For the last ten years, at minimum, we've had long-term battered females who wake up one morning and make the decision not to go on living in a violent environment and end their victimization by killing their abusers.

Are domestic violence victims justified in killing their abusive partner? How long have the victims accepted the battering before murder seemed to be the only way out? At the beginning of the relationship, did potential victims grin and bear their mate's abusive behavior, and why? Did they surrender to the bad situation, therefore enabling their abusers to feel comfortable with what they were doing, controlling and isolating them? Had the victims encouraged their abusers in any way?

Most of us seem to forget that society has not given males the right to domestic violence. The victims have given their abusers the right to violate them. And until we realize that the victims are the only ones who can break the cycle, society will continue to puzzle over, "What will happen when the large scale of battered females in our communities decide to kill their abusive mate, rather than to take responsibility for their behaviors?"

Unfortunately, some advocates are determined to defend why battered females would choose to end the violence by killing the abuser, alleging that abusive males dominate and terrorize their partners and drive them to the breaking point so that the victims have no choice when backed against the wall to fight back and kill.

And although these same advocates claim that the victims are isolated from their family and friends, not all family members and friends refuse to become involved in home violence. Family members and concerned friends do get involved, take the victim to their home to protect her, only to end becoming frustrated because the abuser calls, or comes by to apologize and the victim decides, "He's calmer now. He wants to talk. I'm going back home."

Still, advocates continue to allege that the main reason for the profound increase in home violence against females today is because these victims are isolated from family members and friends who could help break the cycle of abuse. And battered females' major reason (other than remaining in the relationship because they also have children with the abuser) not to leave the relationship is fear of escalating abuse. Then, the last straw for most victims is to retaliate, kill the abuser and end the violence.

Thereafter, the victim and her supporters appear in court and the female's supporters stress that the judges and society are at fault, not the victims, for their failure to cooperate with the law and mandate the police to protect victims from home violence, making the judges accountable for their actions in court. Responsibility is key. Is the victim not accountable for reporting the abuser to the legal system only to return to the arms of the violent partner?

Is the act of revenge by battered females due to a personality defect and not in the actions of their partner's behavior? Is retaliation the victims' way of getting back at the legal system for not recognizing the abuser's violence against them and blaming the victims? Is this the reason the criminal justice system now leans toward holding battered female accountable for killing their mate?

Although women are far more likely to be killed by their male partner than vice versa, when a woman does kill a man, the instant knee jerk reaction on feminists' blogs et cetera is the battered wife defense. We rarely hear the battered husband defense opined in such a situation.

When and if battered females are convicted of killing their abusive mates, they did not "lose in court because of an insidious stereotyping that continues to work again them." (Ms Magazine - August 2003) "They lose because the 1984 New Jersey Supreme Court had decided that battered females do not accept responsibility for their circumstances and tolerate the beatings from their abuser."

The question on the minds of many for quite some time now is not, Why more than what's been done to help females in domestic violence situations in over fifty years by the legal principles, but why have females not yet taken responsibility?

Are there more than a handful of females who cry abuse only after they are arrested for killing their partner? To many women and men, the action makes them suspicious of the battered females' defense, simply because it is too convenient. If anyone anywhere at any time can get a reduced sentence by claiming abuse, then what happens if it comes to light that there wasn't abuse and the female killed simply to be rid of her partner for unknown reasons that may possibly be revealed during trial?

From a police officer's angle, domestic violence can be really annoying because there are a lot of fake victims, especially in child custody and divorce type situations, that totally game the system for all its worth to get better civil judgments, or to get back at a cheating spouse. These fake victims totally do an injustice to the real victims because they make all cases that much more suspect when everybody knows that people lie when sex, money, jealousy and all sorts of emotions are involved.

There are people in our society who really believe that females who kill their partners in cold blood know that all they have to do is cry abuse to get leniency. This is not at all to discredit those who are actually abused, just a point that some people take advantage of the fact that juries take pity on those who claim abuse. The legal system, in all fairness, should not accept this defense blindly but they should investigate the claim of abuse and see if the claim can be corroborated and substantiated.

This decision does not give any battered spouse a license to kill the batterer. It is up to the jury to decide in any given case whether the evidence, particularly that of the experts, is sufficiently compelling to warrant acquittal. In all likelihood, there will be a few circumstances where the defense will be successful.

CORNERSTONE

Twenty years past, Massachusetts created a program to train judges to better handle domestic violence cases. Should the judges embrace the burden of learning how to be psychologically sympathetic toward victims who have accepted their circumstances? Should all those anti violence crusaders learn to use their unoccupied time to train victims how to better understand themselves and their chosen relationships?

At that time, several judges thought that the program would be a provocative solution in shrinking domestic violence. Today, the problem is running into the ground harder than at the time The 1978 Abuse Prevention Act and the Massachusetts program were in effect.

The purpose for the 1978 Act and the 1987 program was to get the message out that home violence is a crime, and that victims are protected. Yet, domestic violence zoomed in the 1980s and 1990s and females are victims in 98% of the domestic violence cases today. Is no one getting the message? Is the legal system at fault or are there just more victims who have chosen to remain in a degrading environment? What kind of Act or program will we need by the year 2010 before someone gets the message?

CLOSING

There is massive discrimination against male victims in the domestic violence context. According to the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, women who commit unprovoked killings of their husbands get only 7 years in prison, whereas men who commit unprovoked killings of their wives get 17 years in prison. And it's much harder for a prosecutor to get even a clearly guilty abusive wife for killing her husband, since most wives who abuse their husbands invariably claim battered women's syndrome even when they dominated and abused their husbands for years. (www.volokohconspiracy.com)

Let us recognize that domestic violence and abuse are often mutual and equal justice demands equal treatment. Eliminate attempts to designate one person, primarily the male, as the primary aggressor. Let us recognize fair treatment for medical and mental health problems in domestic situations for either or both partners. Let us recognize domestic violence, abuse and human problems not as a gender issue. (www.dvmen.org, www.ejfi.org/dv-26htm)

Once again, murder victim, David Harris is mistreated by the media - February 22, 2008 - Clara Harris, Murder by Mercedes. Of the 354 news stories indexed on Google News, 233 refer to David Harris as Clara Harris' cheating husband. Not one feature mentions the phrase, domestic violence. Were the genders reversed, would we see headlines saying, Man Killed Cheating Wife?

Is there any wonder that the media thrives to have men and women hating each other? Is the media pondering to what the majority of the reading public want to read? Is the media purposely dictating to the audience, and those who buy advertising space to sell to the media so that they could reap the rewards from the controversy?

REFERENCES

www.angryharry.com, www.glennsacks.com, www.europrofem.org, www.ifeminists.net
www.cambridgeuniversitypress.com (Lizzie Borden to Lorena Bobbitt - Violent Women and Gendered Justice
www.courierpress.com/news/2008/June/18
www.blackwell-synergy.com (Battered Women Syndrome and defenses homicide, where now?)
www.wings.buffalo.edu/law (Was it Self Defense or Murder?)