing so she can not say her life is in danger at that point. If she can leave the house on her own to meet a hitman and make all the arrangements then she has ample time to plan her escape from the abuse. Allowing this type of defense will open it up to being abused (no pun intended).You've missed my point. The law forgives anyone acting in self defense, such as her spouse coming at her with a knife. However I stated premeditated murder. This is completely different than self defense. Premeditated means it was planned - and there have been well documented cases of spouses who have been acquitted of premeditated murder. This exact type of judicial defense is actually already allowed. That is why hiring a hitman to me is the same thing. And there are law school educated/seasoned judges who also see it this way too.

[Cafe_333]

TSometimes there are no other avenues yes, but I hardly see how its the only or best option when killing your husband involves hiring a hitman. This wasnt a crime of passion, it involved a lot of time and a lot of money. And thats why there are ample support groups out there to help abused individuals escape. Should all abused individuals simply kill there abuses, or should we be striving towards a more rational response?
Yet with all the ample support groups out there to help abused individuals, we continually see woman incapable of leaving their abusers. These groups while having limited success, simply do not work with woman in extreme cases. These women believe they are trapped with no way out, and that the only way they will ever be free is by killing their captor. If you were captured in a war and knew for a fact your captors would kill you after weeks of torture, wouldn't you kill your captor when given the chance if it meant your freedom? That is what these woman believed.

[gman]

1. it is never "ok" to hire a hitman to kill anyone.
2. She was acquitted. There are many reasons a person could be ruled acquitted but it does not mean it is okay for others to do the same or herself to do the same again.
3. She was acquitted because the prosecutor did not do a good job to disprove her argument.

[D-Roc]

You've missed my point. The law forgives anyone acting in self defense, such as her spouse coming at her with a knife. However I stated premeditated murder. This is completely different than self defense. Premeditated means it was planned - and there have been well documented cases of spouses who have been acquitted of premeditated murder. This exact type of judicial defense is actually already allowed. That is why hiring a hitman to me is the same thing. And there are law school educated/seasoned judges who also see it this way too.

What cases are your referring to?

[Rainne]

Lol wth

So it's okay to hire hitmen to kill people who abuse you now?

Next thing you know, children can hire hitmen to kill bullies at school or people with abusive co-workers.

This is really messed up.

[dirkpitt]

it's self defense.She kinda took the "self" out of that. ;)

[Agafaba]

Yet with all the ample support groups out there to help abused individuals, we continually see woman incapable of leaving their abusers. These groups while having limited success, simply do not work with woman in extreme cases. These women believe they are trapped with no way out, and that the only way they will ever be free is by killing their captor. If you were captured in a war and knew for a fact your captors would kill you after weeks of torture, wouldn't you kill your captor when given the chance if it meant your freedom? That is what these woman believed.

If I was captured in the war it would be very odd if they let me go back to friendly lines and plan their assassination with my commander.

[Syne]

More people should take matters into their own hands instead of relying on our pathetic excuse for a justice system. Hitmen need to make money too.

Like soldiers, they're just doing their jobs.

[Simaahoy]

So, what punishment did the hitman get?

[LaserEnvy]

So, what punishment did the hitman get?

He was an undercover cop.

[stevenvv]

In before: two wrongs don't make a right
Wrong. Negative+Negative=Positive

[Coz4k]

absolutely not.

This

[sylpherware]

Wrong. Negative+Negative=Positive

Wrong.

Negative * Negative = Positive

-1 + -1 = -2
-1 * -1 = 1

[stealth]

Apparently it is ok.

/end thread.

[Cafe_333]

If I was captured in the war it would be very odd if they let me go back to friendly lines and plan their assassination with my commander.I meant while in captivity, you would take it upon yourself to kill your captor if you believed your life was threatened.


What cases are your referring to?I remember reading about them in law textbooks and i won't do the research to cite which X vs X cases there were to prove my point, however a quick google search did come up with the following where a woman was acquitted of attempted first-degree premeditated murder:
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/oct/16/woman_portrayed_battered_spouse_acquitted_attempte/

From the US Department of Justice: "Of the 238 who pleaded not guilty, judges and juries acquitted 16% of the 238 spouse murder defendants of killing their spouse." Although to be fair this is just a statistic and does not specify whether the acquittals were due to battered wife syndrome.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/SPMUREX.TXT

Wikipedia states that battered woman defense "has historically been invoked in court systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense
While Wikipedia is not a valid source of reference, it does help to explain why woman do not leave such abusive relationships: "because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, victims become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons may refuse to press charges against their abuser, or refuse all offers of help".

How about a Canadian reference?
http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm
The Supreme Court of Canada "recognizes battered wife syndrome as a defense to murder" and adjusted the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women.

The Supreme Court noted the following: While the law does not give any battered spouse a licence to kill the batterer, it is up to the jury to decide on a case by case basis whether the evidence -- particularly that of the expert -- is sufficiently compelling to warrant acquittal. It is not for the jury to pass judgment on the fact that an accused battered woman stayed in the relationship or the fact that there was no assault actually in progress. The battered woman in such situations is in a position somewhat analogous to that of a hostage.

