So there was this little girl, see, who was naughty...

[cybercoma]

From my understanding, it takes very little suggestion of violence for police to become heavily involved in these things.

Then you have very little understanding of these things. The police can only do so much and in most cases it's not a lot. If it's one party's word against the other with no witnesses, the cops can't really do anything. There's insufficient evidence for a conviction, so even if the person is charged, the case is likely to be dropped. Moreover, they can't keep the accused in jail if they bail out and if that person's legal residence is with the spouse, then a peace order needs to be put in place to stop the accused from going back home. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping that person from returning. It's their house after all. Despite this, many of the accused will ignore peace orders and just find themselves in lockup again waiting for the trial.

The CJS is woefully unequipped for dealing with domestic violence cases. Unfortunately, the laws that protect us from unreasonable arrests and imprisonment, also stop the cops from being able to protect abused spouses from their partners. When there's repeated calls they're more quick to respond, but the problem is evidence and a spouse that's willing to testify against their partner. This becomes even less likely when there's children in the home because often times the abused person doesn't want to split up the family by pressing charges and having the abuser locked away.

[BC_chick]

Then you have very little understanding of these things. The police can only do so much and in most cases it's not a lot. If it's one party's word against the other with no witnesses, the cops can't really do anything. There's insufficient evidence for a conviction, so even if the person is charged, the case is likely to be dropped. Moreover, they can't keep the accused in jail if they bail out and if that person's legal residence is with the spouse, then a peace order needs to be put in place to stop the accused from going back home. Otherwise, there's nothing stopping that person from returning. It's their house after all. Despite this, many of the accused will ignore peace orders and just find themselves in lockup again waiting for the trial.

The CJS is woefully unequipped for dealing with domestic violence cases. Unfortunately, the laws that protect us from unreasonable arrests and imprisonment, also stop the cops from being able to protect abused spouses from their partners. When there's repeated calls they're more quick to respond, but the problem is evidence and a spouse that's willing to testify against their partner. This becomes even less likely when there's children in the home because often times the abused person doesn't want to split up the family by pressing charges and having the abuser locked away.

The system is set up to fail abused women and so many are killed every year in the hands of ex spouses. It's appalling. I used to volunteer for a women's shelter and I've seen the hell that many women are subjected to.

Having said that, this case sets a terrible precedence. 'Pre-emptive' killing of an abusive ex is not a road we want to start.

Huge wrong turn on this one.

[Canuckistani]

The system is set up to fail abused women and so many are killed every year in the hands of ex spouses. It's appalling. I used to volunteer for a women's shelter and I've seen the hell that many women are subjected to.

Having said that, this case sets a terrible precedence. 'Pre-emptive' killing of an abusive ex is not a road we want to start.

Huge wrong turn on this one.

but it didn't set that precedent. The judges specifically said this was not a case of self-defense. They just said she shouldn't be tried again after being acquitted twice because of police failures. I do think there's a bias against men in the justice system, I just don't think this was a case of that. If they had ruled that she was justified in hiring a hitman, that would be a totally different matter.

As for failures, in BC we had the Vanderhoof woman who stabbed her lover in the groin and watched him bleed to death. She was found guilty of manslaughter and given two years house arrest, because the judge thought she wouldn't do it again. Imagine if the gender roles had been reversed in that one.

[Bonam]

but it didn't set that precedent.... If they had ruled that she was justified in hiring a hitman, that would be a totally different matter.

It set the precedent that with a bit of legal maneuvering and unproven allegations, a woman can hire a hitman to kill a man and escape any punishment for said action.

As for failures, in BC we had the Vanderhoof woman who stabbed her lover in the groin and watched him bleed to death. She was found guilty of manslaughter and given two years house arrest, because the judge thought she wouldn't do it again. Imagine if the gender roles had been reversed in that one.

I agree that is a more egregious example of the bias and perversity of our system.

[Canuckistani]

It set the precedent that with a bit of legal maneuvering and unproven allegations, a woman can hire a hitman to kill a man and escape any punishment for said action.

I agree that is a more egregious example of the bias and perversity of our system.

