Abuse vs. Self-Defense as Murder Justification
- WULR Team
- Nov 13, 2024
- 8 min read
Imperfect self-defense and the Menendez Brothers
Published November 13 2024
Analysis by Elena Cuille
Justification is the foundation of law. Trials have always had two polar outcomes: guilty or innocent, and if a verdict cannot be reached, a mistrial is declared until one of the two outcomes is reached. Law is a black-and-white arena, even when the case appears gray. Self-defense cases, on the other hand, are controversial because there is often no obvious verdict. Was violence warranted? Was the act reasonable? Where is the proof that harm was inevitable? In my opinion, the term “self-defense” has become outdated, as it fails to encompass all testimonies and extenuating circumstances.
Important distinctions are made between what qualifies as self-defense: one may act “perfectly” or “imperfectly.” Perfect self-defense is “the use of force to protect oneself, family, or property from a real or threatened attack. It is considered perfect when the force used is necessary and reasonable to repel the attack.”(1) This form of self-defense is a citizen’s legal right, meaning it is completely justified under the law and is not deemed a crime. Imperfect self-defense is limited to murder and attempted murder charges only. It is applicable when “a defendant kills someone pursuant to an actual, but unreasonable belief that there was an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury, or deadly force was necessary to stop a threat.”(2) Proving a defendant’s fear, intent, and beliefs at the time a crime was committed is what makes these self-defense cases so difficult to win. However, what if this fear, intent, and belief were building up over time? What if it was not a split-second decision out of panic to defend oneself, but based on long-term patterns of abuse and assault? Could this still count as perfect or imperfect self-defense or does it walk the fine line of premeditation? Should justification, because of abuse, be its separate legal defense?
One case, specifically, has swept the nation in recent years over all media platforms, news sources, and mainstream television: the case of the Menendez brothers. The controversial case deals with two brothers, Lyle and Erik Menendez, who murdered their parents after allegedly being sexually, verbally, and physically abused by their parents since the age of six (3). The case was unique because it was not putting into question whether or not they murdered their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, but rather whether the plea of imperfect self-defense was strong enough to qualify them for manslaughter over first-degree murder. The original stance of the defense emphasized the father’s abuse of his sons throughout their lives, especially Erik’s. However, the judge elucidated to Erik’s lawyer, Leslie Abramson, that abuse was not a legitimate defense, and they must argue an admissible defense. Abramson then decided to continue to stress the abuse the brothers endured, while shifting the narrative to claim imperfect self-defense. Her new tactic was to argue that Erik and Lyle truly believed the abuse would soon lead to their demise at the hands of their parents.
For some context, Lyle was the first to be molested by his father, José. Due to being eight years old at the time, Lyle was confused about what was being done to him; too young to understand he was being sexually abused and this was not normal behavior between father and son. Because of this, Lyle would mimic the motions his father used on him onto Erik. At the age of eight, Lyle confessed to his father he was not enjoying their “special time” together, and wished to stop. José Menendez agreed, then immediately switched the burden onto Erik, without Lyle’s knowledge. The abuse worsened with Erik, starting at the age of six and continuing through the age of eighteen, shortly before the murders (4). Kitty Menendez was not innocent in this tragic story of abuse either; she knew what was being done to her sons the entire time, and did nothing to protect them or stop José. She often added to the emotional abuse Lyle and Erik endured, saying she wished they had never been born, threatening suicide, and telling them their father had a right to abuse them because they had to be punished somehow. The final straw was, seemingly, when José made clear to Erik he would not be allowed to move far from the Princeton family to attend Stanford. In Erik’s mind, José was telling him how he would never escape the life he was living. Erik would live at home, attend university minutes away, like Lyle, and endure unwanted abuse from his father for decades to come. This harsh realization inevitably caused a breaking point. Should it have led to a double homicide? No, but power is an evil force. Not only was José Menendez an incestual, rapist, and pedophile, but he was also an incredibly intelligent, wealthy, and powerful figure. He had Princeton, New Jersey, and Beverly Hills, California, in his hand, and could make any accusations Lyle and Erik brought forward “disappear.” There was no hope or light for the brothers at the end of the tunnel.
Abuse trains the human mind, especially children, that victims are deserving of this abuse and it is normal. When the victim inevitably realizes they do not want it to happen anymore, they feel entrapped. Perhaps this is why instead of Erik and Lyle’s first thought being more logical and grounded, like running away from José and Kitty, they jumped straight to murder. These years of mental abuse combined with an inferiority complex toward their all-mighty father, one can see how escape seemed impossible. Furthermore, José Menendez made it crystal clear to Erik that if he were to tell a soul about what they were doing together, he would kill him. He used weapons like knives in the bedroom to plant this image in Erik’s brain; so much so that he could not even confide in his brother until weeks before the murder. Surely, it is not unreasonable that a boy who had a father hold a knife up to him in the bedroom repeatedly would want to retaliate once he grew up. José made Erik repeat back to him that he would be killed if he told anyone, so he could never forget. If Erik had already been exposed to violence and trauma throughout the past twelve years of his life at the hands of his father, the man who is supposed to raise, protect, and love him, then what reason did Erik have to dismiss José’s threats? Erik’s father provided him with a pattern that gave no room for Erik to not take him seriously.
