M1 Written Assignment Family Violence & Abuse

Kristen SimekM1 Written Assignment

Family Violence and AbuseEmpire State College

Professor: Denise Dipace6 June, 2015

In this case, the Defendant, Marcia Norman (Defendant), shot and killed John Norman (Mr. Norman) while he slept after Mr. Norman had beaten the Defendant on the day in question. Mr. Norman also had a history of beating the defendant on a regular basis in the past.Mr. Norman and the Defendant had been married twenty-five years and Mr. Norman had been beating the Defendant since about five years after they were married. Over the course of the marriage, the abuse had gotten so severe that the defense psychologist characterized it as torture, degradation, and reduction to an animal level of existence, where all behavior was marked purely by survival The Defendant was in constant fear of Mr. Norman and she did not seek help for fear of serious reprisal by Mr. Norman, possibly including death. On the day of the killing, Mr. Norman had made the Defendant sleep on the floor until one of the couples daughters asked if the Defendant could watch her baby. When the baby began to cry, the Defendant took the child to her mothers house. At her mothers house, the Defendant found a gun, took it back to her home and shot Mr. Norman. Argument: 1) Why Marcia Norman is guilty of the murder of her husband. The question that is imposed in this matter is: Does the victims passiveness at the time of the killing preclude the Defendant from asserting self-defense?

According to the final verdict in this case held the answer is most certainly, yes. The law states, The right to kill in self-defense is based on the necessity, real or reasonably apparent, of killing an unlawful aggressor to save oneself from imminent death or great bodily injury at his hands. Imminent danger is defined as that which one cannot be protected from by the calling for help or the protection of the law. In the case of Marcia Norman, the evidence failed to show that the defendant was confronted with imminent death or great bodily harm when the she actually shot her husband. Her husband at the time of the shooting was asleep, and the evidence tended to show that the defendant had ample time and opportunity to utilize other methods to avoid the abuse of her husband. She had gone to the police that day, but was too scared to file charges. She also could have left while he was sleeping, which further implicates her stance using self defense as her reasoning to not be guilty of killing her husband. The methods which Marcia Norman could have used to avoid the abuse she was experiencing from her husband would include: The use of the mandatory-arrest laws; many states have passed the mandatory-arrest which would have signaled the right authorities and put in place the agencies that could have helped Marcia Norman. Some of the advantages of this course of procedure are: taking the victims to a safe place away from the abuser, filing a police report, assisting with getting your belongings out of the house protected, medical assistance if needed, information on other services from domestic violence agencies; getting an order of protection, the use of family court and/or family advocacy, as well as possible criminal court depending on the seriousness of the violence. (Wallace and Roberson, 2014).

Under Model Penal Code 3.04(1), the standard for 'imminent' has been relaxed a bit. In order to qualify for self-defense, a defendant just needs to show that the use of defensive force was "immediately necessary." The term "imminent" in Marcia Normans case needed to include the near future, and not only immediately necessary. Based on the fact that Marcia Norman was regularly beaten by her husband and provably he had done some pretty horrible things to her. Marcia Norman therefore felt justified and she shot her husband three times in the back of the head, killing him dead. Marcia Norman claimed that the shooting was in self-defense; because she asserted that her husband had beaten her earlier in the day, but at the time she shot him he was sleeping peacefully. So effectively speaking, her life was not in immediate danger or imminent danger as the law allows. This was a very tough decision because on the one hand, justifying the battered woman's lethal response is the most favorable treatment that a court could give; because that would mean that the woman had a right to kill her husband. On the other hand, affirming this right against a sleeping spouse is the most difficult case that a court could confront, because at the moment of the killing the victim is totally helpless (Byrd, 1991).

So consequently, the answer to the argument of Why Marcia Norman is guilty of the murder of her husband is solely based on the definition of the law of self defense, and the fact that she was not in imminent danger at the time of the shooting.

Argument: 2) Why Marcia Norman is not guilty of the murder of her husband.The question that is imposed in this matter is: Given the fact that Marcia Norman suffered from Battered Woman Syndrome, did she kill her husband under duress in self-defense and possibly temporary insanity?

Battering and domestic abuse has become a serious and wide-spread problem in the United States. Attorneys have used evidence of the "battered woman syndrome" to mitigate the degree of offenses charged, to excuse the defendant's conduct on the basis of insanity or diminished capacity, and to justify acts taken in self-defense. Many courts have been unwilling to adopt it.Battered women in the United States, if convicted of imposing harm to a spouse or mate are given a wide variety of treatment under the criminal law, ranging from conviction for first degree murder to justification in self-defense. A legal system that imposes punishment upon individuals subjected to the type of terrorization typical of some battering relationships, and at the same time provides no meaningful assistance prior to the fateful event, undercuts the respect appropriate for its criminal norms and abrogates its duty to protect individuals through application of these norms. It is not surprising that Mrs. Norman preferred punishment to a continued existence with a man who had gravely mistreated her over the years. It is surprising that a society feels justified in imposing punishment in that case, because punishment could have no possible deterrent effect, because Norman does not represent a continuing threat to society, and one cannot point to viable alternatives to her action. Is it perhaps thought that her husband's death, which put an end to years of violent treatment, requires vindication? (Byrd,1991). The difference between finding Norman guilty or not guilty does not lie in the preconceived definition of general self-defense, The right to kill in self-defense is based on the necessity, real or reasonably apparent, of killing an unlawful aggressor to save oneself from imminent death or great bodily injury at his hands. The reason for this is the battered woman syndrome.Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is a mental disorder that develops in victims of domestic violence as a result of serious, long-term abuse. BWS is dangerous primarily because it leads to learned helplessness, or psychological paralysis, where the victim becomes so depressed, defeated, and passive that she believes she is incapable of leaving the abusive situation. Though it may seem like an irrational fear, it feels absolutely real to the victim. Feeling fearful and weak, and sometimes even still holding onto the hope that her abuser will stop hurting her, the victim remains with her abuser, continuing the cycle of domestic violence and thereby strengthening her existing battered woman syndrome.

