Feminism and Murder

Today's edition of The Times leads with an interesting piece about criminal defences in murder trials. It is being proposed that the partial defence of provocation should be reframed by repealing the defence of sudden passion and introducing a partial defence for defendants who have been victimised.

In a 2004 report the Law Commission framed the issue as follows:

We think that the defence as it presently operates is in some respects too broad and in other respects too narrow. We think that it is too broad in that it can apply to conduct by the victim which is blameless or trivial. It is too narrow in that it provides no defence to a person who is subjected to serious actual or threatened violence, who acts in genuine fear for his or her safety (but not under sudden and immediate loss of self-control) and who is not entitled to the full defence of selfdefence (either because the danger is insufficiently imminent or their response is judged to have been excessive). We are satisfied from consultees’ responses that this is a real and not merely an academic problem, particularly in cases of defendants who have been victims of long-term abuse.

Harriet Harman, Labour Deputy Leader and the Minister for Women, frames the issue rather more starkly in terms of feminist discourse. She observes that the traditional defences allow men to be partially excused for all manner of domestic gripes:

We want to abolish the culture of excuses that allows a man who has killed his wife to say, ‘I killed her but it’s not my fault because she was having an affair or she provoked me in some way, by nagging or whatever’.

In contrast, women who are subjected to domestic abuse and commit homicide after a 'slow burn' cannot presently avail themselves of the partial defence of provocation.

Judging from some of the comments on The Times' piece, it seems like some men believe that the law will go a step too far and reverse the situation in favour of women. One reader asks 'So, a man using physical violence is a defense, but a woman using physcological abuse no longer is?' Quite frankly, I think that he misses the point - the proposed reform will distinguish between situations where one's life and limb are constantly under threat, and situations where one merely feels morally wronged. Nevertheless, it seems like Ms Harman has her work cut out if she is to convince some people with feminist arguments.