DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

In certain conditions, where women subjected to violent circumstances at their homes performed acts of murder or homicide following aggravated assault or torture, a brief sentence is sometimes justified. An appeal against such a sentence depends on the judge and the jury present during prosecution of the defendant. A good example is the case R v JANET CATHERINE CHARLTON (2003). On 27th may 2002 at Leeds crown court, Janet Catherine Charlton facing the judge was found guilty of homicide based on frustration and received a five-year sentence imprisonment.
Catherine had killed the victim on 23rd may 2001 after living with him for a period of six months. She got acquainted with the victim while working as a commercial sex worker. Apparently, the victim was a very flourishing entrepreneur. From narration and reports, the two had extraordinary sexual escapades illustrated by the court as depraved. Catherine was usually an enthusiastic participant in the sexual endeavors, but in due course, they became extreme a factor that made her utterly lose interest. The victim happened to be a control freak that made Catherine break ties with close friends and family members. He lured her with money which was in abundant. At first she succumbed to his charms and gifts of money, but in the long run, the spark and interest were gone.
On 23rd may 2001, Catherine wanted the man to leave because she no longer had an interest in the relationship. He became very aggressive and irritated frightening Catherine who thought he might kill her and her four-year-old daughter.

To cool him, she decided to introduce the idea of sex and the victim became very aroused. They went to the usual bedroom to conduct their depraved sexual activities as explained by the defendant.
In the bedroom, there was an ax which the victim had put there. The victim stripped naked, and Catherine blindfolded, gagged and handcuffed him a normal routine in their sexual activities. Shockingly, she was trying to calm him down, so she proposed to let her daughter get involved in the endeavor (Court records indicate that the daughter was never involved). In the process, Catherine lost her temper and picked the ax and hit the victim. She continued hitting afraid of what the victim might do and in the end, he died. Catherine then quietly left with her daughter without anybody being suspicious.
One and half months later she confessed about the homicide and claimed she experienced amnesia instantly leading to the incident. The judge responsible for her sentencing expressed her as being a person of excellent moral fiber with no propensity to commit violence. Unavoidable conditions insinuated the incident that occurred and the departed was responsible for taking the ax to the bedroom. However, committing manslaughter was a serious offense and sentencing her to five years in prison seemed necessary and appropriate.
The defendant appealed the sentence claiming that it was extreme since aspects were making the case bizarre and thus merited a minimum sentence. Catherine’s deeds necessitated review aligned with the setting of management and the component of domestic violence which became exceptional as the relationship continued. The victim had threatened Catherine and her daughter and by taking the ax to the bedroom made her deem the threats serious.
The court compared the case to a number of authorities responsible for handling domestic aggression homicide cases such as R v Higgings and R v Gardner to compare to the case at hand. Each case had its unique facts that were special. However, the authorities suggested that in certain conditions a minimum sentence should be issued where the victims of “domestic violence” more so women committed acts of murder due to aggravated assault or provocation. Catherine then appealed a sentence of three years instead of five and the court agreed.Types of justice applied to the case
With regard to the case above, justice can be served to the defendant based on the nature of her crime and circumstances that led her to her actions. The first form of justice is conducting the subjective or factual test. In the test, the defendant must be shown to have actually lost her self-control. “If there is evidence that the actions of the defendant were premeditated, or that he or she had been able to compose self between the provocation and the killing, then the defense cannot be left to the jury. Apparently, the provocation must cause an abrupt and short-term loss of self-control rendering the defendant exposed to passion as to make he or she for the moment not control his or her actions due to an unstable mind.” Therefore, the defendant is subjected to violence that leads to manslaughter.
Battered person defense is a good way of defending a woman who has conducted manslaughter due to provocation. It is a defense utilized in court indicating that the defendant was suffering from a battered individual syndrome at the actual moment of manslaughter. Because the defense is commonly utilized by women in court, it is usually termed as battered wife syndrome. It has no categorization though it has been effectively used by lawyers in court. It is a legal term utilized to refer to the relentless psychological trauma caused by domestic violence. Although, the situation is not specified to any gender the criminal justice system has always proved to be biased when a defendant is a man.
To be precise, the condition is a reference to any individual, due to consistent and extreme domestic violence frequently involving physical abuse or threats from a partner, might become depressed relentlessly or unable to make an independent decision that would permit the victim to escape the abuse. In most cases, the victim’s trepidations are based on reality, as she may lack financial ability to seek help from the law, social support and the emotional capability to survive alone. The victim might suffer from low self-esteem, Stockholm syndrome and are led to believe that the abuse is their fault.
Another method of ensuring justice is using the objective test. After deciding that the defendant was provoked, a reasonable judge and jury must decide whether a reasonable person would have acted the way the defendant did. The objective or evaluative test had two components. The first one entails an assessment of the magnitude of the provocation. The second component necessitates for application of an exterior standard of self-control to ascertain if the provocation was enough to make the defendant or accused do as she did.
From the evidence of the accused or defendant Mrs. Janet Catherine Charlton was prosecuted by the jury and judge at Leeds Crown Court and found guilty based on provocation and frustration. The court sentenced her to five years in prison despite the circumstances of her crime because she had committed a serious crime of manslaughter. After appealing to the court, her sentence was reduced to three years, and she was convicted to serve her term.
Concerning the case R v JANET CATHERINE CHARLTON (2003) the punishment issued to the defendant is sufficient and appropriate given the nature of the crime and the magnitude of violence applied. From the evidence and narration by the accused, the victim had issued threats of violence or murder to both her and her young daughter. To make the victim calm down and change the situation, the accused offered to please him and shortly afterward they were in Bedroom exploiting their sexual endeavors. In the process, the accused tied, blindfolded and handcuffed the victim and having noticed the ax she decided to use it to commit the murder. She committed the manslaughter under the state of Amnesia due to shock that the victim wanted to harm her and her child.
As evident from above, provocation and domestic violence are the reasons for most cases of manslaughter. From a criminal justice point of view, the defendant was wrong to perform such actions because a keen analysis proved she had the advantage of using other alternatives such as call law enforcement authorities and inform them that she was in danger. But given the state of her mind at the time and the chain of events, it is natural that she decided to kill the victim because delaying could have left her vulnerable to more abuse or domestic violence.