cja@lzwi.UUCP (C.E.JACKSON) (06/05/85)
In article <699@burl.UUCP>, geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) writes: > I use the murder analogy because it has long been used in law. If you kill > someone in the heat of anger, that person is dead. I think the real problem here is that the law may very well be wrong in this regard. Klus Von Bulow aside, many non-premeditated murders are perpetrated on family members. Currently the law, as you said, does give such murderers a break, especially men who beat their wives up. I would argue, however, that this is wrong. With family murders, two crimes are committed--the violence itself and the betrayal of trust. I don't know if you are married, but there is nothing to compare with the kind of closeness & trust that my husband & I have. If either of us were to become even non-murderously violent towards one another there would be an end to that trust as well as an act of violence committed. Insofar as the law has an interest in promoting a stable society, and insofar as better family relations help stabilize society, I would argue that violence against a family member or anyone who had a relationship of trust with his/er attacker is a more serious crime than one against a stranger. I also think that this attitude about anger is fundamentally flawed. In the sixties & seventies, there were a lot of books about how healthy it was for people to vent their anger, etc., etc. Recent studies on anger & family life indicate that venting one's anger tends to make it feed upon itself, and that the most successfully married couples use restraint in expressing their anger to their partners. Therefore, I think the law should encourage people to curb & control their anger, especially where their other emotions (such as love/hate or jealousy) are running high--not to reward them, in effect, for "letting it all out." > Murder is a very bad crime. Yet there are shades. Yes, but I think killing your wife/husband is worse than killing a stranger. (It's also one of the most common forms of murders in this country &, especially in cases where the husband had a *history* of abusing his wife, one of the least punished.) > Why is it so offensive to think there are shades here as well? There are, but I think the shades have more to do with what was done & what degree of trust was betrayed. Thus, a husband raping his wife would be one of the worst kinds of offenders. Also, anyone employing violence other than the rape itself should be punished more harshly. But women do repose a certain trust in their dates (in general at least) & insofar as date rapists violate that trust, I think they should be more, not less, harshly punished. > geoff sherwood