Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Has The DPP Made It Open Season On Women Who Refuse Sex?

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by Peltdownman


Charles Leacock, Director of Public Prosecutors

In what is a quite unbelievable development for a country that aspires to be “developed”, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has stated that because a woman refused sex to a man who was virtually blackmailing her, she was, in fact, “provoking” him and his subsequent act of beating her to death could not be considered murder.

Does this now mean that any time that a man, having reasonable expectations that he might have sex with a woman, can now beat her to death if she refuses, and not be charged with murder? The DPP has declared open season on women in Barbados. I wonder what his wife thinks.

Women have a right to say no

1/9/2011

I cannot believe what I am reading, in January 2011, the second decade of the 21st century.

That human rights can be so trampled and Barbados dragged back into the dark ages by a judicial officer so steeped in male macho culture that a woman desperate to pay her rent is lured to his house by a man who promises to help, then when she changes her mind about sex in return for the money, she is murdered and according to the newspaper report: “the Director of Public Prosecutions said he accepted a manslaughter plea based on provocation (my emphasis), because Griffith went to Pile’s home and when they were about to have sex she changed her mind and he got vex.”

He added that a jury properly directed could reach the conclusion that Pile was provoked, adding, “I have so concluded”.

The provision for a finding of manslaughter based on provocation is intended where there is a fight between two or more persons and one is killed. There is no evidence here that the lady offered any physical threat or provocation to her killer.

In all civilised jurisdictions a woman’s right to say no to sexual relations, even within marriage, is supported by the courts. If, at any time, she says no and sexual relations were forced on her it would be held to be date rape and the man would be prosecuted. In this case it is not a matter of rape, but murder and the DPP considers her changing her mind provocation to murder.

To suggest that changing her mind and saying NO to sex is PROVOCATION justifying MURDER is an absolute outrage! All Barbadian women and women’s organisations should speak out clearly on this matter and call on the Attorney General immediately to remove the Director of Public Prosecutions from duty.

How can any woman have confidence in a judicial system where the prosecution openly supports this position? Are we living in a prehistoric jungle where rape of women is considered a man’s right?

I wish my father, Dick Walcott, was still alive as he could have elucidated the legal position better, but there are many lawyers and female magistrates today who I am sure will understand the importance of this principle.

The very idea of a DPP expressing these sentiments in 2011 is atrocious.

Every woman in Barbados must protest and call for his removal and a clear statement form the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police on this matter. Otherwise the courts will be giving free licence to men to murder a woman because she says no to sex.

Ann Walcott

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

  1. The Scout Avatar
    The Scout

    Where is the voice of NOW on this matter, or is it because the President is a member of the ruling party and she can’t rock the boat at this stage? Where is her loyalty to the movement? Where is the voice of the Bureau of Gender Affairs and SAVE? Their silence is deafening.

  2. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    If I may, for the purposes of discussion, restate what Yardbrrom posted thus ”’” In English Law, provocation is a mitigatory defence alleging a total loss of control as a response to another’s provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter. It does not apply to any other offence.”

    Under Section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957:

    “Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked ( whether by things done or by things said or both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.”

    “The initial burden is on the defence to raise sufficient evidence of provocation. As a matter of law, the judge will then decide whether to leave the defence to the jury. ”’

    —————–

    Now, the question, IF we know the gist of what happened, is that the ‘provocation alleged’ appears to have been the withdrawal from an agreement, whether real or perceived, to have sex.

    That alone is a ridiculous basis upon which to seek provocation as a mitigatory factor.

    From Merriam-Webster online:

    Definition of PROVOKE
    transitive verb
    1a archaic : to arouse to a feeling or action b : to incite to anger
    2a : to call forth (as a feeling or action) : evoke b : to stir up purposely

    While feeling may have been aroused, indeed there must be some element of rational behaviour to consider, that when someone, whether in cases of sex or other, changes their mind, a rational person steps back and makes their own decision to treat otherwise.

    IF we have been given suitable ‘facts’ where the victim merely refused sex, that alone is not enough to justify the mitigating defense of provocation.

    An example of where such a mitigating factor may have arisen, is if in the preparatory stages of the act, the woman knowingly and purposefully derided the man, maybe for a fat belly, a small penis, whatever and caused him ” feeling or action b : to incite to anger”.

    While it can be argued that a rational man would not intend to muder her i.e. mens rea absent, however, his action in anger might cause her to be injured mortally i.e. actus reus.

    For example, if he swung a belt at her (in retaliation for her laughing at his penis) and the belt buckle struck her in the tenple.

    He would not have intended to kill her, thus there is no mens rea and no murder i.e. manslaughter.

    However, in a case where a woman merely changes her mind, this is not sufficient cause to seek provocation as a defense.

