המתת המתעלל: המתה בנסיבות של אחריות מופחתת, לפי סעיף 301ב(א) לחוק העונשין

Section 301B (a) of Amendment No. 137 (2019) of the Penal Code provides: “(a)Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 300 [murder] and 301A [aggravated murder],who intentionally or indifferently causes the death of a person and the act was done when the accused was in a state of mental distress due to severe and ongoing abuse of him or his family member, by the person whose death caused – the defendant to be sentenced to 15years imprisonment”. This is the mildest case of killing in mitigated liability, for which the maximum penalty is 15 years imprisonment instead of 20 years imprisonment for the other cases in this category. This provision regulates the case of the killing the abuser by the victim of the abuse or a member of his family, and we focus on the case where the battered woman is the victim. Although the provision does not explicitly states, the act of killing is required to be done under the influence of the same mental distress of the woman, caused following the.This essay examines the justification for this legal arrangement. We have chosen to discuss the more severe case of killing the abuser, where the killing caused with premeditation. This is a situation where the abusive husband has physical superiority over his battered wife and therefore she cannot defend herself during the abuse. For an attempt on her part to defend herself will lead to a harsh reaction and aggravate the abuse against her. In these circumstances, the wife nullifies the unfair advantage of her abusive husband,by “surprising” him, after the end of the last abuse event, for example in his sleep, while fulfilling the formal conditions of premeditation. This killing is done out of severe mental distress and under its influence, and it is done, for her, in a dilemma of choice, to prevent future abuse, and to rescue her, and sometimes her children, from humiliating and cruel and constant misery.When the autonomy of the perpetrator is significantly reduced, as happens to a battered woman due to her severe and ongoing abuse, the premeditation does not express complete alienation from the value of human life, and it loses its meaning as an aggravated element of culpability. The case of killing the abuser illustrates the need to restrict the element of premeditation as a severe and aggravated element of murder offense, and to recognize cases that do not reflect a particularly serious degree of guilt despite the existence of premeditation.However, in this case, it is not enough to reduce the degree of murder in aggravating circumstances to just murder. The severe and ongoing abuse of a woman and the mental distress it causes gives the deceased, due to this condition, a special and extraordinary character. The abuse is a crushing and deadly attack on the part of the abuser on the victim’s personality, on her soul, on her dignity and on her freedom – on her personality.The act of killing is, at least in her view, the only and last resort of salvation from a constant state of bondage and of danger to body and life, and therefore of saving life and soul. This nature of the act significantly reduces the wrongdoing of the act of killing andt he culpability of the battered women. As a result, it is a unique case even among the cases of killing with mitigated responsibility, which justifies special relief in punishment.