|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 11, 2010 12:05:23 GMT -6
Advocates Focus On Death Row Inmate
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Twenty-two years ago, Gaile Owens was convicted by a Shelby County jury and sentenced to die for paying a man $17,000 to beat to death her allegedly abusive husband. Now, advocates against domestic violence are trying to save her life.
"I think her life sentence should be commuted to time served and she should be set free," said Nashville attorney George Barrett.
Barrett recently presented Governor Phil Bredesen with a written, formal request to commute Owens's death sentence.
"She's a model prisoner," said Barrett. "I'm amazed at the prison officials I've heard from, talking about her as a prisoner."
Owens is one of only two women currently sitting on Tennessee's death row. If the state follows through with plans to execute her, it would be the first execution of a female inmate in 190 years.
Barrett said Owens has two shots at a reprieve: one from the State Supreme Court and the other from Governor Bredesen. Supporters of Owens expect to hear from the state in the next four to six weeks.
The state will either grant Barrett's motion to commute the sentence or set an execution date. The execution should, according to trends, come within three to four months of the announcement to move forward with the death penalty.
The State Attorney General's office stands behind its 1988 conviction of Gaile Owens. In addition, during one of her appeals in recent years, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to take pity upon Owens. In fact, one judge wrote Owens sabotaged her own fate by failing to properly advise her defense attorneys at trial time.
Poor representation is precisely what Barrett blames for a conviction and a harsh sentence. Barrett wishes Owens's defense lawyers, back in the mid to late 1980s, had used the so-called battered woman syndrome - a claim of self defense to earn a lighter sentence.
"The battered woman syndrome is not a waiver to kill someone," said Pamela Sessions, VP of programs at the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee. "I do think that it is very important for everyone to recognize that there is a psychological impact of being traumatized over and over again in relationships."
The YWCA's board of directors unanimously voted to draft a letter to the governor pleading for a commutation in sentence. Sessions said increased awareness and the fact that battered women have more resources today have helped lighten the punishment on domestic violence survivors who retaliate violently.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 11, 2010 12:22:31 GMT -6
Sorry there is a limit on characters for the answers.
I chose "not a waiver to kill", but should be addressed at trial. Domestic violence and abuse is not an excuse for murder, but it may be a good reason for self defense if that abuse was active prior to the murder. If the woman, waits then, it become premeditated.
The choice between getting out and getting a gun should not be considered as equal choices.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 11, 2010 12:39:05 GMT -6
I voted for maybe. I had to write a paper in my second semester about a case in which a woman was heavily abused (physically [including rape and severe beatings] and mentally) by her husband. At some point she couldn't take it anymore and shot him while he was sleeping. If you apply our laws strictly this was a simple murder since it was treacherously committed. Still our highest revision court ruled that the mandatory life sentence could not be given because she really believed informing the police about the abuse would have put her life at risk. In the later verdict she was given 7 years, I think. This just isn't the same as the sexually motivated killer for example.
|
|
|
Post by dogrose on Feb 11, 2010 15:37:40 GMT -6
I voted maybe. The case that Sub quoted above would not, in my opinion qualify for a battered syndrome case. Too much planning went into it for it to be a panic driven murder.
The abused woman who suddenly breaks and manages to kill her abuser is in my opinion entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 11, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -6
If she had time to locate and pay someone to kill her abusive husband, she could have taken him to the cleaners legally instead.
She wanted him dead, and all would be her's, hands clean and get away with it. She thought.
Abuse or not if one is so emotionally outside themselves, they are acting in the heat of the moment or soon very soon after the abuse in fear of what will happen next, then kill them if the oportunity comes, and they do not take time to pay someone to kill for them.
To many options were not even tried going by what I read here' to stop the abuse and let it get to a hired hit by her.
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 11, 2010 16:13:00 GMT -6
Yes. It is self-defense in my opinion. Although, I'm confused about the parameters; Is battered woman syndrome reason enough for her to kill her attacker or to escape capital punishment?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 11, 2010 16:41:06 GMT -6
I do not think she should get the death penalty, if the abuse was real though. Self defense??? No, she was not in the act "at the moment in time" to be in a life or death situation or fear of. Battered women syndrome effects yes, probably. Still very responsible for a plotted murder though.
