Ends justifying the means

[Robin Hoodlum]

There are a lot of women doing life sentences for killing abusive significant others.

BWS cases usually don't result in acquittals or even reduced sentences...maybe 1% of all such claims are successful.

Fair enough.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is actually one of the criticisms of BWS. The muser of someone by a person claiming BWS/BPS (battered person syndrome as it can apply to men as well) is attributed to some mental ailment that the person has because of all the abuse they have suffered at the hands of their abuser. Yet somehow, after killing their abuser, they are no longer a threat to anyone. It's as if killing the person somehow cured them. Seems odd. It may be accepted in the legal system, but in psychological circles, it appears a washy.

One of my best buddies is a PsyD who almost went into the BAU. We often discuss how the language of the law and of human psychology overlap...and may yet mean totally different things. Its a mine(mind)field both for those chosen to give expert terminology in criminal cases or civil comitment hearings, as well as for those in my profession who may be reading a report and thinking one thing when the expert is saying something a bit different.

BWS is one term that is problematic- especially the "syndrome" part- as are "psychopath" and "sociopath"- terms that get a lot of use in the news and in legal circles, but which don't reflect actual diagnoses.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

One of my best buddies is a PsyD who almost went into the BAU. We often discuss how the language of the law and of human psychology overlap...and may yet mean totally different things. Its a mine(mind)field both for those chosen to give expert terminology in criminal cases or civil comitment hearings, as well as for those in my profession who may be reading a report and thinking one thing when the expert is saying something a bit different.

BWS is one term that is problematic- especially the "syndrome" part- as are "psychopath" and "sociopath"- terms that get a lot of use in the news and in legal circles, but which don't reflect actual diagnoses.

Some times terms get dumbed down for the masses. A lot of times those reporting the news don't understand the legal or psychology definition of a term. I blame lawyers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don't forget the cops, too.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

What do cops have to do with it?

 

[Zombie_Babies]

First, let me admit an error- she was actually initially charged with murder in the indictment. Hat means the state prosecutors thought they could prove the necessary mental state for that crime.

However, the prosecution could/did not prove the necessary mental state for murder, and convicted her of the lesser included offense of manslaughter. Here's why:



So, not "murder", but manslaughter, or the perfectly adequate "homicide" which presupposes nothing more than that a person has killed a human being.

I understand what the prosecution failed to do. I simply disagree with the verdict because I feel it was based far more on emotion than fact.

 

[Kramodlog]

I understand what the prosecution failed to do. I simply disagree with the verdict because I feel it was based far more on emotion than fact.

Pretty much. The victim being a neo-nazi and Hitler fan was mentioned a lot, but that is not a crime and certainly not a reason to kill him. It might be a potential motif for why he wanted a dirty bomb, but we can't even know that for sure, and certainly not a excuse for murder.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What do cops have to do with it?

They use the same lingo as lawyers...and more often...in the news.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I understand what the prosecution failed to do. I simply disagree with the verdict because I feel it was based far more on emotion than fact.

Pretty much. The victim being a neo-nazi and Hitler fan was mentioned a lot, but that is not a crime and certainly not a reason to kill him. It might be a potential motif for why he wanted a dirty bomb, but we can't even know that for sure, and certainly not a excuse for murder.

So neither of you buy into the state's statutory distinction between murder and manslaughter as it applies in this case?

...the person causes the death while under the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation.

If not, do you not accept manslaughter in general or you don't think she was "adequately provoked?"

 

[Kramodlog]

So neither of you buy into the state's statutory distinction between murder and manslaughter as it applies in this case?

If not, do you not accept manslaughter in general or you don't think she was "adequately provoked?"

I can't speak for ZB, but in this case, there is a lack of adequate provocation. She wasn't in immediate danger and neither was her daughter.

I couldn't find 1st in Maine, but I did find 2nd degree murder :

an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion".

What I could find quickly on "heat of passion":

A finding that a person who killed another acted in the heat of passion will reduce murder to Manslaughter under certain circumstances. The essential prerequisites for such a reduction are that the accused must be provoked to a point of great anger or rage, such that the person loses his or her normal capacity for self-control; the circumstances must be such that a reasonable person, faced with the same degree of provocation, would react in a similar manner; and finally, there must not have been an opportunity for the accused to have "cooled off" or regained self-control during the period between the provocation and the killing.

2nd degree seems to fit.