    As I said, understanding of the law seems to be lacking nowadays ion a number of cases.

  3. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    That said, maybe there is more to the story for the defense of provocation to be raised, it had better be so.

    But as a few commenters above including Yardbroom have noted, we only have summarised ‘facts’, to be fair.

  4. David Avatar
    David

    @Crusoe, Yardbroom et al

    Do you thinks the public has the right of reply in matters of this kind?

    How does one build checks and balances in the DPP’s Office?

  5. Janine LG Avatar
    Janine LG

    @A Freeman

    Listen, I too believe women need to take responsibility and have enough pride and respect in themselves to not engage in these types of transactions, and I know you are not saying it is ok to beat a woman up if you deny her sex…. but we constantly bemoan the inability of young men to deal with their emotions in a civil way, yet when incidents like these occur every man jack does find an excuse for violent behaviour or want me to understand the mindset that perpetrated this. .. Actually I do understand the mindset because it is reflective of a typical attitude many west indian males have towards women. I also know that violence towards women in the region is a historically cultural thing and while we have moved past the time when domestic violence was laughed at, the DPP’s position on this is reprehensible and a step backward and he should raked over the oals for it… HE SHOULD LOSE HE WUK!

    This is one incident that ended in a horrible tragedy but how many women get their face lick up and end up in emergency hospital cuz the psychotic MALE they have as a boyfriend/husband find they talk to dem in a certain way, or they do something wrong, or they didn’t have food on the table when they come home…. I mean COME ON!

  6. Janine LG Avatar
    Janine LG

    Many mistakes made in the heat of the moment: Should be “If she denies you sex” .. “coals” .. et.. I’m sure you got my drift.

  7. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    How many times women are abused by the man who is happens to be her employer. Threats of losing one’s job have driven women to do the unthinkable because a predator is her employer or boss. Many have no choice because her of lack of financial support from the children’s father and in order to feed them she had to do the unthinkable or lose her job. Many men are predators period and will seek out the most vulnerable.

  8. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    @ Bonny Peppa

    Hope all is well with you , I miss you my friend.

  9. Hants Avatar
    Hants

    If a woman agrees to have sex with you an she tek off all she clothes and then change she mind, Leave de woman wey she is an neva speak to she again.

    NO means NO.

  10. Yardbroom Avatar
    Yardbroom

    I think it is so obvious that women should not be mistreated in anyway that – I have taken it as read – it should be understood as a general principle – the same applies to men for that matter.
    I have also written a submission on Barbados Underground (BU), about domestic violence, the hurt caused and its negative impact on society.

    We should draw back from making silly personal attacks on individuals – we do not know – suggesting what behaviours they are capable of, and have a mature sensible debate.

    We are personalizing the issue, this is not about if Yardbroom or X abuses women or W’s attitude to men. I have never struck a woman in my life. . . and it is most unlikely I will do so now. I do not know what W has done to men, but I will show her some courtesy as a fellow blogger, and address her as someone beyond reproach.

    We ask for a better “attitude” in society generally – complain about it – and then we denigrate each other for no sensible reason. . . is that not an “attitude.” Some heap all the infidelities done to women, they can think of on a fellow blogger, for simply stating an opinion. . . that cannot be right.
    ********************************
    @ David
    It is difficult to come to a sensible decision without the “full facts.” However, there are occasions when reasonable concerns are raised and rightly so. It is always possible to write a letter to the AG expressing concern; or soliciting the support of the constituency MP, in the area where the deceased resided. He/she could be asked to make representations on your behalf…it is naturally better if it is a group action.

    With regard to checks and balances, difficult decisions are generally made after consultations with senior members of the department. . . or they should be. You choose a man/woman with the necessary legal background and integrity for the job, but even after that the populace will disagree on some decisions.

    Even eminent Law Lords disagree on important decisions, returning a 3-2 majority verdict and they give reasons for their respective decisions. Life is not 100% perfect.

  11. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    Joshua Dressler posits an interesting legal conundrum on this ISSUE* of “PROVOCATION” in a piece entitled: When “Heterosexual” Men Kill “Homosexual” Men: Reflections on Provocation Law, Sexual Advances, and the “Reasonable Man” Standard in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 85, 1995….

    http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=6579970C42005B25897E5EF70F027A91.inst1_3b?docId=5001648717

    The tests which are applied to “PROVOCATION” – ‘should there be mitigating circumstances in the case Josh is referencing as against the DPP’s position in the above cited manslaughter case involving the opposite sex?’

    And what “divine” criteria determines what “a reasonable man” is given that the defense of “provocation” is imperfect to say the least though mitigated by circumstances does & cannot remove the exculpatory effect of that deadly blow???

