Victoria Law is a longtime prison activist and the author of the 2009 book, “Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women” (PM Press). Law’s essay “Sick of the Abuse: Feminist Responses to Sexual Assault, Battering, and Self Defense,” is featured in the new book, entitled “The Hidden 1970s: Histories of Radicalism,” edited by Dan Berger.
In this interview, Law discusses her new article, which provides a history of radical feminist resistance to the criminalization of women who have defended themselves from gender violence. Furthermore, Law presents a prison abolitionist critique of how the mainstream women’s movement has embraced the US criminal justice system as a solution for combating violence against women.
Angola 3 News: In your essay “Sick of the Abuse,” you write that “a woman’s right to defend herself and her children from assault became a feminist rallying point throughout the 1970s.” You focus on the four separate stories of Yvonne Wanrow, Inez Garcia, Joan Little and Dessie Woods. All four women were arrested after acting in self-defense, and their cases received national attention with the support of the radical women’s movement. Can you briefly explain their cases and why they were so important for the women’s liberation movement of the 1970s?
Victoria Law: Yvonne Wanrow was an American Indian mother of two living in Washington State in the 1970s. In 1972, her 11-year-old son was grabbed from his bike by William Wesler, a known child molester. Wanrow’s son escaped and fled to the house of a family friend named Shirley Hooper, whose seven-year-old daughter had been raped by Wesler earlier that year. When Hooper called the police, they refused to arrest Wesler.
Understandably shaken, Hooper called Yvonne Wanrow and asked her to spend the night. Wanrow, who was five feet, four inches tall and had recently broken her leg, brought her gun. At five in the morning, Wesler came to the house. When he refused to leave, Wanrow went to the front door to yell for help. She turned around to find Wesler, who, at six foot two, was towering over her. She shot and killed him.
At her first trial, the judge instructed the jury only to consider what had happened at or immediately before the killing. This omitted: one, Wesler’s record as a sex offender; two, Wesler’s assault on Hooper’s seven-year-old; and three, his attempted assault on Yvonne’s son.
Wanrow was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years.
However, various groups and people involved in the women’s movement and the American Indian movement had taken up her cause. They recognized that a woman had the right to defend herself and her family from assault. They held events that raised awareness, educated people and tied her case into issues of violence against women and the systemic violence against Native people in the US. They also raised funds for her legal defense, which enabled her to have a better defense than she might have been afforded otherwise.
As a result, in 1977, the Washington State Supreme Court granted her a new trial, partially on the basis that the jury should have considered all relevant facts when considering self-defense. At her new trial in 1979, Wanrow pled guilty to reduced charges and received a suspended sentence: five years’ probation and one year of community service. The court decision also established that women’s lack of access to self-defense training and to the “skills necessary to effectively repel a male assailant without resorting to the use of deadly weapons” made their circumstances different from those of men.
Two years later, in 1974, Inez Garcia shot and killed the man who had blocked her escape from rape. She was arrested and charged with first degree, or premeditated, murder. Like Wanrow, her cause was taken up by the women’s movement, which organized teach-ins and fundraisers and galvanized popular support, with the recognition that women had the right to defend themselves against rape.
During her first trial, the judge did not allow testimony about the rape as part of the evidence. After her conviction, the women’s movement continued to rally on her behalf and hired feminist attorney Susan Jordan to take over her defense.
Two years later, an appeals court reversed her conviction because the trial judge had instructed the jury not to consider the rape.
During the retrial, Susan Jordan challenged potential jurors about their preconceptions of rape, making the assault an integral part of the case from the beginning. Garcia was acquitted. The entire jury agreed that the rape and the threat of further harm were adequate provocation for Garcia’s action.
That same year, Joan Little, a Black woman and the only female prisoner in North Carolina’s Beaufort County Jail, killed Clarence Alligood, a sixty-two-year-old white male guard, after he had entered her cell, threatened her with an ice pick and forced her to perform oral sex. Little was charged with first-degree murder which, in North Carolina, carried a mandatory death sentence.
