Battered Women's Clemency Project

[The Jesus Lawyer]

well thanx for popping in to let us know

belittling me without adding anything says more about you than it says about me, and after having said that, anything you add will simply be a reaction to that declaration.

either way, i own your next move. thanks for stopping in


michael

[The Jesus Lawyer]

guess you beat me to it

your move is your own...i am defeated in that play

and if somebody says 'bitch i'll kill you if you leave me', you leave them when they are sleeping, not murder them. there are avenues of help. maybe those causes ought to be supported more than those that come into play after it comes to such a dreadful conclusion.

and for the first quote- i mean...if you remain a victim when you don't have to, you have to accept some of the blame.

making fun of me doesn't make you right. i am entitled to my point of view and is brought forward with good intentions...

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

and if somebody says 'bitch i'll kill you if you leave me', you leave them when they are sleeping, not murder them. there are avenues of help. maybe those causes ought to be supported more than those that come into play after it comes to such a dreadful conclusion.

Which case are you talking about? As vm pointed out, the woman referred to in the OP didn't murder her abusive partner.

making fun of me doesn't make you right. i am entitled to my point of view and is brought forward with good intentions...

mmmmk

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

the only time i think clemency should be granted, is in true self-defence, like somebody coming at you with the intent to kill and you strike back in the moment. i do not think somebody deserves clemency for murdering their husband in bed to end years of abuse. that is revenge and though understandable, it is still just as much her fault for staying so long that it got to that point.

None of this has anything to do with the case at hand. She did not kill him after years of abuse. The girl was 18 so she obviously didn't "stay" with him for any length of time at all, nevermind the fact that she didn't kill anyone.

She was an accessory to murder acting under direct threat: help me or I will kill your family. Even if he had never touched her or said a harsh word to her before, on that night she was told by a man with a gun who just killed his drug dealer that she must help him or die.

If as you initially said, you think manslaughter might be a more appropriate charge, then you should be for clemency because she's already served 20 years which is more than she would have served had she been convicted of manslaughter.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

i am not blaming them for starting it, but for staying in a relationship and holding out hope for change where there obviously is none. that is the fault of the woman. i am sorry. i actually feel this way because i see women as totally equal.

This is why I oppose special treatment for "handicapped" people. Unlike some people, I actually believe that all people are equal. Therefore if someone can't make it up a flight of stairs because they're "paralyzed", that's their own fault.

But I guess to some people "handicapped" people are weak, and need special treatment.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

and if somebody says 'bitch i'll kill you if you leave me', you leave them when they are sleeping, not murder them.

Is this really a solution? Not that murder is a solution, but...leave them while they're sleeping. So you're 18 - certainly old enough to figure this out on your own - and you just watched a violent drug addict murder someone? Said drug addict then threatened to kill your family if you didn't help dispose of evidence? Everybody's got problems, sister. Just sneak away while he sleeps!

[The Jesus Lawyer]

still disagreeing...

...and liv, i wasn't talking about that case in particular, but of other cases where clemency is requested for situations such as i described. i allowed for extenuating circumstances in my reply...i wasn't talking about the case as much as the organization. i don't know if they are necessarity the ones behind the defence of cases like i am talking about, but it wouldn't surprise me. i used it as a door to express my opinion on something.

the thread title does not relate to that case in particular, but to the entire project. i was posting in regard to that.

michael

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

and liv, i wasn't talking about that case in particular

I see. So in this case you believe she should receive clemency?

[The Jesus Lawyer]

at least released. i think clemency sends the wrong message. i also think 'battered women' as a cause does more harm then good. how about dropping 'women' from the title?

michael

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

at least released. i think clemency sends the wrong message.

The sentence was natural life. There is no other means of release besides clemency, so if you support her release you support clemency for her.

Your only other alternative is to support her imprisonment for life because you don't like the "message" clemency sends, no matter how irrelevant this sentiment of yours is to the specifics of this case.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

ok liv...i give...in this case, give her clemency. it is too late to carry through with my advice anyhow...the ideal of the weak woman has already been put forth...

there is no way to overturn or shorten a sentence without granting clemency?

do you not think i have pity for this poor person?

michael

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

in this case, give her clemency.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

there is no way to overturn or shorten a sentence without granting clemency?

Not unless there is new evidence or some other grounds for appeal which is not, as I understand it, the case here.