I'm not a lawyer, but I read what the OP said differently:

In an “exceptional” move, the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday overturned the acquittal of a woman who tried to hire a hitman to kill her abusive husband but said she will not have to face another trial.

All the judges said they did not accept the woman’s claim that she had acted under extreme duress when she attempted to take out a contract on her husband’s life. Such a defence can only be used in limited circumstances, the court said.

But a majority of judges ordered a rare stay of proceedings, saying that it would be unfair to put the woman through another trial.

“The abuse she suffered and the protracted nature of these proceeding(s) have taken an enormous toll on her,” the judges wrote.

“It is an exceptional situation that warrants an exceptional remedy.”

I don't think the words exceptional and precedent go well together.

[BC_chick]

I'm not a lawyer, but I read what the OP said differently:

I don't think the words exceptional and precedent go well together.

Given the number of women who fear for their lives when leaving an abusive partner, I'm afraid this case is not exceptional at all. Yet the judge set this precedence.

[Canuckistani]

What precedent? A precedent is when a judge uses a prior judgement in the case he is ruling on. In this case, her acquittal was overturned, ie the ruling says she should not have been acquitted. If anything, the precedent here is that what she did is not permitted. They just said because of the extraordinary circumstances, the ones you are actually alluding to, ie police failure to act, she should not be tried again.

[BC_chick]

I don't mean precedence just as in case law. I mean for society as a whole.

She's not not acquitted but not given another trial... does it really make a difference in her outcome?

[cybercoma]

Having said that, this case sets a terrible precedence. 'Pre-emptive' killing of an abusive ex is not a road we want to start.

Huge wrong turn on this one.

I didn't address the current case because I didn't read the OP. Needless to say, there are cases of 'battered-spouse' syndrome where both men and women have not even been charged with a crime due to mental illness and/or self-defence. There's going to be people, like Argus, that don't believe in 'battered-spouse syndrome' and that's fine, but it's like saying you don't believe in schizophrenia or depression.

[cybercoma]

I do think there's a bias against men in the justice system,

That is almost certainly not the case. The system is not biased at all and the problems are almost entirely against those that are abused, whether they're men or women.

[cybercoma]

Given the number of women who fear for their lives when leaving an abusive partner, I'm afraid this case is not exceptional at all. Yet the judge set this precedence.

That definitely is not the threshold for making this case applicable to other cases. You don't just take the broadest criteria (the woman was afraid for her life) and then apply this to other cases. The judges mentioned things like her being acquitted twice for the same crime, which almost never happens thanks to double-jeopardy protection. For her to find herself on trial a third time for the same issue is incredibly exceptional and that's not even considering the other facts and circumstances of the case. I could be wrong about the acquittals, but like I said that's only one piece of the entire trial.

[Argus]

What precedent? A precedent is when a judge uses a prior judgement in the case he is ruling on. In this case, her acquittal was overturned, ie the ruling says she should not have been acquitted. If anything, the precedent here is that what she did is not permitted. They just said because of the extraordinary circumstances, the ones you are actually alluding to, ie police failure to act, she should not be tried again.

The problem is the circumstances were not extraordinary. Even if you believe what she said, which the judges apparently did, that doesn't make this case particularly different from many others. Yet they let her off the hook anyway.

[Argus]

I didn't address the current case because I didn't read the OP. Needless to say, there are cases of 'battered-spouse' syndrome where both men and women have not even been charged with a crime due to mental illness and/or self-defence. There's going to be people, like Argus, that don't believe in 'battered-spouse syndrome' and that's fine, but it's like saying you don't believe in schizophrenia or depression.

This case has nothing to do with 'battered spouse' syndrome. It has to do with a person who should be in jail being let off because the judges felt sorry for her. And the only reason they felt sorry for her was because of her own unsupported testimony. And while that testimony wasn't challenged, circumstances make it seem quite suspicious.

[Argus]

. The judges mentioned things like her being acquitted twice for the same crime, which almost never happens thanks to double-jeopardy protection.

She was not acquitted twice. She was acquitted once, by a trial judge who didn't understand the law, and then an appeals court, made up of judges who likewise were in complete ignorance of the law, agreed with the trial judge.

