Abolish archaic defence

A MAN’S MENTAL health is more important than a woman’s life.

That, in a way, is the chilling signal sent by the outcome of a years-long case involving an individual who killed his wife in cold blood in front of her nine-year-old son and 12-year-old daughter in 2012, which concluded before Justice Hayden St Clair-Douglas on March 12.

Days after the world observed International Women’s Day, Roger Sewlal was allowed to plead guilty to the manslaughter of his wife Shanti, 31, based on the invocation of the so-called provocation defence.

His lawyers said he lost self-control on learning of her infidelity. It was suggested he suffered from post-infidelity stress disorder.

As a result, Mr Sewlal will serve three more years in prison after receiving a sentence that began at 20 years. That 20-year sentence was discounted because of his opting to plead guilty and because he had already spent a decade in jail.

But if ever there was a case that shows why the provocation defence must be curtailed, it is this one.

No question is raised here as to the conduct of the judge in this matter, or the prosecutors or any of the lawyers. They all impartially applied the law as it currently stands to the facts.

However, those facts are so damning as to demand a reconsideration of the legal provisions which facilitate this kind of plea dealing.

According to the evidence, things between Mr Sewlal and his wife had already broken down when the killing happened on October 1, 2012.

He breached a protection order, entered her home, locked her in a room, held her down and stabbed her as she and her children screamed. He left her wounded at the scene and fled. He then evaded police for two years before being captured.

“Men’s mental health continues to face social stigmas and other barriers to adequate treatment,” the man’s lawyers told the court. “Infidelity and its psychological impact have notably been considered as an issue which leads to the deterioration of one’s mental health.”

We agree mental health and the surrounding taboos are relevant factors.

But there is a difference between, say, outright insanity and post-infidelity stress disorder.

As a matter of public policy, what is to stop people from using “horn” as a pretext for murder?

And what about the mental health of women?

Their grieving children?

While men face “stigma,” women face death.

In recent days, the PNM and UNC have sparred over whether there should be changes to social media to protect females.

But there are far more fundamental issues crying out for reform. The anachronism of the provocation defence is prime among them. It should be abolished.

The post Abolish archaic defence appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.