What rights do men and women have to murder?
There’s an article in the NZHerald about killer Gay Oakes finding a new love and planning to marry. She was convicted of murdering her husband and sentenced to life imprisonment after lacing her de facto partner Doug Gardner’s coffee with sleeping pills and burying his body in the back yard of their home in Sydenham, Christchurch back in 1994. She was released eight years later when the Parole Board accepted battered women’s syndrome could be used as a defence.
The concept of battered woman syndrome was invented by Lenore Walker in 1979. She formulated a theory of excuse that would later become an accepted excusing condition. She hypothesised that women living in violent relationships suffer a cycle of violence and experience learned helplessness which prevents them from leaving the relationship. The theory is based on the observations of this sole researcher and today it’s used to excuse women from becoming criminals for abusive behaviour including murder. The weird part is that the law makes reference to battered women syndrome as a mental condition that doesn’t exist in the medical profession.
In R v Fate (1998) 16 CRNZ 88 a woman who had come to New Zealand from the small island of Nanumea, which is part of the Tuvalu Islands, received a two year sentence for manslaughter by provocation. Mrs. Fate spoke no English and was isolated within a small close-knit Wellington community of 12 families, so she felt trapped in the abusive relationship. [19]
Similarly, The Queen v Epifania Suluape (2002) NZCA 6, deals with a wife who pleaded provocation after she killed her husband with an axe when he proposed to leave her for another woman. There was some evidence of neglect, humiliation, and abuse but the court concluded that this was exaggerated. On appeal, the court was very conscious of the Samoan culture in New Zealand in restricting the power of the wife to act independently of her husband and reduced her sentence for manslaughter to five years.[20]
A Whangarei woman had been found not guilty of murdering her husband by stabbing him in the heart with a kitchen knife. The defence maintained Stephens was acting in self defence and was suffering from battered woman’s syndrome, following continued abuse by Mr Stephens. During the eight days of evidence, the jury heard from psychologist Gail Ratcliffe who said, in her view, Stephens had been living in a battering relationship with her husband. Stephens suffered from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of that relationship, Dr Ratcliffe said.
Battered women’s syndrome also excuses women’s violence on their children. Jehan Casinader from the NZHerald writes about Fiji and the abuse Fijians suffer. In one paragraph she writes, “She agonises about a father of eight who continues to bash his children. The mother is little better, she says, eyes glistening, but perhaps she is another victim of the battered wife syndrome”.
It’s interesting that lots of laws we have today came from feminist theories back in the 70’s. I’m still shocked the idea that 1 in 4 women are raped came from a questionnaire in the women’s weekly that 100 people supposedly took part in. If you were to google “1 in 4” and rape, you’ll find experts are still saying “1 in 4” for women while saying “1 in 6” for men.
One brave journalist at canada.com writes, “The keystone of the feminist order is ‘domestic violence.’ Men are so universally presented as having ‘anger management issues,’ that even in the extreme case, where a woman has murdered her husband, the court will invite feminist ‘experts’ to argue that the man must have deserved it.”
The words above relate to a case where Ms. Craig’s trial in Ottawa heard evidence that one night, while Jack slept under the influence of alcohol and marijuana, she put a pillow over his face and stabbed him repeatedly with a butcher knife. In a videotaped statement made to police later, she admitted they had not even been arguing that night. Rather, she said: “I hate him, that’s why I kill him. Enough is enough. Get rid of him.” She was an abused wife, she told police, but the abuse was never physical, just verbal.
Men on the other hand are trying to change the law so they don’t have to pay alimony to wives who hire hitmen to kill them. California law currently bans people convicted of attempting to murder their spouse from benefiting from a divorce but, if they hired someone else to do it, they can still benefit.
The reality is that western women have an open license to murder provided it is in a domestic situation. The evidence is overwhelming.
Just another reason why the risk /reward of marriage is far too unbalanced for males to enter into.
