Weiand v. State and Battered Spouse Syndrome: The Toothless Tigress Can Now Roar

In 1999, the Florida Supreme Court said that women in Florida can use battered spouse syndrome as a defense if they kill their abuser. This was a big deal because before that, a woman’s ability to defend herself from an abusive partner was limited. Kathleen Weiand killed her husband, Todd, and said she did it because she was afraid he would kill her. But the jury didn’t believe her and she was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 18 years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court decided to hear the case again because they thought it was really important. Battered spouse syndrome happens when a woman is in an abusive relationship that follows a cycle of abuse. This can cause the woman to feel constantly scared and trapped. In some cases, women who kill their abusers may claim self-defense based on battered spouse syndrome. The defense was first allowed in a New Jersey case called State v. Kelly. It has also been mentioned in a Florida case called Hawthorne v. State. But it’s only a small part of the self-defense law. To prove self-defense, a person must show they honestly believed they were in danger, used a reasonable amount of force, and tried to retreat. Evidence of battered spouse syndrome can help with the first part, the honest belief of danger. The castle doctrine says that if someone threatens you in your own home, you don’t have to run away before defending yourself. But if both the attacker and the victim live in the same home, the castle doctrine doesn’t apply, and the victim still has a duty to retreat. This was decided in a court case where a woman shot and killed her husband after he attacked her in their home. The court said that in that situation, both the attacker and the victim have the same right to defend themselves. For 17 years, Florida had a law that said you had to try to run away if your spouse or live-in partner was attacking you in your own home. This made it really hard for women who were being abused to defend themselves. In 1993, the Florida Supreme Court said that battered spouse syndrome could be used as a valid reason for self-defense. But even with this, it was still really tough for a battered spouse to prove self-defense because of the duty to retreat. The court had to decide if the castle doctrine, which says you don’t have to retreat from your own home, applies when you’re being attacked by someone in your own household. They looked at a law from a long time ago that said if someone attacks you in your home, you don’t have to run away. They also looked at a previous court case where the privilege of not having to retreat in your own home was extended to someone who had invited their attacker into their home. After considering all of this, the court made a decision about the duty to retreat in a self-defense case. The court had four main reasons for changing its mind about the Bobbitt decision, which said you had to try to get away before defending yourself in your own home. First, the court said Bobbitt was based on protecting property rights, not human life, which was a poor reason. Second, the court said Bobbitt would hurt victims of domestic violence, because it would force them to leave their own home, which could actually make them more at risk. The court was worried that telling the jury about retreating in a domestic violence situation would support wrong ideas about it. One common myth is that women can leave whenever they want, but in Kathleen Weiand’s case, that wasn’t true. The court thinks that expert testimony about a battered woman’s feeling helpless is important for the jury to understand. If the jury is told that a woman could have retreated, it would go against the expert’s testimony. The court decided to apply the castle doctrine to domestic abuse situations because public policy has evolved since the 1982 Bobbitt decision. Federal and state laws have been enacted to protect victims of domestic violence, and there are now agencies and courts dedicated to addressing this issue. Because Florida’s public policy is focused on reducing domestic violence, the court felt that the Bobbitt decision should be reversed, and victims of domestic violence should not be required to retreat in self defense situations. The court is deciding on what instruction should be given when someone claims self-defense in a domestic violence killing. They decided that there should be a limited duty to retreat within the home before resorting to deadly force, but not to flee the residence. This applies to everyone living in the home, including guest or invitees. However, there is no duty to retreat if the attacker is a trespasser or unwelcome person. This decision provides more protection to people, especially women, who are attacked in their own home by a family member. But there are still some legal issues that need to be addressed when it comes to self-defense laws for abused women. The law of self defense is unfair to women who are victims of domestic abuse. The current standard for self defense doesn’t take into account the fact that women may not be able to defend themselves with equal force when attacked by a man. This means that many women who kill their abusers in self defense are unfairly convicted of murder. This is a big problem because a lot of murders in the US happen between family members, and women are more likely to be the victims of domestic violence. A feminist perspective on the law of self defense could help make things more fair for women in these situations. Because laws were originally written by men, they tend to disadvantage women when it comes to self defense. The law says that if someone attacks you, you can only defend yourself with equal force. But for women, this can be really hard because they are usually smaller and weaker than men. For example, if a woman’s husband is hitting her, she can’t defend herself with just her fists. So, she might have to use a weapon, like a gun, to protect herself. In fact, most women who have killed their abusers used a weapon because they didn’t have the strength to fight back with just their fists. This is different from men, who usually don’t need to use weapons in self defense. The law needs to recognize this difference and make sure that women have the right to defend themselves, even if it means using more force than their attacker. In Florida, a woman can defend herself in her own home by killing an attacker. The law now recognizes the practical impossibility of equal force for most women, and allows for self defense with proportional and reasonable force. This is a big step forward, and has also led to clemency for women imprisoned for killing their abusers.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/weiand-v-state-and-battered-spouse-syndrome-the-toothless-tigress-can-now-roar/