domestic violence and 'murder'.

hi all😊

I just wanted to know everyone's views on this subject matter. It it not uncommon for women who have been victims of domestic violence to sought to violence themselves against their abusers. There have been many cases esp in the UK of women finding themselves so provoked that they resort to such drastic actions.

The most famous case would be the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia (R v Ahluwalia [1992] ) who after years of suffering violent abuse at the hands of her husband finally reacted and one night poured oil all over him whilst he slept. Ahluwalia was found guilty of murder but it was argued by the her lawyers that she should have been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter (basically when u do the deed but do not have the necessary malicious intention) as she should have been able to able to rely on the defence of provocation. However as the there was a time gap between when she was last abused by her husband and when she actually reacted it was held that the defence of provocation failed as she had time to think. She was later freed on appeal on account of "diminished responisibility".

Her plight became headline news and in particular the abuse that asian women had also suffered came to light. There is a film shortly releasing called "provoked" which retells her story and stars Ashwariya Rai.

So my questions are -

do you feel that women such as Ahluwalia should be more protected by the law and from the charge of murder.

Do you feel that the law treats men and women different? (traditionally in britain the defence of provocation is used when a husband finds out about his wifes infidelity and then attacks her lover)

I've stated the law as it is in the UK but whats the situtation like in other countries?

lastly if anyone would like i can give the links or even paste some material regarding the actual court proceedings if you would like?😊

Uzi..

Uzi, i heard of the movie too but dont know too much about the case.
I think she killed him, yes she was provoked over several years and had every reason to hate him and want him gone but she did kill him and she should be punished.
Wife beating, cruelty and abuse are all crimes and horrible enough to cause enough trauma to a person, man or woman equally. Emotional and physical abuse are both crime enough to demand punishment. I dont know her circumstances in which she actually killed her husband as a desperate last attempt but still it is illegal.
And to call it manslaughter there has to be enough proof leading te court to believe she was abused. its often so hard to find proof for emotional that might have happened right before she attacked and killed him to prove in a court of law.
But more on this later huni

Uzi baby back with more,

I think if the finer details of the case are known manslaughter could be argued as an alternative to murder.

But the difference is that she took his life, he didnt, he probably destroyed most of it though and if it could be argued that if she didnt take his life he would have eventually taken hers then she could get away with murder. The emotional trauma and abuse must be proven.
If there is proof then yes she can get away.
Now the question is should she get away?
I dont know if she should get away scot free, maybe not but i wouldnt let her not have another chance at all. She has been through so much already and when we give so many criminals a second chance why not her, a battered woman who has probably already paid a lot of her punishment already-
But I dont know if men get off easier than women, i dont think this is true only if a woman kills or commits a crime there is often a lot of press to the crime. Men and crime in the same breath somehow dont create this much sensationalism

hey guys this is the story of kiranjit ahluwalia

www.jfw.org.uk/casehistories.htm

Kiranjit Ahluwalia was persuaded into an arranged marriage by her brothers. Both her parents had died by the time she was 16 and so at the age of 23 she had to give up studying law and marry Deepak Ahluwalia.

The violence and humiliation started 2 days after the wedding. His manner "changed dramatically" Kiranjit recounted later. This marked the beginning of 10 years of violence, rape and sexual abuse; Deepak was so obsessed with controlling Kiranjit's behaviour that he even forbade her to eat chillies or drink black coffee. She was not allowed to go out to see friends or family and was treated like a slave.

Deepak saw other women while he continued to abuse Kiranjit on an almost daily basis. He didn't want her "westernised" and kept her in almost total isolation. Kiranjit was kicked, punched and slapped; beaten with belts, shoes and pieces of furniture, threatened with knives, hot irons and nearly strangled. Deepak also regularly threatened to kill her. Kiranjit was afraid to have children because she feared that she would never be able to leave her husband, but she was pressurized by Deepak's family to undergo medical examinations to find out why she had not yet become pregnant. Deepak forced Kiranjit to have sex with him and she subsequently had 2 children. The boys were terrified of their father and were also subjected to his violence. Kiranjit attempted to seek help from her family who merely told her to go back and be "a good wife" and that it was her duty "to make the marriage work". She also approached her GP and got 2 court injunctions in an effort to stop Deepak's attacks on her, but to no effect. She ran away but he found her and brought her back. Kiranjit began to drink in order to dull the pain and was deeply ashamed of her drinking. She took 2 overdoses, pushed beyond endurance by the misery of her existence. Finally, on May 9, 1989, she could stand it no longer - she was terrified of staying and equally terrified of the consequences of running away; she felt trapped and, in order to stop him coming after her and make him understand what pain was, she set fire to Deepak's bedclothes while he slept. She had no intention of killing him.

10 days later Deepak died of his injuries and Kiranjit was charged with his murder. The trial judge declared that the violence she had suffered was "not serious" and the prosecution claimed that she had merely been "knocked about'. Because of her shame about the incidents of sexual abuse, Kiranjit could not face her family hearing about them at the trial and gave no evidence in her defence. Her plea of manslaughter due to provocation was overturned and the jury found her guilty of murder.

A key reason for the failure of Kiranjit's plea of provocation was the bias towards male behaviour in such cases. the time that had elapsed between Deepak's last attack on her and her retaliation (a few hours) was deemed to be a "cooling down" period and not a "boiling over" period as her defence suggested. Men tend to react instantaneously when provoked, whereas women cannot do so because of men's greater physical strength and size.