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 11, 2010 19:09:00 GMT -6
Yes, self-defense. It does not matter if she kills him as he is beating her or otherwise (however, she would be smart to take such action in the course of his attack). No one is going to stop him but her. Women should not have to live in fear of their lives and safety from those who are supposed to love them.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Feb 11, 2010 21:18:42 GMT -6
To me, it's nothing more than legalized revenge for women only. I will concede though, that a history of abuse should be introduced as mitigation during the punishment phase.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Feb 11, 2010 21:22:06 GMT -6
Yes, self-defense. It does not matter if she kills him as he is beating her or otherwise (however, she would be smart to take such action in the course of his attack). No one is going to stop him but her. Women should not have to live in fear of their lives and safety from those who are supposed to love them. The battered women syndrome is not used to defend women who kill in defense of their lives, they need no further defense than they feared for their lives. It is used to justify hiring hitmen, killing a sleeping man or attacking a helpless one with a weapon. Look up Betty Lou Beets, Gaile Owens and Betty Broderick. All have used the battered woman defense.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 11, 2010 21:52:49 GMT -6
Sorry, I had to step out for a while.
The question is as it is and not worded to trick or trap anyone. It can be as straightforward or complex as you want to make it.
I am in the self-defense camp. If you are actively defending yourself or someone else then drop the bastard. Otherwise, get out and get help and attorney and police protection.
This case was an ice-breaker, but the discussion is still valid.
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 11, 2010 22:15:38 GMT -6
Yes, self-defense. It does not matter if she kills him as he is beating her or otherwise (however, she would be smart to take such action in the course of his attack). No one is going to stop him but her. Women should not have to live in fear of their lives and safety from those who are supposed to love them. The battered women syndrome is not used to defend women who kill in defense of their lives, they need no further defense than they feared for their lives. It is used to justify hiring hitmen, killing a sleeping man or attacking a helpless one with a weapon. Look up Betty Lou Beets, Gaile Owens and Betty Broderick. All have used the battered woman defense. I'm sorry, mst3k, but in a black-and-white world, if the man is beating her in a manner short of self-defense, then he deserves what he gets. If he is not, then, of course, that's a different story.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 11, 2010 22:29:58 GMT -6
The battered women syndrome is not used to defend women who kill in defense of their lives, they need no further defense than they feared for their lives. It is used to justify hiring hitmen, killing a sleeping man or attacking a helpless one with a weapon. Look up Betty Lou Beets, Gaile Owens and Betty Broderick. All have used the battered woman defense. I'm sorry, mst3k, but in a black-and-white world, if the man is beating her in a manner short of self-defense, then he deserves what he gets. If he is not, then, of course, that's a different story. But the world isn't black and white, it doesn't always fit neatly in a box and 'x' rarely marks the spot. If a man is beating a woman then she needs to get out. If she takes the time to think about it then it is premediated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2010 22:49:35 GMT -6
This'll probably surprise you, but I voted 'no'. Having been abused should not be an excuse to murder. When we excuse the few who do choose to murder their abuser, we disrespect all those ones who didn't take a life to get the hell outa there. And, my opposition to the death penalty isn't based on a case by case look-see. All first degree murderers should get a death sentence, or none should, IMO, so I didn't base my response on just this case.
|
|
|
Post by carolyn on Feb 12, 2010 3:27:02 GMT -6
This'll probably surprise you, but I voted 'no'. Having been abused should not be an excuse to murder. When we excuse the few who do choose to murder their abuser, we disrespect all those ones who didn't take a life to get the hell outa there. And, my opposition to the death penalty isn't based on a case by case look-see. All first degree murderers should get a death sentence, or none should, IMO, so I didn't base my response on just this case. I agree Lynne. How much abuse do we have to have to be defended bt BWS? We all cope differently in every situation. If the woman either battered or not did not kill to defend her life than all she is is another murderer
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 12, 2010 5:30:58 GMT -6
I'm sorry, mst3k, but in a black-and-white world, if the man is beating her in a manner short of self-defense, then he deserves what he gets. If he is not, then, of course, that's a different story. But the world isn't black and white, it doesn't always fit neatly in a box and 'x' rarely marks the spot. If a man is beating a woman then she needs to get out. If she takes the time to think about it then it is premediated. I see your point. Yet, in my mind, if the man is guilty, let him suffer the consequences.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 12, 2010 5:44:04 GMT -6
This'll probably surprise you, but I voted 'no'. Having been abused should not be an excuse to murder. When we excuse the few who do choose to murder their abuser, we disrespect all those ones who didn't take a life to get the hell outa there. And, my opposition to the death penalty isn't based on a case by case look-see. All first degree murderers should get a death sentence, or none should, IMO, so I didn't base my response on just this case. I think the key word is "syndrome." What complicates the self-defence discussion in these cases is that it's claimed that sustained abuse can put someone in a position of ALWAYS feeling under imminent threat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2010 6:04:00 GMT -6
I voted maybe. There can be as many variations to the circumstances as there can be variations of people. I guess that is why everyone gets their own trial. But I think some do unfortunately "get away with" murder. Dead Elvis has a pet peeve story there, and I agree with him.
