The School of Law recently hosted an intriguing discussion of the feminist perspective on infidelity defence in the cases of wife killing. The main subject of the event was the book on the matter written by Dr Adrian Howe, who is an Honorary Principal Fellow at the University of Melbourne. This work is unique in the sense that it exists at the intersection of legal history, social and literary studies and the history of emotions, writes Nataliia Beldynska.
The author discusses her analysis of Shakespearean literature and a great body of modern cases of wife killing to understand the nature of infidelity defence, its abuse by male partners, and its contributions to the ‘new’ crime of femicide. There were several key issues that she identified in her work. The primary one is the use of infidelity as an excuse for men murdering their wives, for example, in an attempt to stop them from leaving. The author also is concerned with the whataboutism that arises around the issue which leads to deflecting attention from the real problem to hypotheticals. And lastly, the issue of the treatment of women as property is mentioned in this context as well.
To clarify, Dr Howe discusses how men use the infidelity defence for murder to reduce the conviction to manslaughter, which, in turn, does not provide for a mandatory life sentence. The urgency of the issue is supported by statistics, as more than 60% of women’s deaths are caused by their romantic partner or family member. Many male defendants use their partner’s alleged sexual infidelity, or cheating in simple terms, as a defence in the courtroom.
The author looks more broadly into the chronology and changes in the English and Welsh Legal system’s approach to the crime of passion and infidelity. Until 2009, the defence of provocation existed in common law, which partially shifted the blame for the death on the victim herself. This was changed with the new Coroners and Justice Act, which introduced the partial defence of loss of control and explicitly excluded the infidelity defence if used by itself. This, as Dr Howe says, is a legal revolution that was pushed through the Parliament despite strong opposition from the judiciary.
Dr Howe also discussed the criticism of her work and how some of the critics use whataboutism that shifts the attention from the real issue that affects real women to hypothetical scenarios that are statistically insignificant. The author argued that such a defence was overused by men, and the provocation argument should no longer be used to justify male murderers, perpetuating the ideas of women being treated as property contributing to victim-blaming and femicide.
After the talk, a performance of “Othello on Trial” took place as a part of the Theatre in Education project.
This event shed light on how infidelity defences perpetuate gender biases and contribute to femicide. Dr Adrian Howe’s interdisciplinary work shows how these deeply rooted issues affect classical literature and modern court cases. Through historical, literary, and contemporary legal perspectives, her work challenges the misuse and abuse of provocation defences and calls for the justice system to prioritise the rights and safety of women.
Article by: Nataliia Beldynska