On the 14th January, Harriet Harman got her way and the Coroners and Justice Bill received its first reading in Parliament.
Whilst the bill is wide ranging, there were three cracking articles and debates in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and the irrepressible Melanie Phillips, also in the Daily Mail who declares it as "Harman's latest male-bashing policy."
The key issue is not really about what charge a man would recieve if, in a momentary loss of control, he kills his wife because of adultery (presume it applies to women finding their husband in bed with anotherwomen), it is the sub-text around the 'defence' for killing a man because of domestic violence or the perceived fear of violence. The adultery issue is a smokescreen.
The clear subtext is one that is at the core of the anti-male Government and establishment that is so prevalent in today's Britain. The wording of the law will be gender-neutral but the application of the law will not be, it will be anti-male.
The Daily Telegraph explains it well - "It will streamline the defence of provocation to two key areas, one of 'fear of serious violence'. If a victim of domestic violence fears she will be attacked again she could argue such a defence if she kills her partner and, if the jury accepts the defence, would be convicted of manslaughter and avoid the mandatory life term."
The problem is firstly Harriet Harman has made it clear, this is about a defence for females and females-only. It sets the tone for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. If a man who commits such a crime because of the domestic violence he suffers/fears from his wife/partner, he is very unlikely to be believed. His defence team will have to work ten times harder to get the prosecution to swallow it and that is before you come to the jury.
The problem with the jury is that because 99% (and this is being generous to the 1%) of the propaganda by the Government, Police, Crown Prosecution Service, media and others is that only women can be victims of domestic violence, they are not likely to be believed. I suspect the jury will probably feel such claims as being laughable. It is irrelevant that 40% of domestic violence victims are male, who knows this fact? The Government, police and others know it (it is a Home Office fact) but choose to ignore it.
The second issue is that it makes it easier for violent women to kill their husbands/partners and then claim that it was because they were victims or in fear, without any proof. The man cannot speak from beyond the grave. The tone of Harman's comments is that the police and CPS almost have to accept the word of a woman when she says it was because of provocation, proof is not needed.
A clear example would be that in Coronation Street a few years ago Tracy Barlow cold bloodily killed her male partner Charlie Stubbs and claimed it was because of domestic violence, which was untrue. The police saw through it and she was jailed for murder. If this Bill becomes a law, it is likely she would have had her sentence wrongly commuted to manslaughter and would probably be out of prison by now.
Many men complain that they are the victims of false accusations by violent wives/partners and when they ring the police, the wife/partner says it was the man who was the perpetrator. The police of course believe the women becuase they are told to. With 22 men being killed per year by women in a domestic relationship, there is a risk this figure will now increase because some will feel they can get away it.
Commentary on the proposals was also made on this site here in 2008
Comments