Battered woman syndrome is recognized by many states as a legitimate mental disorder, and there are support systems available to women who suffer from a situation of domestic violence and BWS. Its worth noting, also, that the laws of many states account for violent outbursts by BWS victims. If you or someone you know is afraid of coming forward to authorities because of an injury to the abuser, there may be ways to avoid punishment. To understand the full effect of battered woman syndrome you must ask how BWS develops.Battered woman syndrome begins as an abusive cycle with three stages. First, the abuser engages in behaviors that create relationship tension. Second, the tension explodes when the abuser commits some form of abuse: physical, psychological, emotional, sexual, or otherwise. Third, the abuser tries to fix his wrongdoing and apologizes. This third stage is frequently referred to as the honeymoon stage, and involves the abuser making amends for his bad behavior. During the honeymoon stage, the abuser is forgiven, and the cycle starts all over again.

As the cycle continues, the victim starts to feel that the abuse is her own fault. When the victim takes responsibility for her own abuse, this develops into learned helplessness. The victim feels helpless because she has convinced herself that the abuse is her own fault, yet she cannot understand why the abuse continues if its her own fault. She becomes convinced of her helplessness, and that the abuse cannot be escaped. Thus, battered woman syndrome develops.Women suffering from battered woman syndrome share certain observable characteristics. The common characteristics of BWS women are as follows: 1) She takes full responsibility over the abuse, and finds it difficult or impossible to blame the abuser himself; 2) She fears for her safety; 3) She irrationally believes that the abuser is all-powerful and will hurt her if she contacts the authorities and seeks help (Savage, 2006).

Battered woman syndrome and the Law - Battered woman syndrome is now recognized in legislation by many states and is considered when defending battered wives who kill or injure their abusive spouses. For the courts, battered woman syndrome is an indication of the defendant's state of mind or may be considered a mitigating circumstance. For example, the court may consider that a BWS woman felt that she was justified in attacking her abuser, and that she was in reasonable fear of imminent danger due to her condition and her experiences with the abuser. There has been much research to prove the severe mental condition of woman who suffers from battered woman syndrome.The sociocultural model of family violence focuses on the roles of men and women in our society as well as on the cultural attitudes toward women and the acceptance of violence as a cause of family violence (Wallace and Roberson, 2014). With this perspective in mind, the problem is one of societys acceptable attitudes towards the abuse of women. Also it should be taken in to account that, The psychopathology theory is based on the idea that some aggressive behaviors within the family are related to individual family members suffering from mental illness, personality disorders, and other mental dysfunctions (Wallace and Roberson, 2014) It is highly possible that John Norman, the proposed victim of the murder was mentally ill, imposing violence and abusive behavior on the defendant, Marcia Norman.Therefore, the answer to the argument of Why Marcia Norman is guilty of the murder of her husband lies in the defense of the battered woman syndrome, which may have altered her state of mind and caused possible temporary insanity causing Marcia Norman to believe she was in imminent danger due to her condition and therefore acted in what she believed to be self-defense to kill her husband based on the prolonged abuse and violent experiences at the hands of her mentally unstable husband.

Given all the notoriety and research of battered woman syndrome, many woman, including Norman in our specific case, should or could be found not guilty of murder not based on the familiar self -defense used as these domestic violent cases as the main defense; but to use Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense, which can be interpreted in severe cases as a form of insanity. So in essence, when the self- defense law has been used in most domestic violent cases of woman that kill their mate and the actual insanity defense should be used instead, with BWS being the cause of insanity. Rightfully so, this defense should not be taken lightly, and a strong, consistent history of domestic violence would need to proceed the use of this type of defense and proven well. It is a difficult case to prove when one has to show why the victim or the defendant didnt seek help in other ways as suggested here in, and the only recourse they believed was to kill their perpetrator to end the pain.

References:Byrd, S. (1991). DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE & INTERNATIONAL LAW. Retrieved June 3, 2015 from:

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=djcilSavage, J. Battered Woman Syndrome. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. 2006. Geo. J. Gender & L. 761Wallace, H., Roberson, C. Family Violence, 7th Edition (2014, 2009, 2004) Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle, NJ