A Woman’s Inalienable Right To Murder?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
One in Three Campaign

By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

On January 7, 2010 the Associated Press released a story titled “Maine woman avoids prison for killing of husband”.

What is important about this case are not the details — admittedly unattractive — but the essential legal principle established by Waldo County Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Hjelm. Judge Hjelm established the legal precedent that any woman based on her own internal and unverifiable thoughts and feelings has the right to murder any man and suffer no legal consequences. In short, women and women alone have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner.

The woman, Amber Cummings, using a Battered-Woman Defense, did not testify which would have subjected her to cross-examination. Rather, testimony in her defense was provided by a Psychologist and various other mental health “experts.” Writing as a Psychologist, I can assure all interested parties that among Psychologists and other mental health “experts” there are a very large number who would welcome the opportunity to construct testimony on behalf of a Battered-Woman Defense based on feminist ideology. To judge for yourself whether or not Amber Cummings is a battered woman incapable of any alternative other than murdering her husband, see her interview following the trial here.

What is most critically at issue, however, is whether justice for the crime of murder is to be determined by feminist jurisprudence (the Battered-Woman Defense) or by behavior. In this case the behavior was a woman firing two bullets into the head of a sleeping man.

To fully understand the double standards inherent in feminist jurisprudence one simply has to reverse the genders. Would any judge ruling in a case where a man fired two bullets into the head of a sleeping woman free the man with no criminal penalties?

I don’t know if Judge Hjelm is married but if he is and were his wife to fire two bullets into his head while he slept, it would be ironic justice for his wife to be freed by the subsequent Judge on her case on the basis of her husband’s own ruling.

More importantly, this case establishes a precedent that all men and all women who love men and want a man in their lives should oppose and seek to overturn. Were the core principle established by Judge Hjelm to be retained, we would be a society living under the rule of gender rather than a society living under the rule of law.

html#ixzz0n5xrz7qv Read full article

Article originally appeared on One in Three Campaign (http://www.oneinthree.com.au/).
See website for complete article licensing information.