THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, October 24, 1994 TAG: 9410220011
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines
A Maryland judge's reluctance to impose any sentence - and the light sentence he did impose - on a man for killing his wife after catching her in bed with her lover merits scorn, not only from women's groups but from anyone who believes in punishment to fit the crime.
Activists against domestic violence find it incredible that the murder charge was dropped and that the husband was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter.
But they are outraged more by the punishment: 18 months' imprisonment on a charge that could have resulted in 25 years in prison. With the plea bargain, though, the husband became eligible for a sentence of three to eight years.
And on top of that, Circuit Judge Robert E. Cahill pronounced: ``I seriously wonder how many men married, five, four years would have the strength to walk away without inflicting some corporal punishment.'' He imposed sentence because he was ``forced,'' he said.
Wait a minute. Despite her infidelity, the woman was not his property, to be treated in any way the husband deemed appropriate. Despite what Judge Cahill may believe, no form of corporal punishment - domestic violence is the suitable term here - is tolerable in relationships.
The prosecutor in the Towson, Md., case said the plea agreement to reduce the charge was made with concurrence of the victim's family. In this case, she said, it would not have been ``easy'' to obtain a first-degree murder conviction.
Maybe not, but it seems a bit of a stretch to label as manslaughter a shooting that took place hours after the man discovered his wife with her lover, hours during which he drank beer and wine. The lover was chased off at gunpoint, but the woman was shot in the head with a hunting rifle.
Carol Alexander, who heads an area shelter for battered women, said Judge Cahill ``sanctioned and approved an execution.'' Kim Gandy, executive vice president of the National Organization for Women, called the case ``outrageous,'' but ``not an uncommon treatment of women who are victims of male violence.''
Unfortunately, the outrage of many feminist groups at the sentence would have more impact had not so many of them sought to excuse the actions of Lorena Bobbitt and other women who claim to have acted in self-defense when such claims are not in accord with traditional definitions of self-defense. The law provides remdies short of violence or murder no matter what the sex of the people involved.
The Judge Cahills of this nation also send another dispiritng message: that there is something drastically wrong with the judicial system when it cannot be relied upon to deliver certain justice even in such a seemingly open-and-shut case. If anyone is wondering what drives movements like ``no parole,'' they need look no farther. by CNB