An appeal was granted in 1992 on the grounds that expert evidence and psychiatric reports had not been presented at the original trial. A re-trial was ordered and on September 25, 1992 Kiranjit was found guilty of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and sentenced to three years and four months (the time she had already served). Kiranjit was released immediately.

hi all im copy and pasting Ahluwalia's case history and the law on provocation in the UK hope that helps vishesh 😊
the law on provocation is taken from:

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/Manslaughterbyr easonofprovocation-final.pdf

The Homicide Act 1957 (chapter 11, part 1)

section 3-

Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.


The details of Ahluwalia's case taken from

http://www.jfw.org.uk/casehistories.htm

Kiranjit Ahluwalia was persuaded into an arranged marriage by her brothers. Both her parents had died by the time she was 16 and so at the age of 23 she had to give up studying law and marry Deepak Ahluwalia.
The violence and humiliation started 2 days after the wedding. His manner "changed dramatically" Kiranjit recounted later. This marked the beginning of 10 years of violence, rape and sexual abuse; Deepak was so obsessed with controlling Kiranjit's behaviour that he even forbade her to eat chillies or drink black coffee. She was not allowed to go out to see friends or family and was treated like a slave.
Deepak saw other women while he continued to abuse Kiranjit on an almost daily basis. He didn't want her "westernised" and kept her in almost total isolation. Kiranjit was kicked, punched and slapped; beaten with belts, shoes and pieces of furniture, threatened with knives, hot irons and nearly strangled. Deepak also regularly threatened to kill her. Kiranjit was afraid to have children because she feared that she would never be able to leave her husband, but she was pressurized by Deepak's family to undergo medical examinations to find out why she had not yet become pregnant. Deepak forced Kiranjit to have sex with him and she subsequently had 2 children. The boys were terrified of their father and were also subjected to his violence. Kiranjit attempted to seek help from her family who merely told her to go back and be "a good wife" and that it was her duty "to make the marriage work". She also approached her GP and got 2 court injunctions in an effort to stop Deepak's attacks on her, but to no effect. She ran away but he found her and brought her back. Kiranjit began to drink in order to dull the pain and was deeply ashamed of her drinking. She took 2 overdoses, pushed beyond endurance by the misery of her existence. Finally, on May 9, 1989, she could stand it no longer - she was terrified of staying and equally terrified of the consequences of running away; she felt trapped and, in order to stop him coming after her and make him understand what pain was, she set fire to Deepak's bedclothes while he slept. She had no intention of killing him.
10 days later Deepak died of his injuries and Kiranjit was charged with his murder. The trial judge declared that the violence she had suffered was "not serious" and the prosecution claimed that she had merely been "knocked about'. Because of her shame about the incidents of sexual abuse, Kiranjit could not face her family hearing about them at the trial and gave no evidence in her defence. Her plea of manslaughter due to provocation was overturned and the jury found her guilty of murder.
A key reason for the failure of Kiranjit's plea of provocation was the bias towards male behaviour in such cases. the time that had elapsed between Deepak's last attack on her and her retaliation (a few hours) was deemed to be a "cooling down" period and not a "boiling over" period as her defence suggested. Men tend to react instantaneously when provoked, whereas women cannot do so because of men's greater physical strength and size.
An appeal was granted in 1992 on the grounds that expert evidence and psychiatric reports had not been presented at the original trial. A re-trial was ordered and on September 25, 1992 Kiranjit was found guilty of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and sentenced to three years and four months (the time she had already served). Kiranjit was released immediately.

As you may have noticed the case history tends to lean more towards Ahluwalia because it was one of the cases that the Organisation took up.

so here is a link which provides details on the law generally worldwide and also some more details on the Ahluwalia case..perhaps a less biast account of the case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_syndrome


uzi 😊

lol jasunap we posted around the same time with the same case history 😊

-she was terrified of staying and equally terrified of the consequences of running away; she felt trapped and, in order to stop him coming after her and make him understand what pain was,she set fire to Deepak's bedclothes while he slept. She had no intention of killing him-

Thanks Jas and Uzi for the articles.
Uzi what does the lawyer in you say,
this is what I think

Now setting fire to someone's bed clothes while they are sleeping is not an intention of killing, 😕, All the dowry deaths in India where they set fire to young women for money is a similar kind of method used to kill somebody.

The big difference is the motive behind the act and that is what sepeartes the two. One is greed and the other is desperation. To kill for money and to kill for freedom have that big divide and that is what could possibly show a pathway to pardon for Kiranjit's crime.

If the motive to kill which was torture and abuse could be proven then yes. If this cannot be proven which is the case many a time in emotional abuse cases then she has no case. 🤔

thanks for your views di 😊

The lawyer in me would argue that if we started making exceptions to all such scenarios where there is some kind of emotional torment or where there has been some kind of emotional suffering then in reality we would never be able to draw the line. The fact that it took so many years and then she actually brooded for a few hours before she did what she did lends itself to the reasoning that the intent to cause grievious bodily harm was there. Thus this would conform to one of the two necessary elements needed in order for homicide to have taken place( mens rea) . Without a doubt she had the necessary actus reas i.e. she herself took part in those actions.
To set fire to someone's clothes whilst the person is asleep isnt the same as hitting someone in self-defence when they are abusing you.

However if one was to view this whole issue from a human rights angle or even perhaps just as a woman then surely her initial sentence to homicide cannot be entirely condoned. I think the issue which causes much discussion is the importance that past events can have on someones actions. She endured much pain, suffering and humilation and to her credit she did try other means of distancing herself from him. Unfortunately for her the injunction order was no success, on this note perhaps the legal system failed her in some way at this point?. She also tried to run away too but always found herself to be at such a point that she had to return.

I suppose even with this issue its the age-old and much debated discussion of how far should there be a divide between "facts" and the emotions/experiences which underlie those "facts" which are relied upon in Court.

Uzi