The Law ABC - "Anita Bloom* never intended to hurt her husband and his new girlfriend."

[Engimal v3]

Really strange article on the ABC with a narrative that I can't get behind. I'd love to know other people's thoughts on it.

When Anita's ex left a furious voicemail, she wanted him to end it. The judge saw something different

When Anita broke into her former partner's home, she thought he would snatch her knife and use it against her. She can't explain what happened next.

www.abc.net.au

On the evening she broke into their home in country Victoria, her plan had been that her ex would snatch the blade she was holding — an old boning knife he once stabbed into an armchair she was sitting in — and use it against her.
"I wanted him to kill me, I just wanted it to end," Bloom told ABC News from the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, Melbourne's maximum security women's prison.

She can't explain why instead she lunged at his screaming partner, stabbing her in the chest and puncturing her lung, before attacking him — not that she recalls doing it.

Six years and three months. A 50-something woman with sandy hair, Bloom's eyes stung as the words echoed around the courtroom.

She had been angry, she said, because more than six months after she'd separated from her husband, "he was still harassing me, still trying to control me, wanting more and more". "I was walking on eggshells all the time," she said. "Always looking over my shoulder ... always worried I'd say the wrong thing."

Why, she wondered, could the judge not see past her rage to her pain, accumulated over decades, as a victim herself?

An ABC News investigation last week revealed growing concerns that Australian courts are ignoring the significance of family violence and its impacts on women who kill abusive partners, with most ending up in prison despite arguing they fought back to save their own lives.

Stella Tarrant, an associate professor at the University of Western Australia's Law School, said such cases are far more common and, because they move more quickly through the justice system, are more likely than homicides to fly under the radar.

"The issues are the same," Tarrant told ABC News. "This is not particularly about homicide, it's about the way we see gender relations ... how we perceive the perpetration of violence and defences against it."

Read the full article to get a better picture of the story, in case I'm unintentionally quoting with a bias. In summary:

• Woman claims to be abused by an ex-partner when they were together
• He leaves her an angry voicemail about a mortgage payment that she had paid
• She breaks into his apartment and stabs her ex's new partner (punctured lung) and her ex
• Upset that she was sentenced to prison because the court didn't realise that she used to be abused

I'm a fairly left leaning guy so I can rally behind a bit of a sob story of abuse, but where do we draw the line? I'm not sure there's a universe where I feel as if a knife-wielding attacker is a victim of an unfair court system.

One line got me in particular:

Why, she wondered, could the judge not see past her rage to her pain, accumulated over decades, as a victim herself?

My answer to that is that he probably would see her as a victim, if a case of domestic violence had been brought before the courts. Unfortunately for her, the case being before the court was a case on her two counts of intentionally causing injury, making a threat to kill, and aggravated burglary. That happened because she broke into someone's house and stabbed two people.

What am I missing here? The point? Empathy? Nothing? Very curious to hear what people think.

 

[ShanDog]

It's complex because - for starters - she was clearly not mentally well when she broke in and attacked them. OK people don't do that. Taking her claims of abuse in good faith, you can also understand someone wanting the context of their actions to be taken into account, as it no doubt would contribute to their irrational actions. But, it's fair to say those things rarely excuse those actions. Maybe mitigate them slightly.

It's definitely an article trying to push the message about absolving blame from the perpetrator. That's fine - people need a reminder sometimes that nothing usually happens in a vacuum.

 

[Seeds]

It's complex because - for starters - she was clearly not mentally well when she broke in and attacked them. OK people don't do that. Taking her claims of abuse in good faith, you can also understand someone wanting the context of their actions to be taken into account, as it no doubt would contribute to their irrational actions. But, it's fair to say those things rarely excuse those actions. Maybe mitigate them slightly.

It's definitely an article trying to push the message about absolving blame from the perpetrator. That's fine - people need a reminder sometimes that nothing usually happens in a vacuum.

Its not complex for the knifed victim. Innocent victim stabbed for no justifiable reason.

Many if not most major criminals, both male and female, have also had major crimes happen to them. But if they respond with horrific crimes of their own against innocent people then we treat the males as monsters. Most male pedophiles were also sexually abused as kids. We still consider them monsters. Why is the media now pushing a narrative of sympathy for women commiting horrific crimes like murdering their children?

 

[ShanDog]

Its not complex for the knifed victim. Innocent victim stabbed for no justifiable reason.

From their perspective you're quite possibly correct. But we are looking from the outside and can afford to dispense with low-resolution and black and white thinking to get a more holistic understanding of the circumstances.

Don't confuse that with excusing the actions. The perpetrator went to jail as she should.

 

[Seeds]

From their perspective you're quite possibly correct. But we are looking from the outside and can afford to dispense with low-resolution and black and white thinking to get a more holistic understanding of the circumstances.

Don't confuse that with excusing the actions. The perpetrator went to jail as she should.

Should we let the bordertown killers off easy because they were raped as children? What about pedophile men who were raped as children?

 

[Seeds]

If her crime was solely against her abusive partner then maybe there would be some sympathy. It was against an innocent victim though.

 

[ShanDog]

Should we let the bordertown killers off easy because they were raped as children? What about pedophile men who were raped as children?

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. 100%. If anyone has ever hurt your feelings, it's ok to go all Sandy Hook. Completely justified.



Here's a question - you agree with the gist of what Bill Burr says here?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Pretty weird article. I daresay 6 years 3 months for trying to murder two people is already heavily discounted from what it ought to be if it were committed under any other circumstance.

Reminds me of that sob story about some kid getting deported back to Sudan because he stole a car and killed a woman while on bail; more edge than substance.