Again, there was a huge outpouring of support from various movements, including people and groups in the women’s liberation and Black Liberation movements, as well as more mainstream groups. During her trial, Little’s defense exposed the chronic sexual abuse and harassment endured by women in the jail and prison system. Countering the prosecution’s argument that Little had enticed Alligood into her cell with promises of sex, the defense team called on women who had previously been held at the jail. They testified that Alligood had a history of sexually abusing women in his custody.
Little herself testified about Alligood’s assault. After seventy-eight minutes of deliberation, a jury acquitted Little, establishing a precedent for killing as a justified self-defense against rape.
Dessie Woods was a Black woman in Georgia who shot and killed a man who tried to rape her and her friend while they were hitchhiking. She was sentenced to 22 years. Black nationalist women took up the case of Dessie Woods, framing it as a case of colonial violence. Radical [White] feminists also took up her cause and used it as a way to challenge White feminists to examine not only sexism and patriarchy but also racism and colonialism.
However, unlike the cases of Little, Wanrow and Garcia, the larger White feminist movements did not rally to Woods’ cause.
Even though she did not have the massive outpouring of support that the other three women received, the prolonged support that she did have eventually won Woods her freedom in July 1981. A lawyer from the People’s Law Center challenged the use of circumstantial evidence and the use of a special prosecutor [hired by the dead man’s family]. The US Court of Appeals determined that there had been insufficient evidence to convict and imprison her.
The first three cases were groundbreaking in that they established legal precedents stating that women had a right to defend themselves (and their children) from sexual assault. In the case of Inez Garcia, her lawyer, Susan Jordan, extended the legal interpretation of “imminent danger” beyond the immediate time period, thus laying the groundwork for battered women’s defense – that a woman who kills her abuser is acting in self-defense even if she is not under attack at that time.
A3N: What impact did activism have in these four cases?
VL: The activism and organizing around those four cases enabled the women to have better legal defenses than they would have otherwise been afforded. For example, $250,000 was raised for Joan Little’s defense. Almost $39,000 was spent on social scientists, who devised an “attitude profile survey” designed to detect patterns of [racial] prejudice. The defense used their findings to win a change of venue from conservative and racist Beaufort County to Raleigh, which was key in Little’s acquittal. Without the money garnered by supporters, Joan Little, a poor Black woman, would never have been able to have that kind of legal support. Instead, she would have been convicted and executed.
A3N: How are things different today, in 2010?
VL: We don’t see the same outpouring of support for women arrested for self-defense today. We can look at the case of the New Jersey Four, who are four Black lesbians arrested and incarcerated for defending themselves against a homophobic attack on the street. Their case has garnered support from groups working around incarcerated women’s issues and queer issues, but it hasn’t been taken up as widely as, say, the case of Joan Little, or even the case of Dessie Woods. Women who are incarcerated for defending themselves against partner violence receive even less public attention and support.
A3N: Shifting our focus to the issue of domestic violence, you write that the early women’s shelters formed by the radical women’s movement in the 1970s “utilized the self-help methods, egalitarian philosophies, and collective structures that had developed within the women’s liberation movement, striving to be democratic alternatives in which women had the space to safely communicate, share experiences, examine the root causes of the violence against them, and begin to articulate a response. However, these efforts received nowhere near the amount of attention, publicity, and support that the women’s movement paid to Wanrow, Garcia, Little, and Woods.”
Why do you think these projects, as well as court cases where women defended themselves from intimates, did not receive the attention they deserved?
VL: Then and now, people saw battering as a quote unquote “personal” issue and were reluctant to get involved. Some felt that marriage, or partnership, somehow condoned abuse. Others felt that this was not an issue that a movement could be built on. Perhaps it was also recognized that the issue could divide a movement. After all, when reading histories of revolutionary groups during the 1960s and 1970s, we see that abuse and misogyny often went unaddressed.
A3N: What did these radical activists identify as the “root causes” of violence against women? What is your personal opinion regarding these root causes?
VL: Radical activists identified society’s misogyny and patriarchy as root causes of violence against women. They pointed out that women are most often the ones who are attacked and abused because they are often the ones with less power, both physically and in terms of resources.
I strongly agree with this analysis and feel that only when we radically transform societal attitudes around gender and power will we be able to have a world without gendered violence.