Comment by Dave — Mon 28th June 2010 @ 1:49 pm
Julie,
Actually the 1 in 4 figure relates only to sexual abuse. However the point is well made that shonky feminist statistics have often been used over a period of decades now to steal from the public purse, hoodwink people, conflate women’s issues as ALL related to the mythical ‘patriarchal oppression’ and garner political and economic power to those who committed the fraud.
Another interesting point that could be considered is that depending on your views on the matter you could say that NZ women have exercised enormous unilateral power to murder with total impunity indeed with full support by the modern day secular state for several decades now.
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 28th June 2010 @ 1:50 pm
Thanks for the correction. I’ve corrected the article.
On another note, now I know why I’ll never see advertising saying, “It’s not OK for women to abuse their children and male partners”. It’s because every women who abuses anyone has ‘Battered women’s defence’ and feminists will argue “somewhere in her life a man made her do it”.
They can’t say the child made her do it! (unless he is a boy over the age of 13 perhaps).
Comment by julie — Mon 28th June 2010 @ 10:39 pm
Here is something to think about:
Children are not held fully accountable or responsible for their actions by the legal system.
Women are not held fully accountable or responsible for their actions by the legal system.
Therefore: Women are treated by the law in a similar way as children.
.
.
A women who needs constant assurance that she is ok as a person is emotionally dependant……like a child.
A woman who is financial living off other’s efforts is a dependant…..a child.
A woman who expects everything to be handed to her and not have to work for anything is behaving like……a child.
A woman who creatively makes up excuses for her behaviour, using a fictious condition is making up lies like…..a child.
A woman who blames the man in her life for every problem and will not take any level of responsibility for her own actions is behaving like…..a child.
A woman who turns goes into the court and claims for her defence “he made me do it”. Is no different than a child who points at someone and uses exactly the same words. She is a child in disguise and nothing more.
.
.
In essence, a large proportion of modern western “women” have in fact not matured psychologically beyond being teenagers, and some of them have not even reached that point. They are not women at all, they are girls in an adult body. And most of them will NEVER become women, they will remain girls, they will be stuck in perpetual childhood.
.
.
Being stuck in perpetual childhood does have its bonuses, lack of responsibility being one of them, and the ability to blame everyone else for your problems is a big bonus too, these have both been exploited to great effect by Western “women”. But childish behaviour comes with a terrible price:
Children cannot form proper adult relationships.
This of course means that childish women also cannot form proper adult relationships, particularly with men.
.
.
Congratulations feminists, you have reduced fully grown adult females to behave like immature, selfish, dishonest, spoiled brats. And proven yet again that your 40+ year social experiment is a total failure. And it is females who will pay the price for this the most NOT MEN.
.
Us men will simply go and find women in countries that your lies have not reached. Women who are responsible, accountable, who take care of themselves, who think of others, who don’t blame other people for their problems. Women who have immense beauty on the inside as well as outside. Women who have incredible strength in their femininity and don’t pretend to be anything but female. Women who are committed to their family and are in their relationships for the long hall, because unlike Western girls they are capable of having an adult relationship and not constantly relating like a spoiled brat. In other words us men will find women who are actually women, not immature girls in an adult body.
.
.
Learn it and learn it well:
MEN DON’T WANT RELATIONSHIPS WITH IMMATURE “WOMEN”.
Comment by Phoenix — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 10:42 am
Hi Pheonix,
Whilst experience has taught me what you’re saying here is true, don’t forget women seem for the most part hypergamous.
One faltering step and you, the man are kicked to the kerb in favor of the next best meal ticket. Factor that in and it’s not just a problem with western women. Western feminism just allows that process to go unchecked with the disastrous results we’ve seen over several decades and ongoing until it reaches it’s logical conclusion – male enslavement to female sexuality. That’s why I’ve become such an ardent supporter of the new forms of male birth control. It will vest some power back to men. It’s also why I’ve included the link earlier in the thread to the disgusting picture of an aborted person. With the male birth control pill there will be much much less abortion which you can argue is murder committed by masses of women across all classes.
