Culture » December 7, 2005

Bad Girls

By Silja J.A. Talvi

From top left to right, women who "snapped": Manuela Garcia, Jeen Han, Mary Thompson, Dora Cisneros, Linda Lou Charbonneau, Donna Yaklich

The typical American female TV criminal is nasty, cutthroat, cunning, duplicitous and sexy to boot. Oxygen, a women-oriented cable channel, hypes its popular “Snapped” series this way: “From millionaire brides with everything to lose, to small-town sweethearts who should simply know better, these shocking but true stories turn common assumptions about crime and criminals upside down.”

The show promises to reveal that there is “something far more sinister to the fairer sex than ‘sugar and spice and everything nice.’” As proof, “Snapped” offers up Carolyn Warmus, the daughter of a self-made millionaire. “To put it simply,” Carolyn, a “young temptress” with “blond hair, a voluptuous figure, and sassy personality, got what Carolyn wanted, including men.”

As temptresses do, Carolyn began an affair with a married man. Then “the sexy nymphet … turned her charms on [a] private dick,” who eventually provided her with a silencer-enabled gun.

One dead wife-of-her-lover later, Carolyn Warmus finds herself on trial, “dressed to kill … arriving every day in very short, very tight miniskirts and designer clothes. With her striking good looks, expensive outfits, and murderous persona, Warmus was the embodiment of the ‘femme fatal’: a sexy, dangerous blond bombshell that seemed to step right out of the hardboiled detective films and pulp novels of the ’40s.”

Words that could have been lifted out those colorful paperbacks—this is what passes as entertainment for women?

Other outlets have also joined the fun. E! Entertainment Television’s series, asks viewers to contemplate: “How does a match made in heaven turn into hell on earth?”

In response, E! offers “True Hollywood Stories: Women Who Kill,” in which audiences are introduced to Margaret Rudin, “a gold digger with a dark side,” and Kristin Rossum, who is presumed to have killed her mate “because she had a handsome lover on the side.”

Deeper motives

Are there cunning, narcissistic women who would kill for thrill or profit? Sure. Why not? Someone’s gender doesn’t ascribe ethical character traits, no matter how much essentialist thinkers would like to think otherwise. But the fact is that cold-hearted women who are simply out for themselves are a tiny minority of women doing time for murder—or any other crime.

When women kill their mates, such acts are usually in self-defense—or as a result of longstanding physical and emotional abuse. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), at least half of all women in prison, including those jailed for nonviolent offences, were abused by spouses before their incarceration.

Unfortunately, even strong evidence of being battered doesn’t do much to help tip the scales of justice in women’s favor. According to Harvard University domestic violence researcher Angela Browne, women who kill men in self-defense—and where there is evidence of severe assault prior to the killing—are acquitted only 25 percent of the time.

On top of this, women who are charged with the murder of their partners have the least extensive criminal records of any group of convicted offenders. Yet the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that the average prison sentence of men who kill their female partners ranges from two to six years, while women who kill their partners are sentenced to an average of 15 years. In states ranging from Florida to South Carolina, many are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole.

In 1993 an Ohio-based research team studying the motivations for murder in intimate relationships found that 82 percent of men in custody who killed female partners or wives did so because they were motivated by “possessiveness,” whereas 83 percent of women in custody described their motivation for murder as “self-defense.”

On programs about women in prison, even the act of self-protection is subject to sensationalizing. Here’s how the producers of “Snapped” pretend to confide in their viewers: “Let’s be honest, we’ve all had at least one moment in which we felt as though we could snap. Even if you’re in the ‘perfect relationship,’ chances are, you’ve probably said (or even just fleetingly thought), ‘I’m going to kill my husband!’ So what separates those of us who do, from those who don’t?”

In one case, “Snapped” did bring viewers a case that reflected the most common reason women kill their partners.

As we learn, Kimberley Kondejewski of Brandon, Manitoba, put up with serious abuse for no less than 17 years from a controlling husband with whom she had two children. When her husband, a military instructor, went so far as to demand that she commit suicide so he could collect the insurance money (with the threat of doing the deed himself and taking out the children in the process), “the meek housewife put a quick and final end to his cruelty.”

