The People Vs. Tare Nicolas Beltran Case Analysis

I found The People vs. Tare Nicolas Beltran case to be one of the most interesting cases we have seen so far, as it strikingly revealed how the law can be altered in a domestic setting. Indeed, I found it interesting to note that of the ten facts devised by the class, only the last two related to the act of murder. In effect, the first fact that Gaia listed, that the defendant and victim had a romantic relationship, serves as the backbone of the case, as it is why there is even the possibility of a more lenient sentence than murder. I found the notion of abortion as provocation quite troubling. Granted, an abortion may come as a severe shock for the defendant. However, the choice of having an abortion should be her own choice, and by no means
What I found most striking were the vastly different reasons why men and women claim provocation: defending their honor out of jealousy and rage as opposed to avoiding abuse out of fear, respectively. I realize that as a female, I am shocked by the judicial discourse on women’s propensity to “cause” male homicidal rage and men’s inability to control their anger, as it is fraught with sexist assumptions that support victim blaming. In my opinion, the notion of men becoming “slaves” to their emotions, under the thrall of a “passion” that dethrones their reason sounds overly Shakespearian. What I find most challenging is that the jurisprudence considers a woman’s autonomy - her drive for independence, self-respect, and security - as provocative insults, which call for compassion for the accused. It is because men believe that they have a right to appropriate a woman’s sexuality, labor, and love that these men became angry in the first place. By extension, “heat of passion” is seems like an excuse for crimes of violence against women, the attack being the final assertion of the man’s control over the
Marriage was traditionally an institution for economic stability for women and respectability and heirs for men, not love. Marriage ensured that reproduction, i.e. the only thing that could be controlled by women, given that babies grow within their own bodies, was kept firmly within the sphere of male control instead. I found Ms. Henderson’s anecdote on a former client who referred to the importance of the “mother’s bond” thought-provoking - the fact that women physically give birth and thus deemed responsible for the child means that they will always be economically subordinate to their husband, either working the “second shift” beyond family or financially dependent on their husband. Indeed, growing up as a girl, I have noticed the stigma attached to single women. If a woman does not conform to the institution of marriage, there is a propensity to conclude she must have shortcomings that have hindered her