@Ghingis Can,

I don't need to remind you that the UK laws discussed here cannot be used to acquit, simply to lessen the punishment; but this is not so important, because your concern, as I understand it, is that women already are misusing the existing laws and certainly will also misuse the new UK definitions.

You're probably thinking of abusive bitches like the one described here: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/dvblog/dv004.html . I'd certainly also be angry if this bitch -- should she ever actually kill her husband -- got any lenience from the courts via coaching from her lawyers and appeals to her 'female emotionality'. She may have problems and traumas in her past, but this is no excuse for the kind of abuse that she's subjected her innocent husband to.

But the problem is: not all women are like that. Not even all women who killed their husbands. I think you can agree with me that some -- not all, but some -- of them did suffer abuse from their husbands, sometimes even serious physical abuse (bruises, rapes, black eyes, etc.). Some of these may actually have reasonable cause to think that they are in danger of being killed themselves, sooner or later. Not all of them, but some of them.

The problem is: how do we tell them from the bad ones? How do we tell the abused women from the abusing bitches? This is necessary to be able to tell who gets to use the defense proposed in the UK law and who doesn't.

From your observations, I'd imagine you think the legal system in the UK (and in the US) is deeply flawed. Old stereotypes about poor abused women will prevent judges and juries them from identifying the abusive bitches, especially when the latter are well coached by their lawyers into pretending and saying whatever is necessary to win the case.

In fact, why do we have a law system at all -- when well-coached defendants and their wily lawyers can pretty much prove anything and get even the most absurd defenses accepted?

Well, if I thought so, I'd probably have to say we'd be better off with no laws at all. But I don't think so. I think judges and juries are also people, and that, even though they can sometimes be fooled, that doesn't always happens. Despite the shortcomings, it's still better to have a law system than to live under the law of the jungle.

Women apparently are often enough convicted of murdering their husbands -- at least, judging by the link (http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/mm/spring08/habeasproject/) that pickoffwhite mentioned in his/her post.

So I'd insist that the law system does work more often than not. And I'll add my hope that the wording of the UK law will be changed ('feeling wronged', as several male and female posters here have already said, is too vague and ambiguous) and that it will be used to screen out real victims of abuse from pretend ones. And I hope it will also be used by men who are victims of abuse from their wives -- like the abusing bitch mentioned in the link I gave at the beginning of this post. (After all, men can also get coached by their lawyers, can't they?)

Also, it would be good if you could cite the source of your claims that women are more likely to hit, to hit first, and to use a weapon, and not to be arrested when they hit first. Are there studies that show that? Are there studies that show how women get much lighter sentences than men? (I'm not necessarily doubting your claims, I just don't know much about the topic and don't know any studies about it.)

Hyblaean, I don't know any from personal experience; in fact, I don't have any experience with strippers and strip clubs (nothing against them, I'm just rather shy). But look at webcat above, whose first fiancée was a stripper to get money for her biochemistry doctorate and who now works for NASA -- I suspect she's not in the lower economic classes. He also mentions strippers with doctorates in astrophysics, and elementary school teachers. For those going to college, I suppose it's like being a waitress: perhaps for the time being they don't have that much money, but they're investing.

Another possible source of well-off strippers: check some of the more successful porn stars, who also sometimes dance. Some of them are quite rich, and they continue stripping and dancing for their fans instead of retiring. (Yes, I'm not against pornography; in fact, I quite support it. Hope that doesn't destroy my image :-).

I've just sent e-mails to the Iranian Judiciary and Department of State, as suggested in the original article to which Ms Harris posted a link. Horrible story, this one. I also think the guy who helped Najjim Kobra getting 100 lashes is ridiculous -- what the heck?! And in such a case?

Dear starfleet admiral, let me second Traduced!'s plea: give us links to the pages describing the crimes and punishments you mentioned, and I'll gladly go on sending more e-mails to Iran about them. Jee-zus, as Mr Slave (the South Park character) would have said...

The shariah is a harsh law. I don't know the reasoning behind it, and in fact I'm curious about it. Any Qu'ranic scholars around who might enlighten us as to the rationales involved?