For her to find herself on trial a third time for the same issue is incredibly exceptional

No its not. It happens all the time.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Argus

[cybercoma]

So unless an entire group of judges agree with your interpretation of the law, they're completely ignorant? I find it highly unlikely that the judges at the appeals court plus the trial judge were all just completely ignorant of the law. It seems much more likely that only a single person here is misunderstanding the issue and claiming everyone else is ignorant.

[cybercoma]

The best part about our justice system is that judges don't give a crap about votes, popularity contests, or opinion polls. They apply the law as it is written, popularity be damned. So if there's a problem with the law, then coming down on all of the judges, saying they're doing their jobs wrong is not the right approach. Your problem is with the legislators. That's probably the tree you want to be barking up.

[Argus]

So unless an entire group of judges agree with your interpretation of the law, they're completely ignorant? I find it highly unlikely that the judges at the appeals court plus the trial judge were all just completely ignorant of the law. It seems much more likely that only a single person here is misunderstanding the issue and claiming everyone else is ignorant.

Why do you open your mouth without having read the thread? Do you like to look foolish?

[cybercoma]

I haven't opened my mouth. I'm typing on a keyboard.

[cybercoma]

Anyway, I've read the OP now.

She was not under duress as the court properly ruled. Duress means, for example, someone has a gun to your head and you're certain that you will be dead if you don't take some immediate action. It does not mean having time to reflect on something, plan, and carry out something like contracting a killer. Her account certainly does not fit the criteria for duress under our legal system.

The problem is that given the information in the article, it's clear to see that she felt that her and her daughter's lives were threatened and no one was helping her.

He was a six-foot-three former soldier and 230 pounds. She was five-foot-three and 115 pounds.

On one occasion, he held a pistol to her head and called her a “weak soldier.”

When she brought up the subject of divorce, his response was that he would “destroy” her and their child, she said. Having tried on numerous occasions to get police to intervene, she said she did not believe police would be able to stop her husband from carrying out his threats.

The most unsettling part about the situation is that researchers and the police are well aware that a large proportion of domestic homicides are the result of a partner threatening to leave and take the children. It is the time around a separation that women are the most at risk for being killed. Yet, there is still nothing they can do about it unless there are specific death threats, which almost invariably results in a Peace Bond being issued and the case being dismissed unless there are some serious aggravating factors (ie, the abuser has been imprisoned for violence against this person before). And what's a Peace Bond when the abuser is just going to breach the order anyway? Like a piece of paper from the court is going to stop someone bent on killing his ex-wife, her kid, and probably himself (a good number of domestic homicides are murder-suicides).

The situation is entirely a mess and the fact that the woman was abused physically and psychologically by this guy and has had to relieve those experiences over and over again in trials and appeals just continues to keep those wounds fresh. He's not dead, despite her attempts to contract out his killing, so retrying her would be nothing short of abusive.

I'm not sure what kind of decision you were expecting from the SCC though. First, they were only hearing the case to clarify the laws about duress. They made the right decision there. If you think she should be retried, then I can only assume that you're ignoring the abuse and suffering she has been through and would need to relieve, yet again, were she to be tried again. Not even the dissenting judge claimed she should be tried. The dissenting judge simply said the SCC shouldn't decide--the Crown should decide. Would you have been happy with the Crown making the same argument--that they wouldn't be seeking another trial because it would be abusive to the woman who has been victimized by her husband, revictimized by the police who failed to respond, then victimized again repeatedly reliving those experiences in court?

[Bonam]

cc: your narrative would have some validity if there was proof of the alleged abuse. However, based on everything I've read about the case, such proof does not exist, it is all just claims made by the woman. Given the woman's actions in this case and before, it does not seem unreasonable to doubt her word. Without proof or at least some evidence of the alleged abuse, said abuse should not be used as an excuse to not see justice served.

[Guest Manny]

justice

Aye, there's the rub.

I woulda thought uttering death threats would hold some clout. Guess not.

