A case study in power, control and abuse

[Marquis]

so i would prefer to say Mr. John Norman, in his program of battery and intimidation, until his timely end, caused his wife, Judy Ann to abjectly and continuingly surrender all control.

Isn't that a bit of a chicken/egg question?

Whether it was taken before it was surrendered?

 

[SouthernDom]

When studying Criminal Law, first year legal students read cases of historical importance to illustrate the legal defenses to criminal actions. A staple of the Crim Law curriculum is State v. Norman, a controversial case that deals with the nuances of the “self defense” justification. I’ll offer a very brief synopsis here, but I really recommend reading the case facts for yourself.

Mrs. Norman was abused by her husband for many, many years. The case goes into exquisite detail on the kind of abuse he dished out. One day, Mrs. Norman shot her husband in the back of the head three times while he was sleeping. Mrs. Norman’s lawyers insisted this action was justified based on self defense. I’ll skip the exact details of what legally constitutes “imperfect/perfect self defense” because I think you probably have a good instinctual understanding of what it means to act in self defense.

At the trial level, the defense of “self defense” (or rather the appropriate jury instruction) was barred. Norman appealed this decision and the appellate court allowed the self defense defense. Finally, the Supreme Court of North Carolina once again barred the defense.

The facts of the case below are taken from the Court of Appeals, 89 N.C. App. 384, 366 S.E. 2d 586 (1988).

I’ve omitted the legal analysis, but if you want to see how the court eventually reasoned the case, you can read the Supreme Court decision here .

I’m posting this for several reasons:

1. In a very dark way, I find some of the details of this case to be humorous and even a little erotic.
2. I am fascinated with the impulses and personalities that draw people to, or keep them in, relationships with high power differentials. I think there are some undeniable patterns that emerge, and I’d like to discuss those.
3. I think the question of whether Mrs. Norman’s actions were legally and/or morally justifiable is an interesting one.

So without further ado, the case. My comments in brackets [like this].

At trial the State presented the testimony of a deputy sheriff of the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department who testified that on 12 June 1985, at approximately 7:30 p.m., he was dispatched to the Norman residence. There, in one of the bedrooms, he found decedent, John Thomas "J.T." Norman (herein decedent or Norman) dead, lying on his left side on a bed. The State presented an autopsy report, stipulated to by both parties, concluding that Norman had died from two gunshot wounds to the head. The deputy sheriff also testified that later that evening, after being advised of her rights, defendant told the officer that decedent, her husband, had been beating her all day, that she went to her mother's house nearby and got a .25 automatic pistol, that she returned to her house and loaded the gun, and that she shot her husband. The officer noted at the time that there were burns and bruises on defendant's body.

Defendant's evidence, presented through several different witnesses, disclosed a long history of verbal and physical abuse leveled by decedent against defendant. Defendant and Norman had been married twenty-five years at the time of Norman's death. Norman was an alcoholic. He had begun to drink and to beat defendant five years after they were married. The couple had five children, four of whom are still living. When defendant was pregnant with her youngest child, Norman beat her and kicked her down a flight of steps, causing the baby to be born prematurely the next day.

Norman, himself, had worked one day a few months prior to his death; but aside from that one day, witnesses could not remember his ever working. Over the years and up to the time of his death, Norman forced defendant to prostitute herself every day in order to support him. If she begged him not to make her go, he slapped her. Norman required defendant to make a minimum of one hundred dollars per day; if she failed to make this minimum, he would beat her.

Norman commonly called defendant "Dogs," "Bitches," and "Whores," and referred to her as a dog. Norman beat defendant "most every day," especially when he was drunk and when other people were around, to "show off." [who can resist the allure of public displays of dominance?] He would beat defendant with whatever was handy -- his fist, a fly swatter [I actually own an oversized fly swatter that I sometimes beat my sub with], a baseball bat [got one of these two, except it’s much smaller than a normal bat], his shoe, or a bottle; he put out cigarettes on defendant's skin [we’ve all seen this thread before]; he threw food and drink in her face and refused to let her eat for days at a time; and he threw glasses, ashtrays, and beer bottles at her and once smashed a glass in her face. Defendant exhibited to the jury scars on her face from these incidents. Norman would often make defendant bark like a dog, and if she refused, he would beat her. He often forced defendant to sleep on the concrete floor of their home and on several occasions forced her to eat dog or cat food out of the dog or cat bowl.