[deltone]

While I see how someone could have the impulse to have someone killed if s/he has abused and or beaten you or your loved ones, but I would hope that it would be a fleeting thought and not one that you would go out and act on. It is not ever okay to ask for a hit on someone although I do think that if someone brutalized my kids I could see being tempted but seriously doubt I would every act on that thought. I don't think our laws should overlook it either as we would then end up in a vigilante society and that would not be a good thing.

[stevenvv]

Wrong.

Negative * Negative = Positive

-1 + -1 = -2
-1 * -1 = 1

Considering me and arclite were both wrong that means we're right.

[Agafaba]

I meant while in captivity, you would take it upon yourself to kill your captor if you believed your life was threatened.

Well besides the obvious differences, mainly that I am being paid by the government to kill the person already, that I would be killing them myself instead of hiring someone, that I was captive in both mind and body in a much more hostile environment than a wife of husband in an abusive relationship, I dont disagree with someone in a moment of passion killing their abusive significant other as an act of self defence. I do disagree with someone who is clearly financially capable of leaving (something that many others are not yet they somehow manage to leave) going out of her way to hire another person to murder her husband.

[stealth]

How about a Canadian reference?
http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm
The Supreme Court of Canada "recognizes battered wife syndrome as a defense to murder" and adjusted the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women.

The Supreme Court noted the following: While the law does not give any battered spouse a licence to kill the batterer, it is up to the jury to decide on a case by case basis whether the evidence -- particularly that of the expert -- is sufficiently compelling to warrant acquittal. It is not for the jury to pass judgment on the fact that an accused battered woman stayed in the relationship or the fact that there was no assault actually in progress. The battered woman in such situations is in a position somewhat analogous to that of a hostage.

Thats all well and good, but its very dubious that hiring a hitman is akin to self defense.

[Cafe_333]

I dont disagree with someone in a moment of passion killing their abusive significant other as an act of self defence. I do disagree with someone who is clearly financially capable of leaving (something that many others are not yet they somehow manage to leave) going out of her way to hire another person to murder her husband.The Supreme Court case addresses this very well. Madam Justice Wilson stated that the average person -- including a juror -- might ask if the violence was so intolerable, why did the appellant not leave her abuser long ago? An expert would be helpful in explaining that the woman's reluctance to leave is not because she is not as badly beaten as she claims, or because she likes to be beaten. The expert would be able to explain the 'learned helplessness' of the battered woman, whose self-esteem has been so damaged by protracted abuse that she quickly and repeatedly forgives the batterer in return for the apology and expression of love proffered at the end of each cycle of violence. Wikipedia furthers this point stating that "because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, victims become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons may refuse to press charges against their abuser, or refuse all offers of help". This is why woman have been acquitted of murder due to battered wife defense - even if there was no assault actually in progress.

If, given the history, circumstances and perceptions of the battered accused, she believes that she cannot preserve herself from being killed by the batterer except by killing him first, then it is reasonable, as in the hostage example cited, for the hostage to seize an opportunity to strike first.

[Cafe_333]

Thats all well and good, but its very dubious that hiring a hitman is akin to self defense.You are correct, and i have never stated that it was self defense due to imminent threat of life and the court certainly does not see it that way either. It does however view this as self preservation and therefore unique rules of self-defence does apply to the battered spouse even when if there was no assault actually in progress at the time of the murder.

[D-Roc]

I meant while in captivity, you would take it upon yourself to kill your captor if you believed your life was threatened.

I remember reading about them in law textbooks and i won't do the research to cite which X vs X cases there were to prove my point, however a quick google search did come up with the following where a woman was acquitted of attempted first-degree premeditated murder:
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/oct/16/woman_portrayed_battered_spouse_acquitted_attempte/

From the US Department of Justice: "Of the 238 who pleaded not guilty, judges and juries acquitted 16% of the 238 spouse murder defendants of killing their spouse." Although to be fair this is just a statistic and does not specify whether the acquittals were due to battered wife syndrome.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/SPMUREX.TXT

Wikipedia states that battered woman defense "has historically been invoked in court systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense
While Wikipedia is not a valid source of reference, it does help to explain why woman do not leave such abusive relationships: "because of constant and severe domestic violence usually involving physical abuse by a partner, victims become depressed and/or unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people may not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation. Sufferers may have low self-esteem, and are often led to believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons may refuse to press charges against their abuser, or refuse all offers of help".

How about a Canadian reference?
http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm
The Supreme Court of Canada "recognizes battered wife syndrome as a defense to murder" and adjusted the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women.

The Supreme Court noted the following: While the law does not give any battered spouse a licence to kill the batterer, it is up to the jury to decide on a case by case basis whether the evidence -- particularly that of the expert -- is sufficiently compelling to warrant acquittal. It is not for the jury to pass judgment on the fact that an accused battered woman stayed in the relationship or the fact that there was no assault actually in progress. The battered woman in such situations is in a position somewhat analogous to that of a hostage.

The only problem with the links you have provided is that they are referring to when the wife commits the act herself in self defense. That is completely different than premeditating/planning and hiring a hitman.

[stealth]

You are correct, and i have never stated that it was self defense due to imminent threat of life and the court certainly does not see it that way either. It does however view this as self preservation and therefore unique rules of self-defence does apply to the battered spouse even when if there was no assault actually in progress at the time of the murder.

