Is women murdering their partners an unreasonable response?

In the past few years the law has been evolving to give consideration and lighter sentences to women who murder their abusive partners. You could argue that these women did what any reasonable woman would do in the same circumstances.

Let me be clear before the deliberate misreaders of my pieces accuse me of inciting violence: I’m not describing murder as a first resort, or a killing-spree type of murder. I’m talking women who are beaten and raped regularly by their intimate partners and resort to murder out of desperation, or in self-defence.

In S v Baloyi, Sachs stated as follows:

“The ineffectiveness of the criminal justice system in addressing family violence intensifies the subordination and helplessness of the victims. This also sends an unmistakable message to the whole of society that the daily trauma of vast numbers of women counts for little. The terrorisation of the individual victims is thus compounded by a sense that domestic violence is inevitable. Patterns of systemic sexist behaviour are normalised rather than combated. Yet it is precisely the function of constitutional protection to convert misfortune to be endured into injustice to be remedied.”

It might be argued that the murder committed by these abused women thus reflects the failure of the state to respond to domestic violence appropriately. This argument might go that following many failed attempts to access protection from state role-players, these women reacted reasonably. The state didn’t respond, so these women had to save their own lives.

Three women per day were unable to do so, and were murdered by their intimate partners.

What should the state’s response be? Well, the Domestic Violence Act provides for several things that should prevent a domestic abuser from repeating this violent behaviour. It requires the police to inform the abused person about her/his rights, finding the abused person a safe place to stay and assisting them with getting medical attention.

But their responsibility also includes informing the abused person that they can apply for a protection order to prevent the abuse. The Act also provides the police with more power to arrest the abuser. If the police fail to comply with these requirements they will face disciplinary action.

The police should tell the abused person that they can apply for a protection order. A protection order is a court order which can tell an abuser:

Not to commit acts of domestic violence that you have specified.
Not to ask others to abuse you.
Not to enter particular parts of the house (that you don’t want her/him to enter).
Not to enter, or stop you from entering or leaving your family home, your home or workplace even if your partner is the one who is paying for that home.
To provide compensation for financial losses suffered by the applicant, at the time of the issuing of the interim protection order, as a result of domestic violence. This includes, but is not limited to: loss of earning, medical expenses, moving and accommodation expenses (pay the rent or mortgage of where you are staying without him).
To have no or specified contact with the children.

A protection order can also tell the police to:

Assist you in finding shelter and medical treatment.
Provide an escort to fetch your belongings.
Take away the abuser’s gun or other dangerous weapons.

This is the ideal. But you might know that often poor training of police officials and negative attitudes, myths and norms around women’s “place” in the home lead many police officers to do nothing. If the police respond it seems frequent that the courts let the abused person down.

When the state doesn’t respond appropriately when abused women ask for help and doesn’t provide them with the protection they need, what do we expect them to do?