A3N: The number of battered women’s shelters grew – by 1982, there were an estimated 300 to 700 shelters nationally – but you write that “the increased interest in the issue by those who did not identify with the women’s liberation movement resulted in a watering down of the radical feminist analyses that led to the first refuges for battered women. These emerging institutions emphasized providing services without analyzing the political context in which abuse occurred. There was a shift from calling for broad social transformation to focusing on individual problems and demanding greater state intervention.”
How do you think this watering down and shift towards greater state intervention has since played out in later decades, leading up to today?
VL: Today, abuse is treated as an individual pathology rather than a broader social issue rooted in centuries of patriarchy and misogyny. Viewing abuse as an individual problem has meant that the solution becomes intervening in and punishing individual abusers without looking at the overall conditions that allow abuse to go unchallenged and also allows the state to begin to co-opt concerns about gendered violence.
For example, 29 states have some form of mandatory arrest policy in a DV [domestic violence] call. There is also the possibility of dual arrests, in which both parties are arrested. In addition, many states now have “no-drop prosecution” in which the district attorney subpoenas the battered spouse to testify with threats of prosecution if she recants or refuses.
The shift towards greater state intervention has also resulted in resources such as battered women’s shelters mirroring some of these same abusive practices, such as isolating the survivor. It also ignores ways in which the state inflicts violence upon women. I would greatly recommend the INCITE! anthology, entitled “The Color of Violence,” which explores various aspects of violence against women.
A3N: If you were dialoguing with those sectors of today’s anti-violence movement that embrace the criminalization approach, what are the key points you would make in arguing that prisons are not the answer? What do you think is the best way to reduce and prevent violence against women both inside and outside prisons?
VL: The threat of imprisonment does not deter abuse; it simply drives it further underground. Remember that there are many forms of abuse and violence, and not all are illegal. It also sets up a false dichotomy in which the survivor has to choose between personal safety and criminalizing and/or imprisoning a loved one.
Arrest and imprisonment does not reduce, let alone prevent, violence. Building structures and networks to address the lack of options and resources available to women is more effective. Challenging patriarchy and male supremacy is a much more effective solution, although it is not one that funders and the state want to see.
A3N: Can you please tell us about recent cases of women who are facing charges or have been wrongly convicted for defending themselves?
VL: There’s the case of the New Jersey Four, whom I mentioned earlier.
There’s also Sara Kruzan, a 31-year-old woman incarcerated at the California Institution for Women. When Sara was 11, she met a 31-year-old man named G.G. who molested her and began grooming her to become a prostitute. By the age of 13, she began working as a child prostitute for G.G. and was repeatedly molested by him. At age 16, Sara was convicted of killing him. She was sentenced to prison for the rest of her life, despite her background and a finding by the California Youth Authority that she was amendable to treatment offered in the juvenile system.
There’s been a letter-writing campaign to the governor urging clemency. Sara is also up for resentencing and needs letters of support. The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth and the California Coalition for Women Prisoners (CCWP) are working on publicizing and garnering support for her case. However, we’re not seeing a fraction of the support from women’s or other non-prison groups that the cases of Wanrow, Garcia and Little received in the 1970s, even though you would think that her story would provoke widespread outrage and calls for release.
I recently received an email from CCWP about Mary Shields, a domestic violence survivor incarcerated for nineteen years on a seven-to-life sentence for attempted murder. This past September, Mary was found suitable for release by the Board of Parole Hearings. In 2006, the parole board had also found Mary “suitable for release,” but rescinded its decision after Governor Schwarzenegger recommended against release. This time around, the governor has until January, when his term will be up, to either let the Board’s decision stand or recommend that it be reversed. So CCWP is calling for people to send letters supporting Mary’s release.
A3N: Anything else to add?
VL: I want to remind readers that if we’re not coming up with solutions to gender violence, then the fallback becomes relying on prisons and policing to keep women and other vulnerable people safe. It is also imperative to support women incarcerated for killing their abusers, as well as to support battered women on the outside and to remember that abuse isolates people.
We should be working to end violence against women without strengthening government control over women’s lives or promoting incarceration as a solution to social problems.