Study - men who kill female partners (as opposed to strangers) get lighter sentences

New Posts

Montjoy

Montjoy

Inactive
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
5,230
Reaction score
56
Sickening, albeit unsurprising. I think this is important research. Aside from the hypotheses forwarded in this article, I suspect that victim-blaming is at play. We have often seen here how powerful a sentiment it is.

"The research, being published in the journal Current Sociology, finds that men who kill their wives, girlfriends or other female family members are handed shorter prison terms than men who kill strangers. In fact, according to the findings, men who kill women they know are treated more leniently at most stages of the criminal-justice process, such as facing fewer charges of first-degree murder."

""This may mean that women killed by male partners are still seen as property and, as such, these femicides are not treated as seriously as other femicides," the study states."

From:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/men-femicide-kill-female-partners-sentencing-1.3330171?cmp=rss
 
I'm sad and angry to say this isn't a surprise.

Dawson, who is Canada research chair in public policy in criminal justice, notes that women remain at far higher risk of being killed by someone they know than by a stranger — one in 10 femicides are perpetrated by strangers.
Click to expand...

So where are we safe?
 
It seems the study threw out several theories as to why men where treated more harshly when killing a stranger than a known female. No conclusions. To understand why this happens it may be useful to see if women are treated the same way when they kill. Also, how are men treated when they kill a male they know versus one they don't. I suspect the results would be the same.
 
I suspect the results would be the same for killing men, too.

And I think we've all seen how parents who kill their children are treated differently than someone who grabs random children off the street and kills them. THAT behavior makes a community panicked and enraged, while killing your own child makes people sad.

Honestly, I think men who kill women who are strangers are more dangerous. Men who kill a wife are probably less likely than men who kill a stranger to go on and kill several more. Of course, there are exceptions. But a man who kills women who are strangers seems to be a much greater danger to the public, and likely to kill far more women.
 
Montjoy said:
Sickening, albeit unsurprising. I think this is important research. Aside from the hypotheses forwarded in this article, I suspect that victim-blaming is at play. We have often seen here how powerful a sentiment it is.

"The research, being published in the journal Current Sociology, finds that men who kill their wives, girlfriends or other female family members are handed shorter prison terms than men who kill strangers. In fact, according to the findings, men who kill women they know are treated more leniently at most stages of the criminal-justice process, such as facing fewer charges of first-degree murder."

""This may mean that women killed by male partners are still seen as property and, as such, these femicides are not treated as seriously as other femicides," the study states."

From:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/men-femicide-kill-female-partners-sentencing-1.3330171?cmp=rss
Click to expand...

I'm probably guilty of victim-blaming on occasion. Nobody deserves to be killed but sometimes obvious risk taking when not necessary factors in to the reason a person is harmed. Is it ever okay to bring this up? Or is a harmed persons behavior off limits?
 
I don't believe provocation is ever a defense.
I don't believe a woman who wants to leave her partner causes her own death / or serious injury by that action. "If I can't have her no-one will" is never a defense.
It is taking a long time for the judicial system to see things that way.
(just my opinion).
 
Meryl12 said:
I don't believe provocation is ever a defense.
I don't believe a woman who wants to leave her partner causes her own death / or serious injury by that action. "If I can't have her no-one will" is never a defense.
It is taking a long time for the judicial system to see things that way.
(just my opinion).
Click to expand...

Men blaming women for their own actions has been happening since the beginning of time.
 
bwt42 said:
I'm probably guilty of victim-blaming on occasion. Nobody deserves to be killed but sometimes obvious risk taking when not necessary factors in to the reason a person is harmed. Is it ever okay to bring this up? Or is a harmed persons behavior off limits?
Click to expand...

I was trying to think of examples today that might support your position. (Truly, I was.)

The best one I could think of was someone who ran off the road while driving and texting. I think that someone is responsible for their actions, and if I would have had the chance to tell them, I'd say "don't do that."

But I don't really consider that person a victim, per se. That was a lifestyle choice.

I then thought about someone I knew years ago who basically died of complications from anorexia. She did have people who were trying to help her, but she couldn't change her behavior. Do I think it would be morally appropriate to blame her? No, I don't. She was sick.

But these examples don't have much in common with suicide or abuse. They are more 'people versus (for want of a better term) the environment' situations, rather than 'people versus people' situations. They died to an 'antagonist' of sorts that was not human, that had no responsibility. That's in pretty stark contrast to a case of physical abuse, assault, or homicide, where there are conscious parties on both sides of the equation.

And so, while in the abstract I can see how the general question about whether blaming a victim could be interesting to an philosopher of ethics, it would really come down to a pretty grueling analysis of what victimhood means, and what blaming means. I don't think for our purposes, especially when our starting point is volitional homicide, there is any reason to start this sort of a discussion.

And just to be clear, I never, ever think that any words or non-violent actions are ever a justification for a physically violent response. As Meryl put it above, provocation is never a defense.
 
Montjoy said:
I was trying to think of examples today that might support your position. (Truly, I was.)

The best one I could think of was someone who ran off the road while driving and texting. I think that someone is responsible for their actions, and if I would have had the chance to tell them, I'd say "don't do that."

But I don't really consider that person a victim, per se. That was a lifestyle choice.

I then thought about someone I knew years ago who basically died of complications from anorexia. She did have people who were trying to help her, but she couldn't change her behavior. Do I think it would be morally appropriate to blame her? No, I don't. She was sick.

But these examples don't have much in common with suicide or abuse. They are more 'people versus (for want of a better term) the environment' situations, rather than 'people versus people' situations. They died to an 'antagonist' of sorts that was not human, that had no responsibility. That's in pretty stark contrast to a case of physical abuse, assault, or homicide, where there are conscious parties on both sides of the equation.

And so, while in the abstract I can see how the general question about whether blaming a victim could be interesting to an philosopher of ethics, it would really come down to a pretty grueling analysis of what victimhood means, and what blaming means. I don't think for our purposes, especially when our starting point is volitional homicide, there is any reason to start this sort of a discussion.

And just to be clear, I never, ever think that any words or non-violent actions are ever a justification for a physically violent response. As Meryl put it above, provocation is never a defense.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more about considering mitigating circumstances in considering an appropriate sentence. Also, WS policy of no victim bashing. I didn't mean to justify men killing their partner. Thinking more along the lines of a suburban kid that is murdered when he goes into the inner city to by drugs or when someone meets in a desolate area to by from someone off of craigs list. Victim blaming in general.
 
bwt42 said:
I didn't mean to justify men killing their partner. Thinking more along the lines of a suburban kid that is murdered when he goes into the inner city to by drugs or when someone meets in a desolate area to by from someone off of craigs list. Victim blaming in general.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was certain that you were not trying to justify violence against women -- I was just responding to the general question.

But as to the examples you furnished -- I don't think that the victim is responsible in those situations. I think that culpability for a crime lies in what acts were committed. I don't think that poor judgment justifies a violent act. Just my opinion.
 
Do you think that subconsciously or unconsciously that we see someone who consistently returns to a bad guy or never even attempts to leave him, as somewhat to blame? As opposed to the woman who goes to a battered woman's shelter, stays there, takes all their advice whatever it is, and still winds up tracked down and murdered? I am not saying this is correct thinking but that maybe deep in our brains, this is influencing us?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 87 more.
Total: 3,647 (members: 88, guests: 3,559)

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
3,559
Total visitors
3,647
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,672
Messages
17,957,311
Members
228,584
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top