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

do you not think i have pity for this poor person?

I don't see how that's relevant.

[BDS]

I assume the jury heard the facts of the case, and came to their decision. If the facts described by the Clemency Project are correct (and unless there were mitigating circumstances that argue for her guilt) the poor woman should never have been convicted in the first place.

However, to automatically assume that The Woman's Clemency Project is fairer and wiser in their petition for clemency than the jury was in their finding of guilt may be rash. The jury (I assume) heard a variety of evidence, arguing both for and agaisnt the woman's guilt.

By the way, I imagine that many men (or boys) are also coersed into criminal acts. Gang members, for example, may be threatened if they don't murder someone. Should they be found guilty of murder, or not? I assume that it depends on the individual case, the level of coersion, etc. The jury may be in a better position to look at all the evidence than we are.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by BDS

However, to automatically assume that The Woman's Clemency Project is fairer and wiser in their petition for clemency than the jury was in their finding of guilt may be rash.

That's a false dichotomy. WCP and the jury might be equally fair and wise. It might have been reasonable to convict her at the time and still be reasonable to grant her clemency now.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I don't see how that's relevant.

why are you thanking me for capitulating to clemency? you didn't win anything- my hand is forced by a society which you support and maintain through your actions, not mine.

why is having pity relevant?

because when you have a gang of assholes that follows you around just adding snide comments and trying to make you out to be some sort of villain in everything, you start trying to point out things you shouldn't have to.

i am flawed that way.


michael

[The Jesus Lawyer]

btw...i wasn't talking about you, liv, in regard to the assholes.

[BDS]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

That's a false dichotomy. WCP and the jury might be equally fair and wise. It might have been reasonable to convict her at the time and still be reasonable to grant her clemency now.

What are the situations under which this would be correct?

When new facts been discovered?

When the convict has been rehabilitated?

Of course there are potential situations in which both the jury's verdict and sentence, and the petition for clemency could both be reasonable. But is this one of them?

If it is not one of them, whom shall we trust to promote a reasonable and fair outcome -- a politically oriented group or a (presumably impartial) jury?

Is "rehabilitation" a good reason to grant clemency in general, or just in this case and others like it? If it is a good reason for clemency, how do we determine if someone has been rehbilitated?

(I totally admit that someone who commits a crime while being addicted to drugs, abused by her boyfriend, and coersed by him is far less likely to murder someone else when her situation changes. But that kind of rehabilitation might be found for gang members who promise never to join a gang again, for example, too. Clemency based on rehabilitation seems iffy and prone to abuse and fraud, to me.)

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

why are you thanking me for capitulating to clemency?

I thanked you because I appreciate your addressing the specifics of the case instead of continuing to fulminate vague generalities of little interest to me. By the same token, I wouldn't consider it "capitulation" since up until this point you'd barely said a word on the specific case.

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

why is having pity relevant?

because when you have a gang of assholes that follows you around just adding snide comments and trying to make you out to be some sort of villain in everything, you start trying to point out things you shouldn't have to.

This may explain your emotional need to post the irrelevancy, but it's still just autobiography, and as such irrelevant to my argument on the specifics of this case.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

well it is a free forum...it wasn't like i expected pity from you

i stated i was flawed. i think some of you would feel better if i ceased to exist...end of autobiography...end of irrelevance

carry on...i have stated my view on things.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

and i didn't have to say a word about the case...i addressed the topic directly- the organization. sorry i didn't touch on an example case, i looked at the bigger picture.

moving on...again...

[BDS]

By the way, after reading the petition more carefully, it appears that it is based on new case law. Apparently, "People vs. Wilson" held that "Battered Woman's Syndrome" (what a dumb, sexist name for it!) could be considered as a defense.

The question is: do the facts in this case support the legitimacy of such a defense? I have no idea if they do or don't. But to grant automatic "clemency" (as opposed to a new trial, for example) may not be the ideal solution. The petition reads:

Had Ms. Chapman been able to prove via expert testimony that she suffered from Battered Women's Syndrome, she could have used the defense of self-defense. In retrospect, Ms. Chapman satisfied the elements of self-defense in that she was justified in her subjective fear of being in imminent danger while in her boyfriend's company. This fear was reasonable given his repeated threats to harm her if she left him, and to his threats of killing her parents if she left him or turned him over to the police.