Norman often stated both to defendant and to others that he would kill defendant. He also threatened to cut her heart out.

Witnesses for the defense also testified to the events in the thirty-six hours prior to Norman's death. On or about the morning of 10 June 1985, Norman forced defendant to go to a truck stop or rest stop on Interstate 85 in order to prostitute to make some money. Defendant's daughter and defendant's daughter's boyfriend accompanied defendant. Some time later that day, Norman went to the truck stop, apparently drunk, and began hitting defendant in the face with his fist and slamming the car door into her. He also threw hot coffee on defendant. On the way home, Norman's car was stopped by police, and he was arrested for driving under the influence.

When Norman was released from jail the next morning, on 11 June 1985, he was extremely angry and beat defendant. Defendant's mother said defendant acted nervous and scared. Defendant testified that during the entire day, when she was near him, her husband slapped her, and when she was away from him, he threw glasses, ashtrays, and beer bottles at her. Norman asked defendant to make him a sandwich; when defendant brought it to him, he threw it on the floor and told her to make him another. Defendant made him a second sandwich and brought it to him; Norman again threw it on the floor, telling her to put something on her hands because he did not want her to touch the bread. Defendant made a third sandwich using a paper towel to handle the bread. Norman took the third sandwich and smeared it in defendant's face.

On the evening of 11 June 1985, at about 8:00 or 8:30 p.m., a domestic quarrel was reported at the Norman residence. The officer responding to the call testified that defendant was bruised and crying and that she stated her husband had been beating her all day and she could not take it any longer. The officer advised defendant to take out a warrant on her husband, but defendant responded that if she did so, he would kill her. A short time later, the officer was again dispatched to the Norman residence. There he learned that defendant had taken an overdose of "nerve pills," and that Norman was interfering with emergency personnel who were trying to treat defendant. Norman was drunk and was making statements such as, "'If you want to die, you deserve to die. I'll give you more pills,'" and "'Let the bitch die . . . . She ain't nothing but a dog. She don't deserve to live.'" Norman also threatened to kill defendant, defendant's mother, and defendant's grandmother. The law enforcement officer reached for his flashlight or blackjack and chased Norman into the house. Defendant was taken to Rutherford Hospital.

The therapist on call at the hospital that night stated that defendant was angry and depressed and that she felt her situation was hopeless. On the advice of the therapist, defendant did not return home that night, but spent the night at her grandmother's house.
The next day, 12 June 1985, the day of Norman's death, Norman was angrier and more violent with defendant than usual. According to witnesses, Norman beat defendant all day long. Sometime during the day, Lemuel Splawn, Norman's best friend, called Norman and asked Norman to drive with him to Spartanburg, where Splawn worked, to pick up Splawn's paycheck. Norman arrived at Splawn's house some time later. Defendant was driving. During the ride to Spartanburg, Norman slapped defendant for following a truck too closely and poured a beer on her head. Norman kicked defendant in the side of the head while she was driving and told her he would "'cut her breast off and shove it up her rear end.'"
Later that day, one of the Normans' daughters, Loretta, reported to defendant's mother that her father was beating her mother again. Defendant's mother called the sheriff's department, but no help arrived at that time. Witnesses stated that back at the Norman residence, Norman threatened to cut defendant's throat, threatened to kill her, and threatened to cut off her breast. Norman also smashed a doughnut on defendant's face and put out a cigarette on her chest.

In the late afternoon, Norman wanted to take a nap. He lay down on the larger of the two beds in the bedroom. Defendant started to lie down on the smaller bed, but Norman said, "'No bitch . . . Dogs don't sleep on beds, they sleep in [sic] the floor.'" Soon after, one of the Normans' daughters, Phyllis, came into the room and asked if defendant could look after her baby. Norman assented. When the baby began to cry, defendant took the child to her mother's house, fearful that the baby would disturb Norman. At her mother's house, defendant found a gun. She took it back to her home and shot Norman.