I was a battered wife once years ago, there was a gun in the house. I didn't use it - I took my children and left hoping 1500 miles would be far enough. Thankfully it was. So I know it's possible to get away and really stop the violence. But that's not relaly true of those where the batterer keeps coming to get them, and doesn't give up.
I think this particular case in this thread is pretty clear what the jury who saw all the evidence (much more than we could know from an article) decided
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 12, 2010 9:12:37 GMT -6
Hell, yeah.
At the penalty phase, if a jury can consider evidence that a defendant's family was mean to him and didn't give him a pony as a kid as mitigation, they should damn well be able to hear and consider as mitigation evidence that a victim beat the crap out of a woman defendant for years and expert testimony as to its psychological effects on her.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 12, 2010 9:19:12 GMT -6
This poll is confusing. The title of the thread appears to ask if BWS is a defense against the charges while the title of the poll is asking whether it is mitigation at the penalty phase and the third answer makes no sense at all.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 12, 2010 9:43:58 GMT -6
I am in the self-defense camp. If you are actively defending yourself or someone else then drop the bastard. Otherwise, get out and get help and attorney and police protection. Easy for you to say. But if you are a woman with no money, no friends or family because part of BWS is the guy isolating their victims, you have kids, etc., where do you go? How would you hire an atty? I would point out that a number of these cases are fairly old. Battered women shelters and counselors are fairly new. So is the police and court's approach to the victims. Abusers, if arrested, were released on low bail or not arrested at all. Now, they tend to charge it as a felony with high bail and no OR to allow a cooling off period. The police have cameras and will immediately take photos of injuries, have lists of shelters and free counseling to give to the victim, have emergency restraining orders the victim can fill out on the spot, and will drive the victim to a shelter if needed. The prosecutors have their own domestic violence counselors who will contact the victim immediately. They also help them apply for welfare so they and their kids aren't out on the street, starving, while romeo is in the clink. But all this did not come about until the 1990s. And here's a shout out to the police who are more likely to get shot and killed when responding to domestic violence calls.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 12, 2010 9:53:41 GMT -6
I am in the self-defense camp. If you are actively defending yourself or someone else then drop the bastard. Otherwise, get out and get help and attorney and police protection. Easy for you to say. But if you are a woman with no money, no friends or family because part of BWS is the guy isolating their victims, you have kids, etc., where do you go? How would you hire an atty? I would point out that a number of these cases are fairly old. Battered women shelters and counselors are fairly new. So is the police and court's approach to the victims. Abusers, if arrested, were released on low bail or not arrested at all. Now, they tend to charge it as a felony with high bail and no OR to allow a cooling off period. The police have cameras and will immediately take photos of injuries, have lists of shelters and free counseling to give to the victim, have emergency restraining orders the victim can fill out on the spot, and will drive the victim to a shelter if needed. The prosecutors have their own domestic violence counselors who will contact the victim immediately. They also help them apply for welfare so they and their kids aren't out on the street, starving, while romeo is in the clink. But all this did not come about until the 1990s. And here's a shout out to the police who are more likely to get shot and killed when responding to domestic violence calls. So, this puts you squarely in the vigilante group based on old out dated information.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 12, 2010 10:04:13 GMT -6
Easy for you to say. But if you are a woman with no money, no friends or family because part of BWS is the guy isolating their victims, you have kids, etc., where do you go? How would you hire an atty? I would point out that a number of these cases are fairly old. Battered women shelters and counselors are fairly new. So is the police and court's approach to the victims. Abusers, if arrested, were released on low bail or not arrested at all. Now, they tend to charge it as a felony with high bail and no OR to allow a cooling off period. The police have cameras and will immediately take photos of injuries, have lists of shelters and free counseling to give to the victim, have emergency restraining orders the victim can fill out on the spot, and will drive the victim to a shelter if needed. The prosecutors have their own domestic violence counselors who will contact the victim immediately. They also help them apply for welfare so they and their kids aren't out on the street, starving, while romeo is in the clink. But all this did not come about until the 1990s. And here's a shout out to the police who are more likely to get shot and killed when responding to domestic violence calls. So, this puts you squarely in the vigilante group based on old out dated information. No, this puts you squarely in the low reading comprehension skills group.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 12, 2010 10:12:23 GMT -6
