Does the Battered Woman or Battered Child Syndrome Justify Committing Murder - Term Paper Example

?Does the battered woman or battered Child syndrome justify committing murder? and The issue of battered women or child syndrome in the criminal law of the United States is subject of debate. Although it has been admitted in courts as a valid testimony, it raises the question of whether or not it should be used to justify committing murder. Cases of Children killing their parents and women killing their husbands have been reported and determined. The verdicts are normally four: first and second-degree murder, manslaughter and acquittal on grounds of self-defense. All the verdicts indicate consideration for the syndrome thereby attracting scholars such as Dr. Walker to aid women by testifying on the effect of the syndrome. However, the arguments by Dr. Walker are yet to gain broad and dependable scientific backing. All the alternative studies on the subject indicate otherwise. Therefore, the issue of battered child and women syndrome can only be accepted as an existing issue but not for the purposes it has been used. The issue can be addressed in a better way by enhancing the law to deal with such issues amicably, because the current situation discourages one vice and encourages another. Two wrongs can never make a right. Introduction Children and women alike have been involved in killing in the United States but justice rendered in the courts is debatable, especially to the victims’ side. Children have been convicted and found guilty of killing their parents but the courts both in first trial courts and appellate courts have considered four possible judgments: first and second-degree murder, manslaughter and acquittal on the self-defense rule. Generally, lighter sentences and even acquittal on account of self-defense dominate the judgments in all cases. In most cases, first-degree murder sentences have been reversed and lesser punitive sentences given to the defendants (Wilson, 2000). The lawyers from both sides of the divide have been making their cases in all the cases mentioned. In any case, justice is expected to be delivered to both sides. However, in all these cases, the victim is not alive to state their case whereas the perpetrators of the crimes are there to state their case. This implies that it is the prosecution case against the defense case. It can be concluded from the outcomes in most of the cases that the defense has been carrying the day in either getting lesser sentence or being acquitted altogether. Whether the decisions were based on truth or partial truth is speculative. However, does the reason of battered child or woman syndrome justify committing murder? (Malmquist, 2007) Although murder is a subject of definition in law as it may have been applied in this case, this paper uses to refer to mere killing of one human being by the other. The arguments are both supportive of the verdicts and against the verdicts in the cases. The conclusion section gives a verdict of this paper. Pros In the first case, the Menendez boys killed their parents, and after it was found that although they were guilty of the action, they were subject of child abuse (psychosexual abuse) there was a mistrial in first trial because the jury tied two versus two on whether rule murder or manslaughter. Even though they were eventually judged for murder and given a life sentence, there was a reason why there was a mistrial. Their relationship with their parents was questionable, to the extent that they feared for their lives every minute that passed. In the second case, Jahnke was found guilty of murdering the father. However, because it was after a violent argument, the jury termed it voluntary manslaughter and not predetermined murder. Although his appeal on grounds of battered child was rejected the judgment had already factored in this aspect. In the third case, the jury found Sociz guilty of attempted manslaughter and later the boy was acquitted for what the judges termed as sympathy for child’s dislike of the father and coming from different backgrounds. Although the three cases are different in circumstances, there is a common denominator, they are subject of abuse or perceived abuse from their parents. The jurors in the Menendez case heard from experts, teachers and friends of the family whereas in Sociz and Jahnke from experts. On the same aspect of self-defense, women have utilized a provision in the law promoting battered women's syndrome to be a defense where women have claimed lives of their husbands. The development that has attracted scholars’ intervention arose from the need to change the lives of women form misery in the hands of brutal husbands. One such scholar was Dr. Walker, who welcomed the development and endeavored to research and testified in support of battered women in court. In the case, Ibn-Tarnas killed the husband, was convicted and found guilty of second-degree murder. She appealed on the grounds of a battered woman as testified by Dr. Walker but was the decision was upheld because of the issue of admissibility of Dr. Walker’s testimony. However, the decision had initially considered this benefit of doubt. In the second case where Gladys is her husband was convicted of murder and found guilty of reckless manslaughter. The decision was later reversed by the state supreme court that considered Dr. Lois Veronen testimony of battered women’s syndrome. This was built against the humiliation that women were going through both with their brutal husbands and in the hands of those who handle abuse cases. the jury had first decision considered the element of women’s battery syndrome. Battered women’s syndrome has been admitted in courts in a number of states as being scientifically valid and of probate value. However, the subject of scientific validity is debatable because most subsequent studies do not support it. Cons Even though all the judgments underscore the consideration of battered women and battered children syndrome as justifying verdicts in murder cases the same verdicts prove otherwise. In the cases concerning children killing their parents, there are outstanding issues. The jury and judges did not establish whether the lives of the children were in danger of being claimed any minute. Secondly, they did not establish whether the battered child syndrome caused a condition that hampered the mental ability of the defendants instead they accepted its presence and perceive contribution. Without the two issues into perspective through appropriate testing and reporting by experts whose work is verifiable by experts in the field is questionable. Battered women’s syndrome has been considered and used in issuing verdicts. This is partly due to being accepted as admissible. However, as in the cases of children, there is a lot left to be desired. There is no scientific evidence admissible to the scholars in the field that has been presented in the cases. The acceptance is only an agreement that this evil is there in the society and needs a way of dealing with it. The argument by the expert opinion of Dr. Walker is that women suffer from learned helplessness. However, a study into the effect of suffering from learned helplessness does not show that the victims attack those who expose them to this situation. Instead, they learn to live with that condition, having lost their internal locus of control. In the case of the women, they have the internal locus of control, and they commit the crimes consciously and willingly. Conclusion In summary, it is acceptable that child and women battered syndrome is there but does not justify committing crime of any magnitude. Although almost all the cases have shown elements of violence or aggression against the defendants, in no case there is evidence of mental instability or an unavoidable danger to life. This means that either cases of violence against children by parents, and against women by husbands are not well addressed or there is a problem of the law. Should these cases be handled aggressively and in appropriate ways then cases of violence would significantly reduce to very minimal and non-fatal levels. The law should address this comprehensively, and the system should encourage jurors to interpret the law holistically and not selectively to ensure verdicts that discourage one vice and encourage the other (Acker & Brody, 2011). In a nutshell, question of battered syndrome in women and children can be admitted as an element in court but not to justify killing as the principle of self-defense anticipates a situation of no other alternative out of the situation at hand (Murphy, 1998). References Acker, R. J., & Brody, C. D. (2011). Criminal Law. Washington: Lopes & Bartlett. Malmquist, P. C. (2007). Homicide: Aspychiatric perspective. Minnesota: American Psychiatric. Murphy, G. J. (1998). Character, Liberty and Law: Kantian Essays in Theory and Practice. Arizona: Springer. Wilson, Q. J. (2000). Moral Judgement. California : McGraw-HIll. Read More