Thats a real stretch and a really slippery slope.
"Self preservation" is an entirely different concept from "self defense"...If I am dying because I cannot afford an expensive medical treatment, my intinct for "self-preservation" may motivate me to hire a hitman to kill a rich person while I take their money for my medical treatment. But I could not claim it to be justifiable as a means of "self-defense'.

[Cafe_333]

"Self preservation" is an entirely different concept from "self defense"...If I am dying because I cannot afford an expensive medical treatment, my intinct for "self-preservation" may motivate me to hire a hitman to kill a rich person while I take their money for my medical treatment. But I could not claim it to be justifiable as a means of "self-defense'.I call your example an example of survival and acting on survival instincts. Self preservation is preservation of oneself from danger or injury. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction. At least the dictionary definition thinks so. Either way, it's not necessary to be so nit picky when the context of my point is crystal clear. If you like, we can call it self defense from perceived imminent threat even in the absence of any actual imminent threat.

[stealth]

I call your example an example of survival and acting on survival instincts. Self preservation is preservation of oneself from danger or injury. Protection of oneself from harm or destruction. At least the dictionary definition thinks so. Either way, it's not necessary to be so nit picky when the context of my point is crystal clear. If you like, we can call it self defense from perceived imminent threat even in the absence of any actual imminent threat.

Hahaha....No, I would not like to call it something so ridiculous.:lol:

what you are saying, is if a halfway house were in my neighborhood, if I perceive one of the ex con residents to be an imminent threat to me, I may kill them in self defense, even "in the absence of an actual imminent threat".
Does that really make sense to you?

[Cafe_333]

The only problem with the links you have provided is that they are referring to when the wife commits the act herself in self defense. That is completely different than premeditating/planning and hiring a hitman.In future if you are going to respond to me, take the time to read the articles I linked or take some time to perhaps understand why I linked them in the first place. I will highlight the main points here:

From the first link it clearly states she was acquitted of "attempted first-degree premeditated murder" and that "she wasn’t in imminent fear of death or great harm, yet pointed a gun at him — a gun she’d purchased two weeks before".

From the Supreme Court of Canada reference Madam Justice Wilson states that "there was a significant time interval between the original assault and the accused's response" and that "no assault was actually in progress" at the time of the accused's response and "where an unarmed Mr. Rust, after uttering a death threat, turned his back on the accused to walk out of the room".

Madam Justice Wilson goes on to explain that the law of self defense had a requirement of an "imminence rule" - such that a gun needs to be pointed or a knife uplifted or fists raised & clenched. As such, "anyone who intentionally caused death or grievous bodily harm in repelling an assault is legally justified if he or she did so under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm." This rule however did not cover murder committed by battered spouses. Therefore the Supreme Court "adjusted the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women".

[Cafe_333]

Hahaha....No, I would not like to call it something so ridiculous.:lol:

what you are saying, is if a halfway house were in my neighborhood, if I perceive one of the ex con residents to be an imminent threat to me, I may kill them in self defense, even "in the absence of an actual imminent threat".
Does that really make sense to you?Stop taking my words out of context. If you have been following my posts, you would understand that although premeditated murder was committed in the absence of any actual imminent threat, spouses have in fact been acquitted on the basis that they acted under duress due to psychological implications. Try reading the context of my posts instead of mocking it. If someone simply utters a death threat to you, the law will not excuse you from premeditated murder. If you think someone is going to kill you, the law will not excuse you from premeditated murder. If however you are victim of battered woman syndrome and commit premeditated murder, the law does take into account your psychological state of mind at the time of the murder. So stop disagreeing the law. The American and Canadian law certainly sees it this way, why don't you?

[stealth]

Stop taking my words out of context. If you have been following my posts, you would know that the law does take into consideration of a battered woman defense. Although premeditated murder was committed in the absence of any actual imminent threat, spouses have been acquitted on the basis that they acted under duress due to psychological implications. I am tired of repeating myself. Try reading the context of my posts instead of mocking it. The American and Canadian Law sees it this way, why don't you?

Thats not necessarily true. Its not so black and white as you make it seem. A few judges may have decided on this basis, but judges dont get it right all of the time...thats why there are appeals etc, right?

Nothing was taken out of context....your argument is just so weak in that its based on the over simplified concept of the scared frail battered woman and the raging violent giant muscle bound man, that it falls apart as soon as the principles are applied to an even slightly different scenario. So much for application of the rule of law.:facepalm:

[qmelley]

In before: two wrongs don't make a right

:arrowu: agreed

[Cafe_333]

Thats not necessarily true. Its not so black and white as you make it seem. A few judges may have decided on this basis, but judges dont get it right all of the time...thats why there are appeals etc, right?

Nothing was taken out of context....your argument is just so weak in that its based on the over simplified concept of the scared frail battered woman and the raging violent giant muscle bound man, that it falls apart as soon as the principles are applied to an even slightly different scenario. So much for application of the rule of law.:facepalm:I fail to see how you think my argument is in any way weak when all I have been doing is reiterating what has already happened in actual documented cases.

Fact: spouses in the US and Canada have been acquitted of premeditated murder due to BWS.
Fact: the murders i cited were all committed in the absence of imminent threat.
Fact: these spouses acted in self preservation, or if you like, self defense due to perceived imminent threat due to the result of psychological implications that is akin to a hostage believing she is going to die.
Fact: while self defense had a requirement of an imminence rule, it did not apply to battered spouses. therefore the law was adjusted to accommodate battered woman.
Fact: the law today takes into account battered woman syndrome.
Fact: it is quite as black and white as I make it seem when the Supreme Court of Canada says so.