  12. Terence M. Blackett Avatar
    Terence M. Blackett

    Provocation, though a defense in murder cases has 2 tests which must to be applied… (the objective and subjective test)…

    If the jury accepts that the defendant was provoked to lose his self control and kill in the heat of the moment, the defendant is partially excused for his act. This is so as no man is perfect and due to the imperfection common to us all, even “reasonable” individuals may lose their self control and so kill in the heat of the moment – cited from case law – R v Thomas (1837) 7 C & P 817 per Parker B at 819

    In section 3 of the Homicide Act (1957) states that:

    “Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.”

    The defense of provocation is rather “fickle” and it boggles the mind to see jurists after more than (50) YEARS* still grappling with case law and its interpretation (R v Duffy 1949) where Delvin cited this idea of “a sudden and temporary loss of self-control rendering the accused so “SUBJECT TO PASSION” as to make him or her, for the moment , not master of his mind”…

    In the immortal words of John Mc’Enroe – “you cannot be serious?” (SURELY SOMEONE HAD ONE TOO MANY “pints” HERE)

    Kids running around in the school-yard based on simple “COMMONSENSE” ( and I know it is NOT* very common) would argue – ‘what kinda time has to elapse before a “PROVOKED” killing become a “MURDER”???

    Such difficulties with “PROVOCATION” as a legal defense given this wonderful phrase – “ELAPSED TIME” poses tenuous anomalies where in one such case Ibrams & Gregory (1981) does not fit into this proscribed legal empirical model…

    So on the balance of probabilities & evidence ( and in this case we only have the word of the person who is still ALIVE* and committed this heinous crime) given that the deceased woman cannot “rightly” defend herself – how the jury of his peers arrive at a verdict of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter mitigated by the circumstances involved and the guy’s state of mind, given that for some BLACK* men to be denied a “PIECE OF PUSSY” can result in the “heat of the moment passion-type killing, where the defendant is “PROVOKED” into a loss of control…

  13. Pat Avatar
    Pat

    @ Hants

    I agree with you 100%. When I said no, it was no. We were both nude and in bed. I changed my mind after seeing the Steinberg’s weiner – waste of time! I, of course, had to find my own way home after the buses had ceased running. The taxi cost me my last $20 bucks. The year was 1973.

  14. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Did the court look into the back ground of this perpetrator? Has he got a “history” of forcing sex on women by beating them? Can this be appealed? By whom?

  15. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    @TMBlackett,

    Very good points brought there. I disagree with you though, the eminent Devlin did not have one too many, but re was specific in the description of what constituted a loss of control i.e. note that the heat of the moment i.e. passion is brought into the decision.

    Elapsed time MUST be considered as the time elapsed, given a ‘reasonable man’, would indicate whether the action causing death resulted from the initial ‘loss of mastery of mind’ or from subsequent thought process and hence, premeditation thus giving rise to the ‘mens rea’.

    All of that must come into the decision i.e. would the action of the ‘victim’ be considered serious enough to provoke a ‘reasonable man’ or would such a man merely curse, cry, scream and walk away unhappy?

    I submit that a reasonable man would not pull out a cutlass after being refused consummation.

    However, I also concede, as in my example above that if provocation resulted in an act of passion that was separate from clear logical thought i.e. no mens rea, then the defense of provocation could be justified.

    The problem with this is, how is this proved, note that the earlier examples and legislation above indicate that the onus is on the defense?

  16. Crusoe Avatar
    Crusoe

    Note that my reference to a man pulling out a cutlass above is not re this case, but speaking as an example only.

  17. Random Thoughts Avatar
    Random Thoughts

    Well maybe all the women in Barbados should deny sex to all the men until this matter is resolved.

    I bet that it would be resolved in less than 24 hours.

  18. The Gatekeeper Avatar
    The Gatekeeper

    @readydone | January 11, 2011 at 8:36 AM |
    Is there a law to protect men from women who promise sex for money yet has no intention of giving sex?
    ———————————-
    Well the short answer is that prostitution is against the law in Barbados, and that’s what sex in exchange for money is. Prostitution doesn’t only take place in redlight areas at night, it takes place just about everywhere at any time. So no, there is no law to protect men from women who do not keep their end of a “sex for money” arrangement. Sex is suppose to be a cost-free activity of mutual satisfaction and gratification . But you and I know that in reality sex and money goes together like hand and glove.

    I agreed with Mia when she suggested decriminalizing prostitution since the law is not being enforced anyway. I think a man who finds himself “hardup” for sex but can seem to get it thru a normal relationship, should have the option of paying for it from a willing supplier. Also, decriminalizing it would pave the way for new laws to protect the both parties.

