Opinion
 

New sentences needed for victims of abuse

Jim Mccormick

Lately, there has been a string of news reports about wives killing their husbands. Now this is a despicable thing to do, especially since it's perfectly reasonable to get a divorce from a faithless or abusive spouse. However, I feel that the justice system needs an option to deal with these crimes in a more appropriate way.

To do this, I propose the idea of a plea of "guilty, but he or she had it coming." After all, I somewhat sympathize with Clara Harris, who ran her no-good cheating husband over with her Mercedes several times, or Susan Wright, who stabbed her abusive husband 193 times. After all, once was enough to kill these pieces of scum in the first place, but given the excessive nature of both murders, the only reason that I can come up with to explain the brutality of these crimes is that these women were in love, yet their husbands were not.

People seeking this verdict, which would be a negative defense (meaning that the burden of proof would rest upon the defense rather than the prosecution), would have to prove that their intended victims indeed had it coming. Logically, this would mean that not only murderers of abusive spouses would be eligible for this defense, but also those who had killed people involved in other situations where both parties were involved in felonies.

As the victims then were alleged felons (or just dirty, rotten, cheating spouses, which isn't a felony but is despicable), the verdict of "guilty, but he or she had it coming" would also convict the victim for the wrongdoing they committed in the first place.

This harming of now-convicted felons would then be treated lighter than the normal crime. In the case of murder where the victim got what he deserved, I propose a sentence of no more than 25 years, which seems to be the going rate for such crimes (both women cited earlier got this sentence for their murders). For other crimes, where the victim is still alive, the victim would have to be proven guilty of the felony that led to the act of violence for the alleged perpetrator to be eligible for the "he had it coming" defense.

In all seriousness, this probably isn't a good idea. After all, most criminals involved in violent crimes could reasonably claim that their victims deserved what they got. But the legal system is there for a reason: punish criminals. While I'm not saying that battered women don't have rights, there are far more appropriate courses of action than killing the abusive husband, such as divorce and sending him to prison on assault and battery charges.

Instead of softening sentences on vigilantes who enforce laws selectively and brutally, the government should treat certain matters that are likely to involve the violent death of the alleged criminals more seriously. For example, domestic abuse is not properly handled in this country, as evidenced by the stories of wives who've left their abusive husbands, only to be stalked across the country and put in intensive care. Such men need to be put away under the care of mental health professionals for much longer periods of time than what the law currently prescribes.

McCormick, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at rantman_2000@yahoo.com.