[cybercoma]

cc: your narrative would have some validity if there was proof of the alleged abuse. However, based on everything I've read about the case, such proof does not exist, it is all just claims made by the woman. Given the woman's actions in this case and before, it does not seem unreasonable to doubt her word. Without proof or at least some evidence of the alleged abuse, said abuse should not be used as an excuse to not see justice served.

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that she's a liar. That every time the police were called, she was making things up. She constructed this gross fabrication to what end? So that she could might possibly get away with having him murdered? I think the much simpler and therefore more likely scenario is that he was abusing her and she felt that there was no escape other than his death.

Unless you have proof that she's lying because the numerous calls to the police are evidence that there was abuse going on. The fact that she feared for her life is evidence that she was being abused. I'm sure there are police reports that probably include statements from neighbours about disturbances at their residence, which they do not talk about in the article. I think there's validity to the fact that she's a victim in this article by the SCC's decision not to put her through another trial. They must have clear evidence that she was victimized by her husband, otherwise why would they reach that decision?

[BC_chick]

CC, the police do not take domestic abuse lightly. I do agree that they can't fully enforce retraining orders and yes, women do get killed much too often, unfortunately, in the hands of ex partners. However, when police are called to the scene - at the moment of conflict - they are not dismissive of anything.

That is the only time that they have the grounds to do anything. Even when women lie to protect their abusive partners the police will often coerce her into implicating him. It's their protocol. If there are children in the house, they are obligated to call child-services. That's the reason abused women often don't involve the police.

Something about her story does not make sense.

Edited January 22, 2013 by BC_chick

[cybercoma]

CC, the police do not take domestic abuse lightly [...] when police are called to the scene - at the moment of conflict - they are not dismissive of anything.

I'm not sure what in my posts would give you the impression that I disagree with this because I don't. All I've said is that the police are unable to handle domestic violence issues when it is in the threat stage. Police do not deal with threats of crimes; they respond to crimes after the fact. This is a terrible paradigm for dealing with issues of domestic violence.

That is the only time that they have the grounds to do anything. Even when women lie to protect their abusive partners the police will often coerce her into implicating him. It's their protocol. If there are children in the house, they are obligated to call child-services. That's the reason abused women often don't involve the police.

This is all true. However, CPS does not take lightly removing children from the home. They will even keep children with abusive parents, should those parents agree to go to counselling with CPS to learn to stop abusing the children. The last thing they want to do is take children from their parents. It is an absolute last resort.

So, the cops might call CPS, they might encourage the woman to press charges, but what happens after that is that the 1) the children stay in the home, 2) the husband returns to the home when there is not enough evidence to convict. In cases where there is evidence, often times the courts will try to issue a Peace Order, rather than going through with a trial, since the ultimate goal is to get the abuse to stop and prison is a last resort (just as removing the children from the home is a last resort).

It's not that the police don't try or don't care. It's not even that they don't do anything. It's that the CJS bureaucracy and social services are designed as a reactive agencies, rather than preventive. (Thankfully. Imagine preventive incarcerations. Yikes.) However, this model is woefully equipped to handle domestic violence in a way that would make the victim feel safer.

Looking at her case, and being quite familiar with hundreds of other cases, her story seems quite reasonable. She was abused, felt trapped, didn't have her expectations of help met, and finally succumb to the notion that his death would be her only way out. What she did was wrong and certainly illegal. However, should it be punished the same way as some say a jealous lover contracting out the murder of her lover's wife? Absolutely not. Her defence of duress was completely inappropriate given the circumstances as well. Despite her hopelessness, she did have non-lethal options of escape (for instance, contacting social services while he was at work, sneaking out of the home with the child, and going into hiding). However, the situation needs to be considered on the whole. Even if she were convicted for contracting out his murder, chances are her sentence would be the absolutely minimum the judge would be allowed to give.

In short, I think her story adds up just fine, but does not excuse her from what she did.

[BC_chick]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Having said that, it is well noted for me how the justice system is deemed to fail when a man is let go with an easy sentence (or none at all), but a whole other level of fury is unleashed when the defendent is a woman.

A lot of the comments on this thread were more misogynist than critical.

Edited January 22, 2013 by BC_chick