 

[Seeds]

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. 100%. If anyone has ever hurt your feelings, it's ok to go all Sandy Hook. Completely justified.

View attachment 761300

Here's a question - you agree with the gist of what Bill Burr says here?

Stabbing an innocent person is going all sandy hook though

 

[ShanDog]

Stabbing an innocent person is going all sandy hook though

Refer back to the banging-head-against-wall gif.

 

[Seeds]

Refer back to the banging-head-against-wall gif.

Murder is a-ok with shandog. Just as long as there isnt too much of it.

 

[ShanDog]

Murder is a-ok with shandog. Just as long as there isnt too much of it.

You are the personification of bad-faith discussion. I'll be avoiding it with you from here because I have no inclination to engage with someone being deliberately obtuse or this ignorant - whichever it is.

 

[telsor]

It's complex because - for starters - she was clearly not mentally well when she broke in and attacked them. OK people don't do that. Taking her claims of abuse in good faith, you can also understand someone wanting the context of their actions to be taken into account, as it no doubt would contribute to their irrational actions. But, it's fair to say those things rarely excuse those actions. Maybe mitigate them slightly.

It's definitely an article trying to push the message about absolving blame from the perpetrator. That's fine - people need a reminder sometimes that nothing usually happens in a vacuum.

OK, let's take her claims of abuse in good faith, and call them mitigating, and majorly reduce her sentence.
Let's also charge him with said abuse...

What if he then claims prior bad events which he claims led to his behavior...do we let him off lightly too?

What about whoever hurt him?

Where does it end?



If we don't accept people are responsible for their own actions, then the entire justice system rapidly falls apart.

Those who really are incapable of such responsibility need to be in care, either of those who can/will take responsibility for them or appropriate health facilities (mental most likely).

 

[ShanDog]

OK, let's take her claims of abuse in good faith, and call them mitigating, and majorly reduce her sentence.
Let's also charge him with said abuse...

What if he then claims prior bad events which he claims led to his behavior...do we let him off lightly too?

What about whoever hurt him?

Where does it end?



If we don't accept people are responsible for their own actions, then the entire justice system rapidly falls apart.

Those who really are incapable of such responsibility need to be in care, either of those who can/will take responsibility for them or appropriate health facilities (mental most likely).

Don't confuse that with excusing the actions. The perpetrator went to jail as she should.

But, it's fair to say those things rarely excuse those actions. Maybe mitigate them slightly.

Objection - asked and answered.

 

[telsor]

Objection - asked and answered.

Consider me to have been expanding on your point rather than objecting to it.

 

[ShanDog]

Consider me to have been expanding on your point rather than objecting to it.

Fair enough. It's been known since Grug first bashed Blork over the head with a rock that violence and abuse are often repeated cycles through generations. Yet we still have a justice system that punishes those who engage in that behaviour because we are ultimately accountable for our actions. What sooner people don't seem to grasp is that we can do that and simultaneously understand that cycle and the offender's place in it. They aren't absolved, but we can understand, and in some circumstances punishment can be mitigated to some degree.

I bet if presented with a hypothetical where a person's loved one was brutally assaulted and they caught up with the offender to deal some of their own justice out, the same who seem to not care about the reasons for an attack would suddenly be in favour of clemency based on circumstances...

 

[its free real estate]

The degree of premeditation and the requirement to break and enter means it ceases being self defence or escape, and is pure revenge (if the accounts of domestic violence are true).

So the judges decision was a good one, and the ABC’s take is extraordinarily bad. Women are not automatons who are unfairly put upon by society, they have free will and agency.

 

[its free real estate]

I bet if presented with a hypothetical where a person's loved one was brutally assaulted and they caught up with the offender to deal some of their own justice out, the same who seem to not care about the reasons for an attack would suddenly be in favour of clemency based on circumstances...

Six years for two counts of what was a serious assault (if not attempted murder) seems to have a fair bit of clemency.

 

[ShanDog]

Six years for two counts of what was a serious assault (if not attempted murder) seems to have a fair bit of clemency.

Maybe. Six years isn't a short time to be in jail. Think about everything you've done in the last six years and replace all of that with prison. No idea if that's appropriate or in line with other similar cases, but it's no short holiday.

 

[its free real estate]

Maybe. Six years isn't a short time to be in jail. Think about everything you've done in the last six years and replace all of that with prison. No idea if that's appropriate or in line with other similar cases, but it's no short holiday.

Yes, but she stabbed two people. One of whom was a completely innocent party to whatever went on between her and her husband.

 

[ShanDog]

Yes, but she stabbed two people. One of whom was a completely innocent party to whatever went on between her and her husband.

Sure but that doesn't change anything I just said. What she did was bad. If you don't think six years is enough that's fine, I won't argue. I don't know.

 

[its free real estate]

Sure but that doesn't change anything I just said. What she did was bad. If you don't think six years is enough that's fine, I won't argue. I don't know.

I think six years is appropriate given what is presented in the ABC article, which by its own admission is heavily sympathetic to the accused.

 

[Seeds]

You are the personification of bad-faith discussion. I'll be avoiding it with you from here because I have no inclination to engage with someone being deliberately obtuse or this ignorant - whichever it is.

You have yet to make a point in response to any of mine. You are the one being ignorant. Posting gifs of people banging their heads rather than responding to points made is being obtuse. Look at the mirror.

 

[tandino]

"Never intended to hurt her husband"

"breaks into his house and stabs him and his new girlfriend with a knife"

So who's the victim of domestic violence here?

 

[ShanDog]

You have yet to make a point in response to any of mine. You are the one being ignorant. Posting gifs of people banging their heads rather than responding to points made is being obtuse. Look at the mirror.

I know you think you made points. That's the problem.