Imperfect self-defense is a verdict that would have allowed the brothers to be punished and pay retribution, without being overly penalized for their act of retaliation. The Menendez brothers had to prove they believed they were in “immediate danger of death, serious injury, rape, or being the victim of another severe crime.” The trickiest part of this statement is the word “immediate.” Though Erik and Lyle successfully proved that they were fearful of future rape or their deaths because of past abuse, they failed to prove there was an immediate threat, as José and Kitty Menendez were calmly watching television on the couch at the time of their demise. This important distinction was what caused a hung jury—when a jury is split and cannot reach a unanimous decision—because “while juries may have empathy with victims of abuse and a history of abuse may support a defendant’s belief that the abuser constituted an immediate threat, past abuse without the presence of an immediate threat of harm does not usually meet the legal definition of self-defense.”(5) The most interesting part of this hung jury is that it was split between women and men: the women wanting to charge the brothers with manslaughter and the men wanting to charge them with first-degree manslaughter with the possibility of the death penalty. This stark division can be attributed to the sympathy the women felt for the abused boys, whereas the men could not believe boys could be abused by another man, let alone how the abuse could last into their adult years. It seemed impossible, preposterous, and fabricated to these male jurors that little boys could be sexually assaulted. Blatant male ignorance is what lost Abramson, Lyle, and Erik in this case. The brothers should have been held responsible because murder should never be the answer in a democratic society, not because men refuse to believe that male-on-male sexual abuse exists.
Here are some pertinent statistics readers should keep in mind before the brothers’ retrial this upcoming November. First, “approximately one in six boys is sexually abused before the age of 16.” Though this number may seem high, it may be too low, because “boys are less likely than girls to report sexual abuse because of fear, the social stigma against homosexual behavior, the desire to appear self-reliant (boys grow up believing that they should not allow themselves to be harmed or talk about painful experiences), and the concern for the loss of independence.”(6) If the Menendez brothers could not get any men on the jury to believe their vulnerable story in a court of law with legal representation, what motivation did they have to ask for help earlier? Would anyone have believed them at the time, if they had turned to friends or extended family for help, or would they have been called liars or shamed for being gay? This split jury only reinforced the stigma causing boys, even today, to surrender to their abuse instead of coming forward.
In no way is murder a universally acceptable reaction to being abused. Should the Menendez brothers have found a different way to escape their parents? Yes, but they didn’t feel like they could escape any other way. From the very beginning of this trial back in 1990, Erik and Lyle were treated like zoo animals. Onlookers wanted to see this “perfect” family crumble through one of the first televised trials, filmed like a reality television series. This trial was always unusual, but it is vital to remember these were real children who endured real abuse. From this constant rape, violence, battery, and emotional trauma, the Menendez boys had no clear path. They had no parents with moral compasses to guide them; they were trapped and their actions reflected this lack of control. It is heartbreaking Erik claimed, in some ways, that prison life is easier to endure than his childhood home ever was. Murder is a horrible crime that in a perfect world would not exist. In my opinion, abuse should qualify as its own legal defense. This is not to say abuse will act as a justification—that is still up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. However, to act out of haste, anger, violence, and revenge is not incomprehensible when one is made to feel the twelve years of abuse they have put up with will never cease. Abuse is valid and should be able to stand alone as a legal testimony since it does not meet the more narrow criteria for “self-defense.” Abuse is a universally experienced form of torture, regardless of sex.
1.“Perfect Self-Defense,” LSData, accessed October 12, 2024.
2.Schwartzbach, Micah. “Imperfect Self-Defense.” Nolo. November 20, 2014.
3. Natalie Morales, “Menendez Brothers’ Claims of Abuse Supported by Newly Discovered (4)Letter, New Allegation. Will Their Convictions Stand?,” CBS News, October 8, 2024.
4. Tejada, Alicia. “Inside the Story of the Notorious Menendez Brothers Case.” CBS News, October 8, 2024.
5. Law Offices of Michael A. Scafiddi, INC, “Can Killing an Abuser Be Considered Self-Defense?,” Law Offices of Michael A. Scafiddi, INC, December 29, 2022.
6.“Fact Sheet: Sexual Abuse of Boys,” Fact Sheet: Sexual Abuse of Boys, accessed October 12, 2024.
Comments