Posted on 08/23/2007 9:43:07 AM PDT by FreeManDC
“Stripper shoes and a slimely lawyer in Steve Farese got her out.”
Along with the dumbest jury this side of a John Grisham novel.
Any Constitutional scholars out there know which one is the “helping abusive women” clause?
The fact that was a preacher (and hence a domineering, pedantic taskmaster, etc) was a major factor in the minds of many.
I knew a couple of women on the jury. You must know them too....They were all Democrat for what its worth.
< /s >
So much for being gender neutral.
Sounds like this case fits the first profile: She was involved in a scam and murdered her husband for her own convenience. No amount of preemptive "counseling" could've saved him from her. (I don't believe counseling really fixes either type, though sometimes the maturity that comes with age does.)
But, I must say, the article takes a giant leap to this statement:
Not only did women engage in partner violence at least as often as men, but women were actually more likely to deliver the first blow.
There are completely different cases out there that cannot be summed up with statistics. I remember one woman in particular whose husband would walk up close to her, without touching her, screaming in her face until she was backed against the wall. When she would push him away, he would punch her. Once, the cops arrived, and she had a busted lip. The husband told them, "She pushed me first. I reacted in self-defense." And the police offered to arrest her. So, now, I always question the type of incident that counts in the statistics of women delivering the first blow. I'd say the woman I described here is very different from the first woman who shot her husband in cold blood.
This dame sounds nuts!!
I’ve worked with women who have been abused & assaulted in the past and this is not the behavior of someone who just snaps (like a Francine Hughes). IF she were innocent, you’d think she would want to expose him to his congregation by going to the public or filing for divorce and safely getting her kids out of the house. Generally, abuse cases have police reports, failed restraining orders, etc. This was cold blooded murder.
There are MANY male abused folks. One famous story comes from the book A Child Called IT is about a boy who was abused by his mother his entire life in very sadistic ways. (I read that one in one sitting) She makes Sybil’s mom sound like SuperNanny! Sad thing is men are less likely to seek help as they fear ridicule for not “being a man” & being abused by a woman.
Here in suburban Chicago, we had a woman who bought her toddler age children toys, filled a gas can full of gasoline, and while the kids were playing she set them on fire (and herself too). Then there’s Susan Smith who drowned her babies for a man... Andrea Yates drowning her babies in the bathtub... Women are capable of some sick stuff and are treated like little victims. If a man did those things, he’d be killed in prison.
I’m willing to leave it to a jury to decide whether a crime like this resulted from selfish intent, mental illness, or some combination of both. But it shouldn’t make any difference in the minimum amount of time for involuntary confinement. Anyone whose mental problems are severe enough to do something like this needs to spend decades in a secure mental hospital, at a minimum.
Severe mental illness doesn’t just go away. In cases involving violence, the violent tendencies often go away after the person reaches old age, with its accompanying hormonal changes and reduced physical abilities. But the notion that someone crazy enough to do something like this is safe to release into society after a few months is . . . well, crazy.
Only if the 10 women were angry divorcées, especially anti-Christian ones. Faithful wives and moms would have grabbed the defendant out of her chair in the courtroom and strangled her.
Defense lawyers have described to me the Herculean difficulty of getting a heavily female jury to acquit an attractive female defendant. Women do not necessarily identify with women. They stick up for their way of life, whatever that is.
Similarly, in electoral politics, there is no "gender" (i.e., sex) gap. There's a marriage gap. In broad terms, GOP = married or optimistic about marriage. Dems = angrily divorced or single and pessimistic.
Interesting points to ponder.
I concur. A public defender I know said she tries to keep women off the jury if she has a woman client and plans to use a battered wife defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.