Today's Globe has a solidly written story by Kirk Makin about a deeply problematic case from Nova Scotia.
A battered woman, after separating from her abusive husband, tried to have him murdered. She was unsuccessful as the "killer" was an undercover police officer.
The Court said no criminal liability attached because she had no alternative -- peace bonds were worthless.
I'd like to read the decision, rather than just a news story, but certainly it is true that someone who is prepared to kill won't be stopped by a peace bond. Safe houses only go so far to protect abused women.
On the other hand, it's hard to see what justifies hiring a contract killer to murder someone. Moreover, if it is appropriate to kill your abusive ex, what about gang members afraid of other gangs -- can they have shoot outs without committing a crime if they are "living in a state of terror"?
I will post a summary once I get the actual decision in hand.
Here's a passage from Makin's story:
"Battered women have won an important legal victory after Nova Scotia's highest court concluded a woman "living in a state of terror" was understandably driven to try to arrange for her abusive husband's murder.
In the landmark decision, the court said the law must be sensitive to the unique plight of women whose lives and well-being are endangered by brutal spouses.
The judges upheld the acquittal of 39-year-old school teacher Nicole Ryan, who had negotiated with an undercover police officer to kill her grossly abusive, estranged husband.
"Ms. Ryan was compelled to take the action she did by normal human instincts and self-preservation," the judges said in a 3-0 decision. "It would be inappropriate, under these circumstances, to attribute criminal conduct to her." "
1 comment:
This is a very scary decision. How can she have had no other options? In Canada we have very specific rules on self defense and the defense of property, rules that say that the victim MUST retreat wherever possible. She literally had no avenue of retreat like moving? The judge seriously believes she had no other option but to hire a hit man? Mr. Morton's point about gang members is interesting but I wonder what it says about our police and judiciary that man who was obviously violent, and apparently dangerous to life, was free. Why are such dangerous men not in prison? And if they weren't THAT dangerous how can it be OK to have one whacked? How far are we going to bend the laws in order not to offend?
Post a Comment