So, this puts you squarely in the vigilante group based on old out dated information. No, this puts you squarely in the low reading comprehension skills group. No, this puts me in the "I made the mistake of responding to your comments and expecting a civil answer" group. However, if you want to be insulting. It seems you are the only one that has a problem with the poll or its follow on questions, comments and clarifications. Mike you truly are an army of 1 in this case.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 12, 2010 10:28:31 GMT -6
No, this puts you squarely in the low reading comprehension skills group. No, this puts me in the "I made the mistake of responding to your comments and expecting a civil answer" group. No, this puts you in the "I made the mistake of responding to mike with snark and now I'm whining when he responded back the same to me" group. Oh, I am sure there are more people here than me with reading comprehension skills. Better to be an army of 1 rather than 1 in the army of dumb. ;D
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 12, 2010 10:33:44 GMT -6
No, this puts me in the "I made the mistake of responding to your comments and expecting a civil answer" group. No, this puts you in the "I made the mistake of responding to mike with snark and now I'm whining when he responded back the same to me" group. Oh, I am sure there are more people here than me with reading comprehension skills. Better to be an army of 1 rather than 1 in the army of dumb. ;D Wow, thanks Mike that really set me straight. I appreciate it, I really do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2010 10:41:43 GMT -6
No, this puts you squarely in the low reading comprehension skills group. No, this puts me in the "I made the mistake of responding to your comments and expecting a civil answer" group. However, if you want to be insulting. It seems you are the only one that has a problem with the poll or its follow on questions, comments and clarifications. Mike you truly are an army of 1 in this case. What is the difference between 'no' and 'battered woman's syndrome is not a waiver to kill' ? ~ that might change my answer. I think they both actually fit my feelings on this.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 12, 2010 10:48:45 GMT -6
What is the difference between 'no' and 'battered woman's syndrome is not a waiver to kill' ? ~ that might change my answer. I think they both actually fit my feelings on this. Yes and No are absolute. BWS, as mentioned in the article, could be used as a defense at court and, for this poll, is not an automatic waiver to kill. Maybe is just that. Maybe there were extenuating circumstances that go on ad infinitum and would include BWS and the phase of the moon if the defense can mount an argument for it.
|
|
Lady
Old Hand
Member of the Month - 9/08
I may live in Ohio but my heart belongs to the blue and the gold !
Posts: 659
|
Post by Lady on Feb 12, 2010 16:14:03 GMT -6
I am not for sure which answer to vote for . In my opinion ,if a woman kills her abuser, while trying to protect herself during a beating ,then ,yes ,she should be allowed to use BWS as part of her defense .On the other hand, if she hires someone else to kill the abuser for her, then the BWS defense basically goes out the window, because, by hiring someone else to do the killing shows premeditation .
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Feb 14, 2010 11:21:06 GMT -6
The battered women syndrome is not used to defend women who kill in defense of their lives, they need no further defense than they feared for their lives. It is used to justify hiring hitmen, killing a sleeping man or attacking a helpless one with a weapon. Look up Betty Lou Beets, Gaile Owens and Betty Broderick. All have used the battered woman defense. I'm sorry, mst3k, but in a black-and-white world, if the man is beating her in a manner short of self-defense, then he deserves what he gets. If he is not, then, of course, that's a different story. That is my point, none of the women who use BWS were being attacked at the time of the killing. The killings take place days, weeks or months later and usually involve premeditation. It takes place under circumstances where it would have been MUCH easier to simply leave him.
|
|