I dare you to prove any of these as factually incorrect rofl.

[gwan]

a real hitman ya
but an undercover hitman, i would think not

[stealth]

I fail to see how you think my argument is in any way weak when all I have been doing is reiterating what has already happened in actual documented cases.

Fact: spouses in the US and Canada have been acquitted of premeditated murder due to BWS.
Fact: the murders i cited were all committed in the absence of imminent threat.
Fact: while self defense had a requirement of an imminence rule, it did not apply to battered spouses. therefore the law was adjusted to accommodate battered woman.
Fact: the law today takes into account battered woman syndrome.
Fact: these spouses acted in self preservation, or if you like, self defense due to perceived imminent threat due to the result of psychological implications.
Fact: it is quite as black and white as I make it seem when the Supreme Court of Canada says so.

I dare you to prove anything any of these as factually incorrect rofl.

LOL...Most of those are sufficently ambiguous that they cant be proven incorrect...:lol: So whiule not disprovable, they are NOt absolute either. A handful of examples on either side, is just that.

So, to respond to your nonsense:

Fact: battered spouses have been found guilty of premeditated murder.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Wright_(murderer)
http://scc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-123/1998scr1-123.html
http://www.iso.gmu.edu/~weitzman/ncvnorma.htm


...As we have stated, stretching the law of self-defense to fit the facts of this case would require changing the "imminent death or great bodily harm" requirement to something substantially more indefinite than previously required and would weaken our assurances that justification for the taking of human life remains firmly rooted in real or apparent necessity. That result in principle could not be limited to a few cases decided on evidence as poignant as this. The relaxed requirements for perfect self-defense proposed by our Court of Appeals would tend to categorically legalize the opportune killing of abusive husbands by their wives solely on the basis of the wives' testimony concerning their subjective speculation as to the probability of future felonious assaults by their husbands. Homicidal self-help would then become a lawful solution, and perhaps the easiest and most effective solution, to this problem.

So much for your attempt at a cut and dry version of how the law works. While battered spouse syndrome is "recognized" it is not a routine, automatic get-out-of-jail-free card, in self-defense like you are implying. And for good reason.
:lol:
:facepalm:

Try cutting back on the pointless psychobabble and legal jargon that you yourself dont seem to understand particularly well, and you may not find yourself rehashing the same flawed argument so often.

[Cafe_333]

So, to respond to your nonsense:
Fact: battered spouses have been found guilty of premeditated murder.
So much for your attempt at a cut and dry version of how the law works. While battered spouse syndrome is "recognized" it is not a routine, automatic get-out-of-jail-free card, in self-defense like you are implying. And for good reason. :lol: :facepalm:
Try cutting back on the pointless psychobabble and legal jargon that you yourself dont seem to understand particularly well, and you may not find yourself rehashing the same flawed argument so often.I have never said that it is routine and automatic. I have never implied that all battered woman have gotten off. I merely stated that battered woman HAVE been acquitted. I can however argue that once BWS was proven and sufficient enough a reason to warrant acquittal, that it has in fact been automatic as demonstrated by the Supreme Court of Canada.


LOL...Most of those are sufficently ambiguous that they cant be proven incorrect...:lol:Do you even know what ambiguous means? Ambiguity according to the dictionary definition is the ability to express more than one interpretation. How are my statements ambiguous when everything I have stated were from directly QUOTING these articles?! It doesn't get more "absolute" than that ROFL. There is no ambiguity when I am simply repeating what has actually happened and therefore I am not giving my own interpretation. It happened, not what i 'think' happened.


So while not disprovable, they are NOt absolute either.
1) Fact: spouses in the US and Canada have been acquitted of premeditated murder due to BWS.
I already provided two documented cases here (http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/oct/16/woman_portrayed_battered_spouse_acquitted_attempte/) and here (http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm), where spouses have in fact been acquitted. This is absolute. It is not ambiguous. Nor is it an interpretation. IT HAPPENED.

2) Fact: the murders i cited were all committed in the absence of imminent threat.
In the two cases I cited, the murders were in fact committed in the absence of imminent threat as directly quoted from both articles here (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ok-abused-wife-hire-hitman-kill-husband-1198100/4/#post14991837). This is absolute. It is not ambiguous. Nor is it an interpretation. IT HAPPENED.

3) Fact: while self defense had a requirement of an imminence rule, it did not apply to battered spouses. therefore the law was adjusted to accommodate battered woman.
"Madam Justice Wilson adjusted fundamentally the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women" (source (http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm)). This is absolute. It is not ambiguous. Nor is it an interpretation. IT HAPPENED.

4) Fact: the law today takes into account battered woman syndrome.
See previous fact, that directly quoted the Supreme Court.

5) Fact: these spouses acted in self preservation, or if you like, self defense due to perceived imminent threat due to the result of psychological implications.
As I have already stated, there was no imminent threat, but a perceived one that was "analogous to that of a hostage" believing that she will die (source (http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm)). This is absolute. It is not ambiguous.

6) Fact: it is quite as black and white as I make it seem when the Supreme Court of Canada says so.
"Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Superior Court of Canada, recognized 'battered wife syndrome' as a defence to murder." (source (http://publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm)) This is absolute. It is not ambigious. Nor is it an interpretation. IT HAPPENED.

