Column: Bimbos, ‘bottom girls’ and the ugly reality of misogyny in our justice system
Author: David N. Thomas
The Supreme Court has just upheld the convictions of six men who murdered two men for asking them to leave a bar. At issue in this case was whether the defendants had acted with the necessary intent to kill. The majority found they had. The Court held that if a man who killed someone in self-defence knows that he is killing that person not just for his pain but because of the threat of violence, then his intent to kill is not to do harm but to remove the threat of harm. So, the Court held, if a woman who kills someone in self-defence knows that she is killing that person not just for her pain and suffering but because of the threat of violence, then her intent to kill is not to do harm but to remove the threat of harm. So, the Court held, if a woman who kills someone in self-defence knows that she is killing that person because she has to because she is going to get in trouble for it, then the killing is not justified. Why did the Court reach a different conclusion in this case, as opposed to one like it? Let’s examine the difference between this case and at least one other case on which the Court relied, where a man who killed someone in self-defence knew that he was going to get in trouble but killed that person in self-defence anyway, in order to preserve his own life. There was evidence that, if he had not killed the victim, he would have been in serious trouble, perhaps for having killed an unarmed man or for having committed another crime. He would have been facing a significant sentence. He took an unnecessary risk by doing something that could have been regarded by the jury as unwise and foolish, and so he murdered her in order to get off the hook. And there is nothing in the facts of this case, or in the facts of this case in particular, that raises any serious question about whether or not the defendant knew