I assume, however, that this is a defense that must be proved in court, rather than merely asserted in an appeal for clemency. I further assume that proving this defense in court is not so easy -- and would be especially difficult after 18 years. What is the evidence (I wonder) for the assertions of "fact" in the petition?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

the only time i think clemency should be granted, is in true self-defence, like somebody coming at you with the intent to kill and you strike back in the moment.

michael

"true self-defence" is an actual, complete defense to the accusation of crime. If a person kills in self-defense -- "true self-defence" -- and the jury finds the facts establishing self-defense to be true, then the jury is duty-bound to acquit the defendant. Thus, where "true self-defence" applies, no "clemency" is needed.

"Clemency," as a concept, is an exercise of discretion -- usu. by the executive power (e.g., governor, president) -- to grant leniency to a person properly convicted (under the judicial power) of a crime (defined by the legislative power). It is an extraordinary power, and is generally exercised sparingly.

#787

[livius drusus]

Derailment split to here at OP request.

Originally Posted by BDS

Of course there are potential situations in which both the jury's verdict and sentence, and the petition for clemency could both be reasonable. But is this one of them?

Our understanding of domestic violence and coercion has evolved since her trial. It seems to me the jury could have made a reasonable and fair decision based on their best understanding of the law and her circumstances at the time, and still seem in hindsight like an overly-harsh penalty.

Originally Posted by BDS

Is "rehabilitation" a good reason to grant clemency in general, or just in this case and others like it? If it is a good reason for clemency, how do we determine if someone has been rehbilitated?

I don't have any firm ideas on the subject. As maddog notes, clemency is rarely dispensed. I wouldn't be surprised if every state had different criteria, maybe even every governor.

I don't know what role rehabilitation should play. I tend to think of clemency more as a means of rectifying a moral wrong, a balancing-the-scales-of-justice sort of thing, but I'll have to look into it further before shooting my mouth off.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by The Jesus Lawyer

i wasn't talking about the case as much as the organization. i don't know if they are necessarity the ones behind the defence of cases like i am talking about, but it wouldn't surprise me.

So you don't know anything about the organization, but you disagree with what they stand for. Okay. Well on the off-chance that you want to know something about the group you so adamantly oppose, here's some information from their website (which I linked to in the OP):

[The Michigan Battered Women's Clemency Project] is a volunteer effort working to identify, interview, select and oversee the preparation and filing of clemency petitions for women in Michigan prisons who have been convicted of murder, but who acted in self-defense of an abuser. They were convicted after a trial or guilty plea when evidence of abuse was not raised or, if raised, was presented ineffectively or disallowed by the judge, denying the women due process and fair trials based on the facts of their cases.

[...]

National studies indicate that between 75%-82% of battered women charged with killing their abusers are convicted or accept a guilty plea. One of the most serious problems in these cases involves the judges' instructions to juries, which fail to place self-defense in the context of a battered woman who was facing imminent danger.

[...]

According to a 2002 study by the U.S. Department of Justice, in recent years about 33% of female murder victims were killed by an intimate male partner, while only 4% of male murder victims were killed by a female partner. The highest homicide rate was perpetrated by males against white girlfriends: more were murdered by boyfriends in the year 2000 than in 1976. Numerous studies have shown that most women who kill, do so in self-defense, or in defense of their children, following years of severe abuse.

[...]

The Michigan Battered Women's Clemency Project is one of about 39 grassroots efforts in the U.S. Since 1978, Governors in at least 23 states have granted clemency to battered women prisoners, some of them through mass clemencies (Ohio, Maryland, Kentucky, Illinois).

The Clemency Project has collaborated with/is endorsed by Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, the Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, The National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, The Michigan Women's Foundation, The American Civil Liberties Union, The Puffin Foundation, The University of Michigan, The Michigan Judges' Association and other nonprofit organizations.

-source

[The Jesus Lawyer]

you still don't get it. you don't understand what i am saying. and it is you because others have answered and do get it. you don't understand my angle, so stop trying to prove me wrong. when we are in the same place, let's debate.

i am talking about weakening women while believing you are doing good...you just keep doing it.

this means nothing to me because it isn't addressing my point, and yet my point was made in response to your op...you don't understand what i am trying to say, or if you do, you aren't making any sense in your replies...

sure they are doing good...good people are the biggest problem in the world. ask most and they will tell you they are good...all doing good and still the problems persist...

michael