I’m glad to see my posting hasn’t been censured and taken off the thread as I think if we don’t revisit abortion and debate it we cheapen life, specifically life in the hands of women. You can add that to your list of ‘women’s’ immaturity as an example of NOT taking adult responsibility for their behavior (getting pregnant) too.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 11:11 am
Your comment is very powerful IMO, and I barely want to accept it myself. But…. I agree with the message.
How can women be given positions of responsibility and not be held responsible?
Not all women act like children and not all men act like grown ups but it’s ridiculous to have laws allowing women as a whole never to be held accountable for their actions while they have power.
I don’t understand this bit. What is your definition of feminist social experiment? Edit: I read this comment of yours Phoenix and it’s given me the answer. Nice comment BTW.
Comment by julie — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 2:04 pm
I new Doug and Gay years befre this happened. She was a battered victim even then. Im glad to hear shes getting a chance to be happy. Tho I dont agree with the method
Comment by Steven — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Thank-you for your comment Steven.
Comment by julie — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 2:18 pm
Doug doesnt get the chance to be happy though.
He’s dead and she’s getting on with life and yet she is still called the victim.
Are we condoning the death penalty as a just punishment for any of Dougs alledged wrongdoings?
Comment by mits — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 2:59 pm
Steven,
I’m not buying into your comment as I don’t buy into the judges verdict that this murderess had ‘battered women’s syndrom’.
Why? because women in NZ have TV, Radio, Newspaper and Billboards advertising services women who are being victimised can go to. They have a VAST health service including plunket and clinics and hospitals who have been trained to look for signs of victimhood in women who present as patients.
After decades of over the top feminist propaganda women in NZ also have such a network of informants that I seriously doubt ANY woman there could be victimised for a long enough time to suffer any king of ‘syndrome’ (not even listed in the DSM4 and also rejected by USA congress) and escape the notice of an informant who went to the local authorities and said ‘Hey, my friend/neighbor/workmate Gail has been showing bruising and or cuts and her character has become very withdrawn and depressed’. Then the police or a social worker would simply make a ‘casual’ visit.
You, yourself say you knew her to have been a battered victim and so want us to believe you didn’t alert the authorities, or you did but they just turned a blind eye?
No. That’s incredible.
Also I suspect you’re just a feminist troll stirring up misandry.
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 7:46 pm
I agree it is total fantasy to excuse this murder.
Women have all the massive power of the law and a vast array of support services. There is simply no excuse for a female not to leave an abusive partner.
Then there is the issue of morals anyway.
I was a victim of domestic violence. Being a male with children I had absolutely no where to go for help. However I didn’t kill my wife or even hurt her in any way.
It is nothing more than a license to kill someone.
Gay new partner is living on borrowed time. He may not be killed but he will end up ruined.
Comment by Dave — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 8:29 pm
Well what about battered husband syndrome? Battered general member of public syndrome? Where do the excuses for murder stop? Oh yeah, if a male commits it!
Comment by Scott B — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 4:06 pm
thats about it Scott B
I remember reading once (it might have been on here)
That is a man hits a women it’s because hes a violent callous brute
But if a women hits a man it’s because………….he’s a violent callous brute.
I tell ya what the new chap in her life better make all the hot drinks
Comment by mits — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 6:53 pm
http://www.nationalturk.com/en/susan-falls-found-not-guilty-of-murdering-husband-on-a-current-affair-73042345
Comment by Scott B — Wed 30th June 2010 @ 8:38 pm
It is so easy to blame the victim when he is dead.
According to the story ‘The Other Side of Gay Oakes’published in North and South, SHE was the violent party in the relationship, NOT Doug.
If I recall correctly, she was observed bashing him with a frying pan because he had failed to bring her home a bottle.
