When researchers from the Stanford Criminal Justice Center began studying women in California prisons convicted of manslaughter and murder, they quickly uncovered a striking connection: intimate partner violence (IPV) played a significant role in many of these cases. One woman fatally stabbed her ex-boyfriend after enduring months of stalking and assault. Another killed her partner in self-defense after being beaten and raped, with law enforcement ignoring her pleas for help, Shannon Heffernan of the non-profit criminal justice journalism organization, the Marshall Project, reported.
Among the 649 respondents surveyed, nearly 75% had experienced abuse in the year leading up to their crime. The study, detailed in the report “Fatal Peril,” highlights that most survivors were at an extreme risk of being killed by their abuser, according to a danger assessment tool used by prosecutors, victim advocates, and domestic violence shelters.
In a New York Times opinion piece, Rachel Louise Snyder, author of No Visible Bruises, noted that U.S. self-defense laws partially stem from the “castle doctrine,” a 17th-century English common law principle. This law allows a person to defend themselves against outside attacks in their home. However, Snyder points out that these laws often fail to account for situations where a person is repeatedly attacked by someone with equal standing in the home, such as a spouse.
But the link between domestic abuse and incarceration goes far beyond self-defense laws. The Stanford researchers soon realized that their focus on women who had killed their abusers was too narrow to capture the many ways in which domestic violence leads to imprisonment. Some respondents were in prison for helping their abusers commit crimes, acting out of fear for their own safety. Others were punished for failing to protect their children from deadly abuse, echoing findings from a recent investigation by The Marshall Project.
One woman in the survey was imprisoned because her abusive partner killed one of her children while she was at work. He discovered supplies she had packed to leave him and retaliated by harming her kids. In California, laws allow for a parent to be punished if they knowingly place their child in danger.
“When someone is experiencing severe IPV, the risk of harm extends to everyone around them,” explained Debbie Mukamal, executive director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center and co-author of the study.
These stories are not unique to California. The Marshall Project identified nearly 100 cases across the U.S. in which people, mostly women, were punished for the violent acts of their abusers. These cases often involved little-known laws such as “failure to protect” and “accomplice liability.” While the details vary by state, accomplice liability laws exist nationwide.
Some Stanford survey respondents said they ended up in prison while trying to escape their abusers. One woman described fleeing her home with her four children, only to be rammed by her ex-husband’s car. The crash caused the death of one of her children, and she was charged with vehicular manslaughter. Sixteen others said they were incarcerated for driving-under-the-influence homicides, linked to the use of substances they turned to in order to cope with abuse.
Several states are now attempting to address this issue. New York has a law that allows a person’s history of IPV to be considered during sentencing or resentencing. Recently, Oklahoma passed the Survivors’ Act, allowing abuse survivors to serve shorter sentences in some circumstances. April Wilkens, who has served 26 years for killing her fiancé after being handcuffed and raped, was the first to file an application under the new law. Previously, she could not use evidence of abuse in her case for early release.
Illinois has also broadened its laws. Since 2016, the state has allowed IPV to be considered in sentencing when directly linked to the crime. However, a state Supreme Court ruling initially blocked those who had pleaded guilty from applying for resentencing. This restriction was overturned by a new law signed in August, although certain cases, like that of Pat Johnson, remain ineligible due to mandatory life sentences.
Despite these efforts, similar initiatives in other states, including Oregon, Louisiana, and Minnesota, have failed in recent years. Given that a significant percentage of incarcerated women report experiencing abuse, adjusting these laws could reduce the number of women behind bars. In fact, the incarceration rate for women has grown at twice the rate of men in recent decades, with a 5% rise in female inmates between 2021 and 2022 alone, according to the Fatal Peril report.
Tackling women’s incarceration requires confronting the intertwined nature of surviving abuse and committing an offense. It also requires dispelling the myth of the “perfect” victim, as Mukamal emphasizes—one that leaves no room for the complexities of IPV and its consequences.
Leave a Reply