BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME

This writing assignment was written June 7, 2010 for my TRU Soci 422 (Social Construction of Crime and Deviance) Open Learning Correspondence course.

=====================================================================

INTRODUCTION

The term 'Battered Wife Syndrome' was first used in R. v. Lavallee (1990). Angelique Lyn Lavallee, the accused, was charged with 2nd degree murder of her common law partner, Kevin Rust. For the most part, Lavallee had experienced both physical and psychological abuse from her partner for several years. The night Lavallee shot her partner, they were in a heated argument in Lavallee's room. Rust had given Lavallee a rifle and told her that if she didn't kill him, he'd kill her. When Rust turned to leave Lavallee's room she shot him with the rifle in the back of the head (Verdun-Jones, 2002. p. 332).

At trial, Lavallee relied on section 34 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states:

"every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who caused death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if (a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm" (Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, C. c-46, P. CC/91).

The jury acquitted Lavallee of 2nd degree murder, however Crown appealed, and the Manitoba Court of Appeal (MCA) agreed with Crown's position. Lavallee appealed to Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision and acquitted Lavallee of the 2nd degree murder conviction. The decision became the landmark decision for what is know referred to as the "Battered Wife Syndrome" defence (Verdun-Jones, 2002. p. 332).

Lavallee had been in this common law relationship with Rust for at least four years, and during this time there had been numerous arguments and physical violence which caused Lavallee to make a number of trips to the hospital (Parliamentary Research Branch, 1992).

The dispute surrounding the 'Battered Wife Syndrome' term address the issues as to why Lavallee didn't just leave her partner after the first sign of danger? And was her life in immediate danger the night she shot and killed her partner? At trial, expert testimony from the Psychiatrist suggested that Lavallee didn't leave because, psychologically, she felt like a prisoner and feared that if she did leave, her partner would find her and kill her (Verdun-Jones, 2002. p. 332). Is the "Battered Wife Syndrome" defence a license to kill, or is this a legitimate defence?

Prior to the shooting Lavallee and Rust were hosting a party, yet Lavallee didn't use this opportunity to get away from Rust, nor did any of the guests that witnessed the arguments attempt to intervene. There were numerous times that Lavallee could have escaped, yet each time she visited the hospital, she still went back to Rust. Furthermore, she continually made excuses for the injuries she had (Parliamentary Research Branch, 1992).

At Supreme Court of Canada, Madam Justice Wilson raised the issue "licence to kill" stating that "obviously the fact that the Appellant was a battered woman does not entitle her to an acquittal. Battered women may well kill their partners other than in self-defence" (R. v. Lavallee [1990] SCC). Yet on the other hand the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted Lavallee of 2nd degree murder.

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS), a well known feminist special interest lobby group, applauded the 1990 Supreme Court of Canada decision acquitting Lavallee of the 2nd degree murder charge. Furthermore, following the Lavallee decision CAEFS established the "Battered Woman's Defence project" (CAEFS).

According to CAEFS, the Lavallee decision changed the whole landscape of the "traditional gender-biased 'reasonable man' test of legal objectivity." CAEFS further argued that the Lavallee decision allows the female victim to take preemptive action (CAEFS). In other words, the battered female victim would not be held culpable for killing their alleged abusive male partner when the alleged offender posed no immediate threat. I would argue that CAEFS supports a "licence to kill' defence. I would also argue that this is a typical radical feminist position.

'Licence to kill', meaning that just because women are physically abused by men, that they are justified in killing their partner when they are not in immediate danger rather than leaving and seeking protection such as a government sponsored transition house, until they can get back on their feet and establish their own place, employment and a protection order against their alleged abusive partner.

An important project CAEFS is involved in, is attempting to lobby the Federal Justice Minister to review cases previous to the Lavallee decision as well as cases post Lavallee. The purpose of this project is to see all these women absolved of being culpable in relation to the deaths of their alleged abusive partners (CAEFS), which would give them a 'licence to kill'.

Just what is 'Battered Woman Syndrome'? Research suggests that it is a "product of legal advocacy and not a science." Furthermore, researchers have yet to establish "Battered Woman Syndrome" in the DSM-IV as it is not seen as a "disorder or mental disorder" (CAEFS).

'Battered Woman Syndrome', to some is seen just as a justification to commit murder and get away with it. In some views, 'Battered woman Syndrome' could be considered as a crime of passion, and "crimes of passion are seen as a motive for murder, but never a justification" (Battered Woman Syndrome). Yet the radical feminist lobby group CAEFS argue that 'battered woman syndrome' is a justification for murder.

The term 'Battered Wife Syndrome' is, for the most part, accepted within the radical feminist circle, and more so, due to the domestic violence against women statistics, and because women are considered to be the weaker sex in the human race. However, this term or defence, is not widely accepted within the more Conservative circles because the outcome deviates from the more traditional consequences of a murder charge upon conviction.

The radical feminists and their supporters would like society to believe that the 'Battered Woman Syndrome' (or wife) criminal defense strategy is not an open door to killing abusive men, or partners, however, I would suggest that unstable, manipulative women may very well take an advantage of this defensive strategy so they could get away with murdering their unsuspecting partners who are not abusive, then manipulate the system for an acquittal.

Further research does suggest that battered women are "crazy" and like to be "beaten" (Battered Woman Syndrome), or else why would they stay? And just what makes a battered woman stay in an abusive relationship?

In a 2002 movie titled "Enough" staring Jennifer Lopez as an abused wife who escaped from her abusive husband, who refused to let go. Eventually, the abused wife took up mixed martial arts and went back to her estranged abusive husband's home, and hid until he came home from work. The end result was that the abused wife beat her abusive husband to death and got away with it. Although the acting by Jennifer Lopez and Bill Campbell was superb, the gist of the movie's message was that all men are evil and women who are battered have a 'licence to kill.' This message is Atypical of the radical feminist movement in support of the 'Battered Woman Syndrome' defence.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Courts have changed the legal landscape in relation to domestic violence against women. Meaning, that, if you are a battered woman, the law allows you to kill your alleged abused partner, even if there is a way of escape, and even if there are established support systems that will protect you if you flee the abusive relationship.

This law, as mentioned previously, could also allow unstable and manipulative women to set up their un-abusive partners as a form of unjustifiable revenge, or to remove them from the picture if they want to end the relationship. I would argue, that the Judges who acquitted Lavallee (at both lower and higher Courts) are radical to the extreme. Judges are to uphold the law, not change it to their liking or convenience.

REFERENCES

Battered Woman Syndrome http://people.stu.ca/~mccormic/PROJECTS/lavallee_1006/BSW%20The%20Lavallee%20Case.html

Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies - Battered Women's Defence Committee Update. http://www.elizibethfry.ca/bwdcom.htlm

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, C. c-46

R. v. Lavallee [1990] SCC 1 S.C.R. 852

Parliamentary Research Branch. (1992). The Battered Wife Defence: The Lavallee Case. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr60-e.htm

Verdun-Jones, S. (2002). Criminal Law in Canada; Cases, Questions, and the Code. Third Edition. Thomson Nelson: Scarborough, ON.