UK: Go soft on killer women, courts told

it seems the hysteria over domestic violence and "cherry picked" alarmist stats. has had a huge impact througout the world (this much is obvious). We are obsessed with protecting women as if they were children. Whats next? Maybe complete amnesty for any wife that kills her husband for fear of domestic abuse? Suzy Q blows her husbands head off with a shot gun. No jail time, just counseling to overcome her victim status. Keep in mind, Andrea Dwarkin firmly believed a wife had every right to kill her husband if he in anyway hit her. It seems her legacy has manipulated many western nations. We are not teaching women to protect themselves, rather a license for violent behaviour. Has anyone noticed that domestic abuse gains much more attention than child abuse? They saftey of adult woman supercedes that of a young child.

anthony

Okay, it makes sense if someone (male or female) is defending themselves against another (male or female) and happens to kill the person. That makes sense to me. It's called self-defence. They could have been gender-neutral about it, but not with the feminazis running everything. They even got to use their favorite word in it: "domestic violence." Let's review the definition of domestic violence.

www.domesticviolence.org puts the definition as:

* name-calling or putdowns
* keeping a partner from contacting their family or friends
* withholding money
* stopping a partner from getting or keeping a job
* actual or threatened physical harm
* sexual assault
* stalking
* intimidation

Withholding money is a form of domestic violence now. So gold-digging female can murder her rich husband when he doesn't buy her that second BMW, and will get a very light sentence (and all the money afterwards). I am ashamed of governments that don't do anything to stop violence but to let it thrive (as long as the person doing the killing is a female).

Since adult women are responsible for the majority of cases of infanticide and child homicide; if we started giving to much a damn for dead unborn kids that were not killed by Scott Peterson, let alone the majority of newly born and young children murdered then we would have to acknowledge the fact that it is females who are most likely to commit such acts.

We hate child killers, and if we actually knew most of them were female, we would be far less likely to want to award special privileges and protections to females. Thus, since it is not in adult women's perceived best interests (complete control of every thing, we get laws that forgive female killers.

I didn't think you could stalk someone until they got a restraining order..and by then, you've already commited at least one of the other wrongs (theoretically).
-Axolotl

I just went out tonight to Borders (which I hate, because they engage in gender profiling to spot "potential shoplifters"), and I purchased the complete 1990 (latest) edition of Black's Law Dictionary. There's some really neat stuff in there.

So when I got home, I looked up "Domestic Violence" on page 523, and it said "see violence". So I then turned to page 1601, and after the basic defininiton of violence, was this:
"domestic violence. 1.Violence between members of a household, usu. spouses; an assault or other violent act committed by one member of a household against another. See battered-child syndrome; battered-woman syndrome...[etc]".
Notice there is no "battered-man syndrome".

So I looked up "battered-woman syndrome" on page 162. It turns out that this syndrome was first described by Dr. Lenore Walker in the 1970s. "This syndrome is sometimes proposed as a defense to justify or mitigate a woman's killing of a man. - Sometimes (more specif.) termed battered-wife syndrome; (more broadly) battered-spouse syndrome; (broadly) battered-person syndrome." Notice how the definition of these other terms hinges on the definition of battered-WOMAN syndrome!! It seems to imply that if there was such a thing under the law as "battered-person syndrome", it would still not cover men!

And here's something even more interesting. I found "battered-child syndrome" on the previous page, and it is basically the same definition as "battered-woman" syndrome..except of course in the case of a child rather than an adult woman. Now here's the kicker: "The phrase was first used by Dr. Henry Kempe and his colleagues in a 1962 article [in the Journal of the AMA).."; in other words, Walker patterned her syndrome for women, directly from, and AFTER, the one for children.

Next - on the same page under "violence" (see above):
"Violence Against Women Act. A federal statute that established a federal civil-rights action for victims of gender-motivated violence [in other words, they are implying that ALL gender-motivated violence is against women]. In 2000, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute, holding that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Enforcement Clause of the 14th Ammendment authorized Congress to enact the civil-remedy provision of this act."

So then I looke up "civil remedy", which is on p. 1320 under "Remedy". Its definition is "The means of enforcing a right or preventing or redressing a wrong; legal or equitable relief." Further under Remedy: "a remedy is anything a court can do for a litigant who has been wronged or is about to be wronged. The two most common remedies are judgments that plaintiffs are entitled to collect sums of money from defendants and orders to defendants to refrain from their wrongful conduct or undo the consequences..[there is more]".

So at this point, I started thinking about restraining orders - are they a civil remedy to prevent a wrong? But instead of looking up "restraining order" right away, I wanted to know why the VAWA was invalidated in 2000. So I looked up "Commerce Clause" on pg. 285. That clause is in Article 1 of the Constitution. The clause "gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce among the states, with foreign nations, and with Indian tribes."
So I guess there is nothing in there that provides for a woman to collect monetary damages under the VAWA.
Unfortunately, however, the closest thing I could find to an Enforcement Clause in Article 14, was by actually reading that part of the Constituion near the end of the book: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..".

So the only thing I can think of, without doing further research, is that the VAWA was invalidated in 2000, because neither
1) can remedy under the VAWA be justified, as far as monetary damages; nor
2) is there anything providing for remedy in the Enforcement Clause.
Somehow #2 does not sound like the whole idea..does anyone feel like googling on "'Enforcement Clause' AND 'Article 14'"?
(Remember that Black's Law Dictionary is not itself the law)
-Axolotl