The story also said the real reason she murdered him in cold blood was because he was going to leave her and go back to his estranged wife. “Hell hath no fury…”
Comment by Darryl Ward — Thu 1st July 2010 @ 9:30 am
Very interesting. I vaguely remember this case. She knew he wasn’t missing (she buried him in the back yard) and there were feminists in the media saying she was a battered women.
It’s good to know North and South wrote about this.
Comment by julie — Thu 1st July 2010 @ 7:30 pm
facts that supprot what has been siad already…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7504786/man-jailed-for-murdering-sex-worker/
Comment by karan jiharr — Fri 2nd July 2010 @ 8:28 pm
I thought back to the Gay Oakes case, when I heard of David Bain’s relatives ointing out that being deceased, Robin Bain could not defend himself against defense claims. Nor could Doug Gardiner. I make this observation without prejudice. But I think this comparison does show how fickle our justice system and media can be.
I am also reminded of John LaRoche who stabbed Ms Bennalink in the Palmerston North court house. LaRoche was tormented prior to the killing in a way similar to [dare I say it?]”Battered woman syndrome”. While Oakes is out and writing books that firm up her position as victim, but LaRoche is still in prison. Oakes went inside in 1995, LaRoche went in in 1996. Although Oakes concealed the body, and LaRoche waited for police to arrive, – Still LaRoche is the one still in clink.
I do not consider that JUSTICE exists in New Zealand
Comment by Alan — Thu 8th July 2010 @ 6:26 am
Nice comment Alan.
Comment by julie — Thu 8th July 2010 @ 1:06 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mother-jailed-for-sex-with-son-she-gave-up-for-adoption-20100713-108ts.html
Comment by karan jiharr — Tue 13th July 2010 @ 5:07 pm
Don’t think I saw this mentioned, and it doesn’t justify being murdered… but didn’t he sexually assault one of his daughters and threaten to murder the children?
Comment by Sally — Mon 30th August 2010 @ 12:38 pm
It’s difficult to see why you raise such a point unless that sort of thing interests you. Here’s a blog you may find of further interest:
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/
It’s run by a young man who suffered sexual abuse through his growing years at the hands of the women in his family. He updates it regularly with stories from around the world of women abusing the men and boys in their lives – the stories that you generally won’t see in the mainstream media.
You’ll be relieved to know that in spite of all his history, he is a remarkably well-balanced writer and nowhere appeals for the harming or murder of the women who perpetrate these unconscionable deeds.
Comment by rc — Mon 30th August 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Sally you say –
Answer – No. But it’s easy and cowardly to condemn the dead without solid evidence!
Comment by Skeptik — Mon 30th August 2010 @ 3:05 pm
Even though this is old, posting on here in case anyone actually believes this crap. The Law Commission reported on the defence of provocation in 2007 and recommended its abolishment because the section worked favourably for men who killed their partners (crimes of passion) and men who killed gay men (in cases of homosexual ‘panic’). It was most commonly used successfully when a man would find out his wife was leaving him (especially for another man) and he would then murder her. This information is easy to find if you do a little research but I guess because it doesn’t fit with the rhetoric that women never get punished but men do you would choose to exclude it. Same biased approach of all the articles on here. I sincerely hope nobody takes them seriously.
Comment by Hailee — Thu 26th May 2016 @ 4:53 pm
Hailee @24. What ‘crap’ are you referring to? The PARTIAL defence of provocation was not often successfully used when men murdered wives simply for leaving them. It was sometimes successfully used when a spouse either male or female came home to find the spouse having sex with someone else, or when one spouse/partner taunted the other about having or preferring sex with someone else, or in other situations likely to cause overwhelming emotional threat to normal people. It was always reasonable to take into account the very normal phenomenon of becoming temporarily overwhelmed in such circumstances. But reasonable is not something men can expect in the feminist era. And having removed the partial defence of provocation, the feminists and white knights now want to introduce a much less reasonable legal defence tailored especially for women, to allow them to kill men with impunity.
Comment by Man X Norton — Thu 26th May 2016 @ 7:32 pm