Defendant testified that things at home were so bad she could no longer stand it. She explained that she could not leave Norman because he would kill her. She stated that she had left him before on several occasions and that each time he found her, took her home, and beat her. She said that she was afraid to take out a warrant on her husband because he had said that if she ever had him locked up, he would kill her when he got out. She stated she did not have him committed because he told her he would see the authorities coming for him and before they got to him he would cut defendant's throat. Defendant also testified that when he threatened to kill her, she believed he would kill her if he had the chance.

The defense presented the testimony of two expert witnesses in the field of forensic psychology, Dr. William Tyson and Dr. Robert Rollins. Based on an examination of defendant and an investigation of the matter, Dr. Tyson concluded that defendant "fits and exceeds the profile, of an abused or battered spouse." Dr. Tyson explained that in defendant's case the situation had progressed beyond mere "'Wife battering or family violence'" and had become "torture, degradation and reduction to an animal level of existence, where all behavior was marked purely by survival . . . ." Dr. Tyson stated that defendant could not leave her husband because she had gotten to the point where she had no belief whatsoever in herself and believed in the total invulnerability of her husband. He stated, "Mrs. Norman didn't leave because she believed, fully believed that escape was totally impossible. . . . She fully believed that [Norman] was invulnerable to the law and to all social agencies that were available; that nobody could withstand his power. As a result, there was no such thing as escape." Dr. Tyson stated that the incidences of Norman forcing defendant to perform prostitution and to eat pet food from pet dishes were parts of the dehumanization process. Dr. Tyson analogized the process to practices in prisoner-of-war camps in the Second World War and the Korean War.

When asked if it appeared to defendant reasonably necessary to kill her husband, Dr. Tyson responded, "I think Judy Norman felt that she had no choice, both in the protection of herself and her family, but to engage, exhibit deadly force against Mr. Norman, and that in so doing, she was sacrificing herself, both for herself and for her family."

Dr. Rollins was defendant's attending physician at Dorothea Dix Hospital where she was sent for a psychiatric evaluation after her arrest. Based on an examination of defendant, laboratory studies, psychological tests, interviews, and background investigation, Dr. Rollins testified that defendant suffered from "abused spouse syndrome." Dr. Rollins defined the syndrome in the following way:
The "abused spouse syndrome" refers to situations where one spouse has achieved almost complete control and submission of the other by both psychological and physical domination [TPE, anyone?]. It's, to start with, it's usually seen in the females who do not have a strong sense of their own adequacy who do not have a lot of personal or occupational resources; it's usually associated with physical abuse over a long period of time, and the particular characteristics that interest us are that the abused spouse comes to believe that the other person is in complete control; that they themselves are worthless and they cannot get away; that there's no rescue from the other person.

When asked, in his opinion, whether it appeared reasonably necessary that defendant take the life of J. T. Norman, Dr. Rollins responded, "In my opinion, that course of action did appear necessary to Mrs. Norman." However, Dr. Rollins stated that he found no evidence of any psychotic disorder and that defendant was capable of proceeding to trial.

In a bumping mood..............

My .02

Sure..........there were some heinous acts committed against the victim during this abusive relationship that are considered to be within the realm of being BDSM play activities.

Of course, the prime difference between abuse and BDSM play lies in the consent.............or in this case,lack of consent on the part of the victim.

I feel J.T was somewhat of a Dominant by orientation due to the hunger for power over another human being he exhibited and acted on willingly .......................but an out of control abusive asshole by definition due to the fact he committed abusive and unlawful acts unto another against their will and without consent.

It's sad that no one close to the situation could protect the victims.

I feel like his wife was somewhat submissive by orientation and lacked the strength to stand up for herself but ramped up to extreme measures when she pulled the trigger on the abusive fuck.

No doubt she suffered from ''abused spouse syndrome'' and felt she could not remove herself from the relationship,therefore she removed him from her life with the only means she knew how.

In Closing: Abusive fucks like J.T. deserve to be shot IMO. If I had been on the jury it would have been hopelessly hung up. There's no way I could vote to send her to prison for one day for ridding the world of a worthless POS.

Not saying what she done was right.....................but I understand.