Again, I dare you, to amuse me in attempting to prove that anything I have stated as factually incorrect. Or perhaps the more logical explanation is that "that you yourself don't seem to understand particularly well" what ambiguous or absolute means. So unless you can fathom up an intelligent rebuttal, stop wasting everyone's time with your "flawed argument" because "it is just so weak" and "for good reason". ROFL. :lol: :facepalm:

[Cafe_333]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Wright_(murderer)
http://scc.lexum.org/en/1998/1998scr1-123/1998scr1-123.html
http://www.iso.gmu.edu/~weitzman/ncvnorma.htm
And just for fun, I can show that none of these cases disprove my point. I don't care if BWS was used as a defense - I care if BWS was proven and sufficient enough a reason to warrant acquittal. This has been my key point all along. In such cases I can argue that acquittal was in fact automatic because the law says it shall be. It doesn't get more 'absolute' than that ROFL.

In the State of Texas v. Susan Wright, there had been no prior reported history of abuse and she only filed for a restraining order a day after his murder to explain his disappearance. In the week that followed his murder, she failed to report his death, lied that he was missing, proceeded to alter the scene of the crime, attempted a cover up by burying him in the backyard and painting the bedroom, proceeded to clean out their joint bank account, proceeded to tell her family that she was abused and that Jeff had left, and was uncooperative with the police. During her trial, she took the stand and her testimony was unconvincing. There was no expert testimony to collaborate her claims of BWS. The Medical Examiner also testified that her husband was tortured to death. It was also testified that their son "had never seen his parents fight." (Source (http://cmm.lefora.com/2009/01/01/jeff-wright-susan-wright-the-brutal-torture-murder-2/))

In R. v. Malott, there was no self defense or self preservation that is akin to a hostage believing she was going to die. There was no perceived threat of imminent death. In this case the abuser had already left her for another woman, and she had plotted to murder him and his new girlfriend. Although leniancy was recommended due to BWS, it was not the mindset of self preservation that caused her to pull that trigger. There was no foreseeable danger. It was clearly an act of revenge or the wrath of a woman scorned because after she shot the deceased, she proceeded to take a taxi to his girlfriend's home and shot and stabbed her.

In STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JUDY ANN LAWS NORMAN it doesn't even count towards your argument because the Court of Appeals granted another trial on the grounds that "the defendant's evidence exhibited what has come to be called "the battered wife syndrome" which entitled her to have the jury consider whether the homicide was an act of perfect self-defense and, thus, not a legal wrong."

I dare you to find ONE case where BWS was proven and sufficient enough to warrant acquittal but the defendant was found guilty. I already know you can't - because the law is on my side. And the law says it is automatic. Although the hard part is in proving it, that was never my point. My point is once it is proven as the reason, it is automatic. There's nothing ambiguous about that.

[jedi1648]

there are court cases saying OK for an abused wife to kill the husband herself.

[D-Roc]

In future if you are going to respond to me, take the time to read the articles I linked or take some time to perhaps understand why I linked them in the first place. I will highlight the main points here:

From the first link it clearly states she was acquitted of "attempted first-degree premeditated murder" and that "she wasn’t in imminent fear of death or great harm, yet pointed a gun at him — a gun she’d purchased two weeks before".

From the Supreme Court of Canada reference Madam Justice Wilson states that "there was a significant time interval between the original assault and the accused's response" and that "no assault was actually in progress" at the time of the accused's response and "where an unarmed Mr. Rust, after uttering a death threat, turned his back on the accused to walk out of the room".

Madam Justice Wilson goes on to explain that the law of self defense had a requirement of an "imminence rule" - such that a gun needs to be pointed or a knife uplifted or fists raised & clenched. As such, "anyone who intentionally caused death or grievous bodily harm in repelling an assault is legally justified if he or she did so under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm." This rule however did not cover murder committed by battered spouses. Therefore the Supreme Court "adjusted the law of self-defence to accommodate battered women".

Oh I did read it, but you need to provide a better argument as what you are currently presenting is weak at best. There is a vast difference in buying a gun 2 weeks before than actually going out, seeking a hitman, sitting down with him (or her) and planning out her spouses murder along with payment.

[freeloader1969]

My step-mother killed her abusive husband in the early 70's by putting a roofing hatchet through the top of his head. It was ruled justifiable homicide. Her husband at the time had a long history of severe physical abuse against her and my step brother and sisters. My dad has never raised a finger to her in the 37 years they've been together. I always tell him it's out of fear of what she'll do to him.

On topic...I don't support a wife hiring a hitman to do her dirty work. Do it herself for the satisfaction. :)

[Cafe_333]

Oh I did read it, but you need to provide a better argument as what you are currently presenting is weak at best. There is a vast difference in buying a gun 2 weeks before than actually going out, seeking a hitman, sitting down with him (or her) and planning out her spouses murder along with payment.
I'm not sure how my arguments have been weak when everything that I have posted have been factual.
Let's break down what has been discussed between you and i:

D-Roc: there are other avenues. hiring a hitman is premeditated and not in immediate danger.

Cafe_333: sometimes there are no other avenues. the law recognizes this and the victim does not have to be in immediate danger. There there has been well documented cases of spouses acquitted of premeditated murder.