    Having said all that, yuh still can’t beat kill women because they take your money and didn’t deliver. As a man I know that even when you lend most women money without sex being involved, you still don’t get it back. Best to call it dead money and learn from the experience.

  19. The Gatekeeper Avatar
    The Gatekeeper

    @Pat | January 12, 2011 at 2:04 PM |

    I agree with you 100%. When I said no, it was no. We were both nude and in bed. I changed my mind after seeing the Steinberg’s weiner – waste of time! I, of course, had to find my own way home after the buses had ceased running. The taxi cost me my last $20 bucks. The year was 1973.
    ———————————–
    That is a real messed up experience for a man to go thru though. The man was all ready for some action, you and him in bed naked, and suddenly you change your mind because the man had a small pecker. That is like being starving hungry and having a lovely plate of food taken from right in front of you just as you were about to stick your fork into it. That would anger any man, but he would need to control his anger so that things doesn’t get violent. Maybe you should told the man from the very start that you don’t deal with small pecker men.

  20. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @Gatekeeper: “That is like being starving hungry and having a lovely plate of food taken from right in front of you just as you were about to stick your fork into it.

    It was a small job. He could have done it by hand…

  21. de hood Avatar
    de hood

    @ CH
    So Chris, yuh seem tuh tink a “hand-job” would suffice in some cases? 🙂

  22. Anonus Avatar
    Anonus

    Where is it in law that prostitution is illegal? I have heard sound lawyers question this. If prostitution is sex for favours how many women commit this daily? I do not know on what basis the DPPP made his decision.

  23. FRAN Avatar
    FRAN

    I think it heinous that a man having been denied sex should kill a woman, whether he is provoked or not. When a woman says no she means no. No is not the acronym for yes. I think is a dastardly act when a man must overpower or coerce a woman into a sexual act.

    I do not know all the facts of the case, but what i find totally reprehensible is the fact that after committing the act of killing the woman, much thought went into how he would get rid of the body. This does not speak of an individual who feels any remorse at the act just committed, this is someone who is thinking this thing out, so how is it not premeditated ( this behavior seems deliberate to me) does this not justify a case of murder? Must premeditation be 6, 3, or 1hour before committing a crime? but it would seem that the DPP dealt with the case in parts and not the sum total of the crime.

    There seems to be a double standard in our interpretation of the law, take the case of the prostitute who was robbed by her customer, he committed a crime by robbing her, but wasn’t she also committing a crime as well by prostituting, yet she is not charged.

    Having said that however, women must learn to think situations through before committing to any proposition be it work related, sex related, etc. We must always exercise our options before we put ourselves in a position where the odds are against us. Our dignity must always be more
    important than anything else.

    Many times we are driven by our emotions only to find that when the smoke clears it is not what we really wanted. Many women today rush into ‘relationships’ which in their sober moments they would never contemplate.

    @ Freeman,
    I agree with you that sex should be motivated by love not material trappings, but unfortunately we have denigrated ourselves as human beings to such a state, that we are willing to sell it, buy it, give away at the drop of a hat because the individual looks good, because the individual says nice things to us, or because we just feel like it, and that is unfortunate, for we become no more than animals in heat.

  24. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @de hood: “So Chris, yuh seem tuh tink a “hand-job” would suffice in some cases?

    Arguably better than murder.

    Don’t you think?

  25. The Gatekeeper Avatar
    The Gatekeeper

    @Fran and Freeman

    Yes, ideally sex should be motivated by love, but when most people get that physical urge, or “sex itch” as some of my friends call it, it is very difficult to ignore. Masturbation may substitute sometimes, but sometimes yuh just gotta have the real thing. This is especially true if you already know what the real thing feels like and suddenly you’re not getting it anymore.

  26. Christopher Halsall Avatar
    Christopher Halsall

    @The Gatekeeper: “Masturbation may substitute sometimes, but sometimes yuh just gotta have the real thing. This is especially true if you already know what the real thing feels like and suddenly you’re not getting it anymore.

    So, then, are you aruging that the woman has to “put out” to satisfy the man? The woman be damned — the man must be satisfied.

    Or are we not understanding your message?

    Please explain.

  27. FRAN Avatar
    FRAN

    yes, Gatekeeper,
    please explain, before we assume that you mean, that you take it irrespective of her feelings. Doesn’ t that sounds like domestic abuse, or rape

    . Why would any man comfortable in his manhood feel that he would have to sexually abuse or rape a woman.

  28. massas bo' Avatar
    massas bo’

    De problem aint de LAW de problem is de DPP.
    Yuh should do de world a favour and get dis guy look at.
    In Law and in de head. De man a guyanese,
    what dey does say bout Guyanese!!!??
    What de f*** WE GOT HE GIVING US DIS GUYANA SHIT IN WE OWN COUNTRY??

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading