Kill Your Husband, Get 5 Minutes in Jail

WTF

Published on February 18, 2005 By philomedy In Current Events

Link

Ok so here's the story:

A woman kills her husband, who had a history of alcoholism and domestic abuse. She gets arrested and goes to court. Citing the incredible hardship that this woman must have gone through, the judge sentences her to be detained "until the court gets up for tea."

WTF!!! Until the court gets up for tea??? She killed someone!!!

Now, please do not misinterpret this article as sympathy towards her husband, who I've no doubt was abusive, or as comtemptous cynicism about the pure hell that this woman's life must have been. However, she thumb-cuffed him and placed a plastic bag over his head before going to sit in an adjacent room and waiting for his air supply to run out.

This was not heat of the moment, self-defense justifiable homicide. She did not shoot or stab or kill to prevent immediate physical harm to herself. Thumb-cuffing and suffocation takes at least as much planning, if not more, than going to the police and filing charges. I am by no means trying to downplay what must have been awful situation for her, but "until the court gets up for tea"???

This was not self-defense; This was premeditated torture.

Comments (Page 1)

Lurkerer

on Feb 18, 2005

Hey some other people's needs are more important, and they have to be satisfied. And so are the people who got up for tea. Right? More important. I mean people die and kill each other every day, they probably see it as their 15th case/day. To them, it's nothing important. It's just another day, and they have to have their tea.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 18, 2005

Thumb-cuffing and suffocation takes at least as much planning, if not more, than going to the police and filing charges.

Call me cynical, but I've seen the value of a restraining order against an abusive "significant other". Restraining orders are nothing more than a judge saying, "If I had a spine,I would lock you away, but since spines don't come with the robe, all I can do is order you to act human for the first time in your whole pathetic life."

An abusive relationship is not a series of "assault and battery" episodes. Whether the waste of human flesh is actually on the attack or not, the abuse is still happening. Our "justice" system seems to slap the abuser on the hands, but dare the abused retaliate, even once, then BAM the judge somehow remembers that assault and battery is a crime.

Like all cases, this one needs to be judged on its own merits. Did she kill him? No question. Was it justifiable? That IS the question, now isn't it.

philomedy

on Feb 19, 2005

Like all cases, this one needs to be judged on its own merits. Did she kill him? No question. Was it justifiable? That IS the question, now isn't it.

I judged the case on its merits. In my opinion, this is not justifiable; it was cruel.

joeKnowledge

on Feb 19, 2005

yeah, it was. she should have gotten time for it or some years probation.

I have to say, though, I wasn't in the court room to here what she went through or how she came to a conclusion that she had to figure out how to stop him.

messybuu

on Feb 19, 2005

The way I see it, she could have either did what she did, or report the abuse to the police, which would infuriate the husband, and when he returns, he would kill her.
Although she wasn't in immediate danger, what she did was self-defense, because the abuse would continue.

philomedy

on Feb 19, 2005

Although she wasn't in immediate danger, what she did was self-defense, because the abuse would continue.

I agree that reporting things to the police is not an entirely safe option al of the time, but not punishing her for her actions sets a dangerous precedent. She rendered him helpless and sat in an adjacent room while he died. She did not rush out of the house in a panic, she did not shoot him on an impulse, she decided to do something that would make him suffer, and she chose to sit in the next room while it happened.

If the precedent is set that this kind of premeditated, prolongued, and clearly planned out murder (ooo, alliteration) is justifiable based on what she had gone through, who's to say that we can't all take the law into our hands as long as we've been wronged by the person we attack?

ParaTed2k

on Feb 19, 2005

Oh , don't get me wrong. We know she did it. The extenuating circumstances, however, need to be taken into account. Justice needs to be served, but we shouldn't let justice become merely a replacement for the abuse her waste of human flesh husband.

Yes, she had the scum subdued, but if her past experience with "doing it the right way" has only led to more abuse, then would you merely call the cops, yet again??

philomedy

on Feb 19, 2005

Yes, she had the scum subdued, but if her past experience with "doing it the right way" has only led to more abuse, then would you merely call the cops, yet again??

I don't think the article mentioned past experiences of trying to do it the right way. I think I would have had more sympathy for her if she had previously attempted to report him, but I would still not agree with letting her off at tea time.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 19, 2005

It didn't, but it didn't say there wasn't attempts either. Yes, I am interecting here, but only to make my point.

but I would still not agree with letting her off at tea time.

That is what I meant by, "the case deserves to be judged on its own merits". If she only used his abuse as an excuse to lash out and exact her own retribution, her sentence should be just as harsh, however if this is the tragic outcome of a justice system that has failed her time and time again, then that should be considered also. Justice, afterall, isn't just punishment, or revenge.

messybuu

on Feb 19, 2005

If the precedent is set that this kind of premeditated, prolongued, and clearly planned out murder (ooo, alliteration) is justifiable based on what she had gone through, who's to say that we can't all take the law into our hands as long as we've been wronged by the person we attack?

Well, to punish her would be telling abused women everywhere that they can't take their law into their hands even though the law won't do a damn thing to help her. Her methods were questionable, but considering her situation, I understand that she had more important matters on mind than to euthanize her husband in the most humane way possible. As for not rushing out of the house in a panic, I don't know what went through her head, but it sounds as though she was relieved, and what's wrong with that?

I'd much rather have millions of women kill their abusers in slow and painful ways than to have them suffer and wait for the law, which, in an attempt to be "humane," will let the abuser out of prison eventually to kill their wives.

philomedy

on Feb 19, 2005

I'd much rather have millions of women kill their abusers in slow and painful ways than to have them suffer and wait for the law, which, in an attempt to be "humane," will let the abuser out of prison eventually to kill their wives.

I think that attempts should be made to change laws so that abusers do not get the chance to hurt their victims a second time. Murder, however, should always be thought of as a last resort, to be used when there are no other options. This is not to say that this particular woman had not already exhausted those options, since the article did not specify. From what I read, however, and how I interpreted it, I do not believe that she had.

philomedy

on Feb 19, 2005

Agreed, although I would still have a problem with the way that she chose to dispose of him. This is not altogether my judgment to make, however, since I do not know her circumstances.

dharmagrl

on Feb 19, 2005

I do not know her circumstances

None of us do. The only people who are privy to all the facts in this case are the South African authorities. We're basing our opinions of the 3 or 4 paragraphs that the media got their hands on. Now, if the case file were public and we had all the intricacies available for our perusal.....but, we don't.

I'm not sure that you completely understand the psychological impact years of abuse has on a person, Phil. I'm not sure that any of us do; I think that unless a person has suffered that way they can never really comprehend it's effects. I know that I had a taste of it in my first marriage, and I know that affected me adversely for a while after I had terminated the relationship. I can only imagine what hell the woman we're discussing must have gone though, and I'm not surprised at all that she chose to kill her tormentor. the only thing that I'm slightly surprised at is the method that she chose, I would've expected something more violent. However, the fact that she chose a non-violent method speaks volumes about her personality, IMO.

philomedy

on Feb 19, 2005

the only thing that I'm slightly surprised at is the method that she chose, I would've expected something more violent. However, the fact that she chose a non-violent method speaks volumes about her personality, IMO.

Violence is not only to be measured by bloodshed. What she did to him seems plenty violent to me.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 19, 2005

Violence is not only to be measured by bloodshed. What she did to him seems plenty violent to me.

Unfortunately, and contrary to PC proverbing, sometimes (although rare) violence is the answer.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!