D-Roc: what cases are you referring to?

Cafe_333: I link them.

D-Roc: these woman acted in self defense. this is different than premeditating/planning to hire a hitman.

Cafe_333: i prove there was in fact premeditation as there was an absence of any actual imminent threat.

Now, other than the obvious not having the guts to do it herself or not wanting to have blood on her hands, I fail to see how a spouse plotting to kill her husband on her own two weeks in advance is any different than hiring a hitman to do it for her two weeks in advance.


The only problem with the links you have provided is that they are referring to when the wife commits the act herself in self defense. That is completely different than premeditating/planning and hiring a hitman.And based by your own admission, you seem to feel that "premeditating/planning" is the same thing. So unless you can explain to me why it is different (although I already know you can't because they mean the same thing), then what you are 'currently presenting is weak at best'.

[D-Roc]

I'm not sure how my arguments have been weak when everything that I have posted have been factual.
Let's break down what has been discussed between you and i:

D-Roc: there are other avenues. hiring a hitman is premeditated and not in immediate danger.

Cafe_333: sometimes there are no other avenues. the law recognizes this and the victim does not have to be in immediate danger. There there has been well documented cases of spouses acquitted of premeditated murder.

D-Roc: what cases are you referring to?

Cafe_333: I link them.

D-Roc: these woman acted in self defense. this is different than premeditating/planning to hire a hitman.

Cafe_333: i prove there was in fact premeditation as there was an absence of any actual imminent threat.

Now, other than the obvious not having the guts to do it herself or not wanting to have blood on her hands, I fail to see how a spouse plotting to kill her husband on her own two weeks in advance is any different than hiring a hitman to do it for her two weeks in advance.

And based by your own admission, you seem to feel that "premeditating/planning" is the same thing. So unless you can explain to me why it is different (although I already know you can't because they mean the same thing), then what you are 'currently presenting is weak at best'.


No I never said they were the same thing. Buying a gun for protection, thinking you may need to use it or know you will need to use it in the future, is not the same as planning with a hitman the murder of your spouse. You just do not get it. These are two very different things and what you posted is not out right facts. It is fact that in those links, those things did happen, but that does not make it that a fact that is what always will happen. As someone else posted, there are other cases where women were found guilty in similar situations and those too are facts.

[Phoenix3434]

My step-mother killed her abusive husband in the early 70's by putting a roofing hatchet through the top of his head. It was ruled justifiable homicide. Her husband at the time had a long history of severe physical abuse against her and my step brother and sisters. My dad has never raised a finger to her in the 37 years they've been together. I always tell him it's out of fear of what she'll do to him.

On topic...I don't support a wife hiring a hitman to do her dirty work. Do it herself for the satisfaction. :)

It takes a special kind of man to marry a woman who has killed her former husband.. Either that or your step-mom was quite hot when your dad married her.

Which is it?

[Cafe_333]

No I never said they were the same thing. Buying a gun for protection, thinking you may need to use it or know you will need to use it in the future, is not the same as planning with a hitman the murder of your spouse. You just do not get it. These are two very different things and what you posted is not out right facts.The fact that she purchased a gun two weeks prior is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the gun was used in a premeditated murder. You have yet to explain how planning to kill her husband with a gun is any different than planning to kill him via hitman. Both are premeditated. Both had planned intent.

You have yet to demonstrate how *anything* I posted was not a fact. Everything I have posted have been directly quoted and referenced. This is how I know I will always win any rebuttal you or anyone else can think of because I only work with the facts.


It is fact that in those links, those things did happen, but that does not make it that a fact that is what always will happen. As someone else posted, there are other cases where women were found guilty in similar situations and those too are facts.There have been absolutely NO cases where a woman was found guilty in a similar situation. I dare you to find one. Please amuse me. But I already know that you can't because it doesn't *exist*. Don't bother referencing the cases stealth posted either because i have thoroughly demonstrated why none of these cases are a similar situation in this post here (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ok-abused-wife-hire-hitman-kill-husband-1198100/4/#post14992297). The only thing similar in these cases was that BWS was used as a defense. I don't care if BWS was used as a defense. Every defense lawyer will try it in similar situations. The point that I have maintained is that when BWS is proven and sufficient enough a reason to warrant an acquittal, it will, IN FACT, always be an acquittal. Why? Because that IS the law. The law says it will happen. And I have cited cases that demonstrated this thoroughly.

I just don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about my arguments. I have proven that there does not need to be an immediate danger. I have never said that just because there is BWS that woman should be automatically excused. I have always maintained that it needs to be proven. Yes it is hard to prove, but if BWS is proven and sufficient enough a reason to warrant an acquittal, it is unequivocal that an acquittal will always in fact happen. What is so hard to understand about that? So unless you can prove otherwise, I'll just have to assume that 'you just do not get it'.

[LaserEnvy]

My step-mother killed her abusive husband in the early 70's by putting a roofing hatchet through the top of his head. It was ruled justifiable homicide. Her husband at the time had a long history of severe physical abuse against her and my step brother and sisters. My dad has never raised a finger to her in the 37 years they've been together. I always tell him it's out of fear of what she'll do to him.

On topic...I don't support a wife hiring a hitman to do her dirty work. Do it herself for the satisfaction. :)

wut :eek:

[pablonutribar]

The fact that she purchased a gun two weeks prior is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the gun was used in a premeditated murder. You have yet to explain how planning to kill her husband with a gun is any different than planning to kill him via hitman. Both are premeditated. Both had planned intent.

