Institutional Affilitation
What does this documentary tell us about intimate partner relationships “back in the day” (i.e., when the women were first arrested)?
The documentary tells us that intimate partner relationships that involved a married couple do not take into account the weight of the women’s testimony and experience. In the case of Ruby Jameson, her lawyer gave her advice to avoid mention of domestic violence and explicitly discouraged Ruby from using and citing the “Battered Woman Syndrome” that could have alleviated the prison sentence.
Back in the day, the issue of domestic violence was not taken nearly as serious as it is now. One example the documentary cited was that the police would hardly intervene in matters involving a married couple, even if one party felt that they were in danger as it was seen as a “lover’s quarrel.” The power dynamics between the man and woman was such that women were nearly always subservient to the man.
Why was it easier for some women to be released, compared to others?
The criteria used to decide whether some women were released as compared to others were their history of criminal involvement, problems with drug or alcohol, need for institutionalized substance abuse or sex offender program.
What did this documentary teach you about the criminal justice’s approach to violence against women?
This documentary highlighted the need for intensive review of Missouri’s laws against victims of domestic abuse. The laws did not protect these women from being attacked and tortured by their husband’s (many of whom have had a documented history of abuse, and were prohibited from introducing evidence at the time of the trial). Secondly, the criminal justice program penalize these women by levying disproportionate sentence as relative to the crime so in this manner, they are punished twice. Instead of looking towards the men who abuse their wives, the shaming of the victim is directed towards the woman, who doesn’t leave because it is difficult for others to understand the psychological trap that has ensnared battered women. Many of the cases involved in the documentary show the man having a good behavior in the marriage or relationship early on, only to find out that the behavior of their spouse changes (i.e, abuse starts). Another example is the conflict of interest that existed in Carlene’s case. Her husband’s attorney was provided for her because she did not have enough money for her own counsel, but this is a huge conflict of interest. This should not have happened.
Many argued that the women were not currently defending themselves and their murder
should not be seen as self-defense. What are your thoughts?
In the documentary, critics of the “Battered woman syndrome” and domestic abuse point to the “convenient” usage that these labels may confer on its victims. It’s almost as if critics are discounting the psychological damage inflicted on victims. These women couldn’t leave and the few opportunities that they did, their husband’s inflicted danger to their kids and at a certain point, these woman wanted to stop the process and face their tormentor. When you’re in a position that degrades you as a human being, it’s hard to know what’s right and what’s wrong at that point. Being so stressed and nowhere to turn to, since the courts has not caught up with the reality of everyday dangers and situations, I think that leniency for victims of domestic abuse should be given.
Pick one of the women, which one stood out to you the most? Why?
Carlene’s character resonated with me because she seemed so genuine and real, and just the nicest person you’d ever meet. Her warmth resonated through the movie and I could tell just how hurt she’s been by domestic violence. She did everything she could, not to get beaten up. I was especially horrified when she had mentioned her daughter (who was in a body cast at the time) getting hit with a belt for something insignificant. I really understand the “torture on earth” that she felt by her husband’s treatment. No one should live like this. I also felt that Carlene, being a great grand-mother was missing out on a lot of activities with her grandkids and great grand-kids, a lot of birthdays and celebrations that’s she’s missing out on and given that she has to serve a fifty-year sentence, almost makes living inhumane.
