I'm as empathetic as the next person, but this is NUTS!

[Papa_Complex]

Your husband is beating you? No problem; just hire a hitman.

Nova Scotia court issues landmark decision for abused women

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.”

They said that the time has come to fully recognize the plight of battered women, noting that the ruling “extends the boundaries of self-defence in a manner that has never been recognized in Canadian jurisprudence.”

Last week’s judgment built on a 1990 ruling, R v. Lavallee, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a woman who shot her abusive husband after he threatened her life had acted in self-defence.

The controversial Lavallee decision remains in force, but feminist legal scholars criticize how few battered women have been able to avail themselves of it. The only other case in which a woman argued the defence of duress in response to a counselling to commit murder charge – an Ontario case in 2000 – resulted in the defendant being convicted.

“The rationale for the defence of duress is quite different,” Nova Scotia Chief Justice Michael MacDonald said. “It involves excusing a wrongdoing in circumstances where the accused is left with no other alternative. Therefore, unlike self-defence, it is not the type of action society would support, let alone applaud.”

Ms. Ryan, who had already separated from her husband, appeared on the surface to have a range of alternatives short of murder, the court said.

“But below the surface, we see a victim of abuse, who at the time of the ‘crime’ appeared to have been living in a state of terror,” it added.

Ms. Ryan said she spoke to the police many times, and was advised that all she could do was obtain a peace bond. However, a prosecutor and counsellor advised her that a peace bond would be futile in stopping Mr. Ryan if he decided to attack her.

Elizabeth Sheehy, a University of Ottawa law professor with expertise in sexual assault law, said the ruling constitutes a legal breakthrough.

“This was a planned and deliberate murder because she had no other way out,” Ms. Sheehy said in an interview. “It was her life and her child’s life versus his.”

At her trial last year, Ms. Ryan testified that her estranged husband had virtually no control over his explosive temper. He repeatedly pummelled her with his fists, held guns to her head and screamed threats at her.

She said Mr. Ryan’s explosive fits of temper escalated to a point where he was sexually assaulting her weekly, threatening her life and specifying where he would bury her.

In desperation, she finally set out to arrange an underworld hit, inadvertently negotiating with the police offer.

Ms. Ryan said that she had given up phoning the police because they seemed incapable of helping her.

“There was no escape,” she testified. “He knew everything about me. He knew my routine. I knew that when he said something, he always acted upon it. I was trapped and I had no way out.”

Ms. Ryan testified that she endured her abusive husband for 17 years because of her respect for the institution of marriage and because she viewed him as a sick man who could be rehabilitated by a devoted wife.

She said that she left her husband only after he threatened to kill their daughter as well.

Prof. Sheehy said it is noteworthy that Mr. Ryan did not testify at the trial. “The Crown didn’t dare put him on the stand,” she observed. “That tells that pretty much all of her testimony was unchallenged.”

[Archren]

In her mind, there was no other out. As a parent.. if I were in her shoes, and he threatened the life of my child.. yeah, I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same and been willing to suffer the consequences.

[Papa_Complex]

Sure, except that she let it get to that point, by which time it was too late. If she'd had a peace bond placed on him, he'd have been in jail already.

[Papa_Complex]

I do consider that. I also consider that a certain amount of common sense should be applied.

[Archren]

People always attribute PTSD and flashbacks to combat.. but physical, sexual, and emotional abuse can create it as well. In her mind, her death and possibly the death of her child was imminent. She probably accepted abuse on herself because she is insecure, zero sense of self-worth, etc. etc... but she did take action when her child was threatened.

Again, as a mom, if the life of my children were threatened... I would fight tooth and nail to protect them. Even if it meant taking another person's life.

I hasten to add that I mean when they are young and relatively helpless in defending themselves. Now, if they're older and get into some shit... that's different.

[derf]

This is bs, if she would have killed him herself then yes, I can understand the aquital, but this was planning his death, there is a huge difference

[Dave]

Originally Posted by derf

This is bs, if she would have killed him herself then yes, I can understand the aquital, but this was planning his death, there is a huge difference

Yup. I lose all sympathy when a third party is contracted

[the chi]

I'm not saying what she did was right, but if ya'lls peace orders are anything like our restraining orders, they are almost completely worthless. Even if violated, unless the officer is there and witnesses it, they rarely do anything until it's too late. Abused women trying to do the right thing are killed all the time by the male they have the order against because it's just a piece of paper thats not enforced. Hiring a hitman wasn't a route a rational person would have gone, but she testified she felt she had done everything she could within the law.

Consider WHY she might have hired someone...perhaps she didnt have the physical strength or knowledge to do it, OR, she knew the moment he laid eyes on her he'd kill her first, whereas a stranger wouldn't be seen as a threat until it was too late.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by the chi

I'm not saying what she did was right, but if ya'lls peace orders are anything like our restraining orders, they are almost completely worthless. Even if violated, unless the officer is there and witnesses it, they rarely do anything until it's too late. Abused women trying to do the right thing are killed all the time by the male they have the order against because it's just a piece of paper thats not enforced. Hiring a hitman wasn't a route a rational person would have gone, but she testified she felt she had done everything she could within the law.

Consider WHY she might have hired someone...perhaps she didnt have the physical strength or knowledge to do it, OR, she knew the moment he laid eyes on her he'd kill her first, whereas a stranger wouldn't be seen as a threat until it was too late.

Same idea, and in the past police weren't really all that responsive when the orders were violated, but things have changed precisely because of the sort of issue that you raise.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by the chi

I'm not saying what she did was right,

I am. Good on her for getting off.