You have yet to demonstrate how *anything* I posted was not a fact. Everything I have posted have been directly quoted and referenced. This is how I know I will always win any rebuttal you or anyone else can think of because I only work with the facts.

There have been absolutely NO cases where a woman was found guilty in a similar situation. I dare you to find one. Please amuse me. But I already know that you can't because it doesn't *exist*. Don't bother referencing the cases stealth posted either because i have thoroughly demonstrated why none of these cases are a similar situation in this post here (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/ok-abused-wife-hire-hitman-kill-husband-1198100/4/#post14992297). The only thing similar in these cases was that BWS was used as a defense. I don't care if BWS was used as a defense. Every defense lawyer will try it in similar situations. The point that I have maintained is that when BWS is proven and sufficient enough a reason to warrant an acquittal, it will, IN FACT, always be an acquittal. Why? Because that IS the law. The law says it will happen. And I have cited cases that demonstrated this thoroughly.

I just don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about my arguments. I have proven that there does not need to be an immediate danger. I have never said that just because there is BWS that woman should be automatically excused. I have always maintained that it needs to be proven. Yes it is hard to prove, but if BWS is proven and sufficient enough a reason to warrant an acquittal, it is unequivocal that an acquittal will always in fact happen. What is so hard to understand about that? So unless you can prove otherwise, I'll just have to assume that 'you just do not get it'.

I think what you may be not be understanding is that most of the people on this thread are discussing their own opinions about whether or not they agree with the judgement in question. You seem to be content to pontificate on why this happened from a legal point of view, and then to seemingly justify it because "the law allows for it, so it must be correct". As informative as your explanation for the reasoning behind the judgement may be, it does not necessarily mean that "justice" was served (at least not in the eyes of the other posters in this thread). Surely you must be able to concede that at times the justice system produces flawed or subjectively unfair results - regardless of how well-intentioned the reasoning behind the process/laws may be. Have I misunderstood you and your intentions?

Following the "the law allows for it, so it must be correct" line of argument - although interesting - tends to make you appear to be a bit of an amoral/ethically bankrupt douche, even if it was only your intention to educate others as to the reasoning behind the decisions made by the courts.

[pablonutribar]

The difference is that women generally have far less upper-body strength than men. Therefore men can physically defend themselves from the threat of imminent death. This is simply not the case for spouses in abusive relationships. She hired the hitman because she believed she was in fear for her own life.


Does "greater upper body strength" protect your from someone with a knife, gun, or tire iron? Although you are correct in stating that men are generally physically superior to women, the idea that women cannot threaten men with imminent death is ridiculous. Perhaps you have the legal knowledge to refute my point, but it is my opinion that a court would look unfavourably upon this situation/case were the genders reversed.

Woman: "My partner was abusive - so I killed him"
Society: "The rotten bastard, he deserved it"

Man: "My partner was abusive, so I killed her"
Society: "You're nothing more than a weak-minded misogynist"

Please note that I definitely do not mean to imply that men should have the right to kill their partners (even if they are abusive) - I merely seek to highlight the double standard that seems to exist in our society in regards to gender.

[Cafe_333]

I think what you may be not be understanding is that most of the people on this thread are discussing their own opinions about whether or not they agree with the judgement in question. You seem to be content to pontificate on why this happened from a legal point of view, and then to seemingly justify it because "the law allows for it, so it must be correct". As informative as your explanation for the reasoning behind the judgement may be, it does not necessarily mean that "justice" was served (at least not in the eyes of the other posters in this thread). Surely you must be able to concede that at times the justice system produces flawed or subjectively unfair results - regardless of how well-intentioned the reasoning behind the process/laws may be. Have I misunderstood you and your intentions?

Following the "the law allows for it, so it must be correct" line of argument - although interesting - tends to make you appear to be a bit of an amoral/ethically bankrupt douche, even if it was only your intention to educate others as to the reasoning behind the decisions made by the courts.

I don't believe I have contested anyone in here for disagreeing with the judgment in question, however I did disagree when posters state that there must be other alternatives to murder and points out the fact that there was no imminent danger. I pointed out that the need for imminent danger was not necessary. I am not following the 'law allows for it therefore it must be correct' line of argument. I am following what is logical human reasoning in that a proven battered woman defense is analogous to a hostage believing she is going to die. As such, if, given the history, circumstances and perceptions of the battered accused, she believes that she cannot preserve herself from being killed by the batterer except by killing him first, then it is sufficient enough a reason to warrant an acquittal. How does this not make sense to anybody???

And if that makes me an immoral, ethically bankrupt douche, then a douche I am. However if you concede that this is reasonable human behavior, then perhaps I am not a douche after all. This has been my point all along. The Supreme Court of Canada sees it this way. Do you?

[Cafe_333]

Does "greater upper body strength" protect your from someone with a knife, gun, or tire iron? Although you are correct in stating that men are generally physically superior to women, the idea that women cannot threaten men with imminent death is ridiculous. Perhaps you have the legal knowledge to refute my point, but it is my opinion that a court would look unfavourably upon this situation/case were the genders reversed.

