Kiranjit Ahluwalia was born in a Punjabi-speaking Sikh family in Chak Kalla in Punjab, and was the last of 9 siblings. Her dad passed away a few months after her birth, while her mom passed away when she was 16. Kiranjit wanted to become a lawyer, but she had an arranged marriage to Deepak Ahluwalia of London, England, who lived with his mom. She had hoped to continue her education, but was prevented by Deepak, who became increasingly alcoholic, and abusive - both physically and verbally, even sexually molesting her, and having multiple relationships with other females. Things only got worse even after the birth of two sons, Sandeep and Rajeev. After all the abuse, she couldn’t take it anymore and set Deepak on fire. On May 9, 1989 the Police and Fire Department were summoned to their residence on reports of Deepak sustaining numerous burns as a result of a fire. A hospitalized Deepak then complains that Kiranjit attempted to kill him by setting his bed afire. As a result Kiranjit is arrested, tried in Court, and would have likely got a prison sentence for manslaughter - which was changed to murder - as Deepak dies. After a quick trial, she is found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.
My opinion on this case is that she should not have been put in prison as due to the abuse she received, she was not in the right frame of mind and therefore did not have total control over her actions. Even though the chain of events was not straight after each other due to Kiranjit Ahluwalia not retaliating straight away, and also leaving the house before setting Deepak on fire, I think that all she had suffered should have been taken into consideration and diminished responsibility should have been applied and that her lawyer should have taken more interest in the case. If the lawyer had taken more of an interest in the case, the fact that diminished responsibility could be applied would have been found out. She did not mean to kill him; just to save herself and the children from him.
In “life term for a drunken rage murder (2009)”, Arthur Pitt-Pladdy had intended to kill Kim Butler as he had stabbed her 177 times. He had also allowed himself to be in such a state by drinking so much alcohol and drugs that he could be in the “drunken rage”. The jury found him guilty even though he denied it therefore he was sent to prison for at least 18 years and was treated as he deserved. I think it was right that he was sent to prison as he brutally killed her.
In “Man jailed for strangling Ex-wife (2006)”, Colin John Noddings had strangled his ex-wife and was found guilty of manslaughter. However, due to her having had an affair he was treated with sympathy and was cleared on the grounds of provocation. I think that he should have been sent to prison as a lot of people have affairs but it doesn’t mean their partners should kill them. By allowing him to get cleared, he could use the same claim to get away with killing more people.
In “Woman who killed violent partner gets probation (1997)”, Diana Butler had stabbed her partner while he was attacking her and was originally convicted or murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. She had appealed against her conviction but it was quashed. During a retrial her plea of guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility was accepted by the prosecution. She had to fight for her right to diminished responsibility. I think that if she was being attacked and she only stabbed her partner in self defence then she did have a right to diminished responsibility and should have been allowed her conviction in the first place. This is similar in a way to Kiranjit Ahluealia’s case with her having to fight for the right to diminished responsibility.
In “Lady Jane’s fail to save her from jail for murder (2001)”, Jane Andrews had driven an 8 inch kitchen knife into Tom Cressman after hitting him on the head with a cricket bat and then went on the run. She was sentenced to life in prison after the jury rejected her claim that she was tied up and raped by her boyfriend Tom. Jane Andrews claimed she had been raped and sexually abused during their relationship however she was still sent to jail. I think that with her running away, it makes her seem guiltier; however it could be a sign that she can’t cope with life any more. By texting everyone it doesn’t seem like something a normal person would do if they were in hiding therefore I think her mental health may not have been right.
It is said that between 10-20% of people think domestic violence towards women is acceptable in some way in response to “nagging”, flirting with other men, dressing in ‘sexy’ clothes in public, and not “treating him with respect”. From looking at a table stating people’s opinions on domestic violence, most people say it is not acceptable, however around 100 men a year kill their former or current partners, and provocation - such as failing to cook a meal, or persistent nagging - is the main form of defence used by barristers. On the site the table is on, a lot of people have commented on how they think domestic violence is wrong, but the posts are all or mostly from females. This suggests to me that females could be more against it or at least react to it in horror. Also, men are naturally more violent in general than women.
In conclusion, I think that overall it depends on the circumstances. If someone was abused a lot to an extent that it can be proven that their mental state has been damaged then I think that diminished responsibility is right to be used. However, it should only be if there is proof as things such as someone cheated on them should not allow provocation to clear them.