Please note that I definitely do not mean to imply that men should have the right to kill their partners (even if they are abusive) - I merely seek to highlight the double standard that seems to exist in our society in regards to gender.I agree with you that there is a double standard that exists in our judicial system. Convicted spouses have generally been given lighter sentences for the same crimes that husbands have committed. I also agree that woman can threaten men, but a husband killing his spouse after she picks up a knife, gun, or tire iron is entirely different. That would fall under self defense. BWS defense is entirely different because of the absence of imminent threat.

Although I do believe that battered defense can apply to men, it would be incredibly rare and vastly more difficult to prove in court. The premise for a proven BWS defense must demonstrate that the victim believed that their partner *can* and will kill them. It must also show that the victim believed that there was a perceived threat and that their life would eventually end if they did nothing about it. Most men will never feel that their wife is capable of killing them from an attack which makes this harder to prove. It must also show that the victim had suffered and been trapped through years of emotional/physical abuse and believed that there was no way out.

[pablonutribar]

I don't believe I have contested anyone in here for disagreeing with the judgment in question, however I did disagree when D-Roc stated that there are other avenues to murder and points out the fact that there was no imminent danger. I pointed out that the need for imminent danger was not necessary. I am not following the 'law allows for it therefore it must be correct' line of argument. I am following what is logical human reasoning in that a proven battered woman defense is analogous to a hostage believing she is going to die. As such, if, given the history, circumstances and perceptions of the battered accused, she believes that she cannot preserve herself from being killed by the batterer except by killing him first, then it is sufficient enough a reason to warrant an acquittal. How does this not make sense to anybody???

And if that makes me an immoral, ethically bankrupt douche, then a douche I am. However if you concede that this is reasonable human behavior, then perhaps I am not a douche after all. This has been my point all along. The Supreme Court of Canada sees it this way. Do you?

I understand the line of reasoning behind the Supreme Courts decision in regards to BWS situations in which the wife kills her husband. However, in a case such as this, I believe that a well-intentioned rule/law/precedent is being stretched to include the wife's commission of a contract killer to deal with her problem. This goes to far - it sets a really dangerous precedent for the future, and goes beyond self defence by sanctioning a criminal act INVOLVING AN UNRELATED THIRD PARTY.

This kind of reminds of the thread on her once about the divorced woman with a child who shacked up with a man who owned his own house. When the couple split up (I don't even think they were married), he was kicked out of his own house. Following a reasonable premise, the courts decided that the best interests of the child meant ensuring that the child and his/her caregiver had a stable place to live - I understood that part. However, the end result of the courts decision was decidedly distasteful. Sometimes a logical sequence of steps can be followed to a patently ridiculous conclusion.

[freeloader1969]

It takes a special kind of man to marry a woman who has killed her former husband.. Either that or your step-mom was quite hot when your dad married her.

Which is it?

We're native so what does that tell you? LOL...

[Catherine111]

In before: two wrongs don't make a right

Very well said. Yeah both actions are wrong so it can not be ok.

[Cafe_333]

I understand the line of reasoning behind the Supreme Courts decision in regards to BWS situations in which the wife kills her husband. However, in a case such as this, I believe that a well-intentioned rule/law/precedent is being stretched to include the wife's commission of a contract killer to deal with her problem. This goes to far - it sets a really dangerous precedent for the future, and goes beyond self defence by sanctioning a criminal act INVOLVING AN UNRELATED THIRD PARTY.
This is a well thought out reply - and certainly one where I can respect your opinion pertaining to the original thread's question at hand. And honestly a very valid reply. It does leave one interesting conundrum - at what point does a woman need to be pushed?

The law as it is today can excuse a spouse who is driven to murder under the right psychological duress. Psychology does argue that anyone is capable of murder given the correct conditions. So the question becomes, should the law wait until those conditions are met and the woman is pushed to such a point and commits the act of murder herself? Or shall the law be stretched to include woman who fall somewhere short of that point?

To be honest, prior to your reply, I didn't see much difference in hiring a hitman. The fact that the hitman is an unrelated third party for me is irrelevant because it is as good as pulling the trigger herself. But your rebuttal has caused me to rethink this. Should the law only forgive if the spouse does it herself? One can argue that if she is incapable of pulling the trigger herself, then she is not yet at a point where the situation is analogous to that of a hostage believing she is going to die. Based on that, I concede to you. To answer whether the law should be stretched is up to the Supreme Court to decide.

Well done to you sir.
My only gripe with the other posters is that they tried to pick apart the validity of my posts, so naturally I had to defend myself. I still stand by the moral validity of the current law (which has been the basis of my heated debates with other posters here) - that anyone under the same psychological duress would find it reasonable human behavior to act in self preservation.


This kind of reminds of the thread on her once about the divorced woman with a child who shacked up with a man who owned his own house. When the couple split up (I don't even think they were married), he was kicked out of his own house. Following a reasonable premise, the courts decided that the best interests of the child meant ensuring that the child and his/her caregiver had a stable place to live - I understood that part. However, the end result of the courts decision was decidedly distasteful. Sometimes a logical sequence of steps can be followed to a patently ridiculous conclusion.
I don't know the details of this case to comment on it. Given these details alone I would agree it as distasteful, however perhaps the woman had enough grounds to claim common law status which entitled her to certain amenities? I do agree that sometimes court decisions are unfavorable.

[Forhad]

Killing someone is not ok. Better she can take help from police.