Kimberely shot her husband, and then turned the gun on herself. But she didn’t die. Charged with murder shortly thereafter, Kimberely told her story to a jury. That jury, in turn, found that she was not guilty of the charge and sent her home to put her life back together with her children.

Ah, justice.

Ah, Canada.

American justice

It’s rare to see this kind of justice in the United States, where women like Flozelle Woodmore still sit in prison.

Woodmore was 13 years old when she began a relationship with a boyfriend who would end up beating, sexually assaulting and stalking her. Impregnated for the first time at 15, Woodmore was an overwhelmed and severely abused minor without the ability to seek a restraining order—or the know-how to extricate herself from the situation. When she was 18, Woodmore killed her boyfriend, her first and only criminal offense. Information about the abuse was never admitted into court testimony. Woodmore thought she was doing the right thing when she pled guilty, and received a 15-to-life indeterminate sentence. While in prison, Woodmore has become a ‘model prisoner,’ staying clear of infractions, becoming president of an Alcoholics Anonymous group, and earning her G.E.D. Although Woodmore is supported in her plea for parole by the victim’s family, the sentencing judge, and every member of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus, her recommended parole has been denied by a California governor no less than four times.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  TV programs such as the “Snapped” series are both annoying and worrisome, because they trivialize the crimes and the criminals. How would women feel about a series focusing on male women-killers depicted as lovable rogues?

  And please spare us the statistics about women being abuse victims before they turn murderous. Such women almost invariably claim abuse, which can be defined in myriad ways, and abuse does not justify murder unless it’s immediately life-threatening.

  The women inmates are correct in complaining about “Snapped” and demanding more thorough and realistic depictions of females behind bars. More power to them.

  Posted by A.A. Murphy on Dec 7, 2005 at 7:55 AM

  abuse does not justify murder unless it’s immediately life-threatening.

  A.A., I think that is fairly uncontroversial.  What is your opinion of the idea that abuse may be a contributing factor in the cause of violent behavior?  Isn’t that a more important question in attempting to deal with the social phenomenon of violence than mere assigning personal responsibility in any given individual case?  In the interests of rehabilitation?

  Posted by luminous beauty on Dec 7, 2005 at 1:15 PM

  Sure, abuse can be a mitigating factor, especially if the victim is isolated and can’t get help. But I’m weary of hearing it used as an excuse for shooting one’s sleeping husband when the woman had ample opportunity previously to exit the situation or contact authorities.

  The entire women-can-do-no-wrong vibe that permeates these discussions grows tiresome after a while. Women can and often do commit crimes for little or no provocation, just like the fellas. Let’s get past the wounded-fawn posturing and focus on dealing with the many inequities women face in the system.

  Posted by A.A. Murphy on Dec 7, 2005 at 2:19 PM

  I’d be curious to know the ratings of “Bad Girls” compared to “Snapped”, as a function of market share. How does BBC determine its programming line-up and its renewal or cancellation of shows per season? I imagine there’s some sort of Nielsen-like rating process in the UK, although I couldn’t say for sure, but it would be interesting to know how much actual viewership each show gets as a function of straight-up appeal to the market. Does BBC govern its programming choices in a similar way as US networks, or is there some other kind of vetting process? Anyone out there know?

  As for “Snapped”, of course it’s sensationalized. That’s what the viewers want, apparently (and perhaps regrettably). What’s more interesting than sexiness? What’s more interesting than scandal, intrigue, ruthlessness? These are the features of soap opera dramas that last for decades, many of which have loyal viewers who tune in daily beginning when they’re teenagers and continuing into their middle age. Same for tabloid-style journalism. Publications that tickle the appetite for sensationalism enjoy sales that would put to shame the paid circulation of more serious-minded papers. Many people just want to be entertained, and don’t feel deprived if a show tickles their fancy while glossing over the more complex realities of prison life or any other aspect of life.

  It’s when factual, complex, deeper content can be made truly entertaining that we have a chance to get beyond simplistic titillation as the primary effect of viewing TV shows. But just pinning programming to fact or depth, without addressing the reasons why most people watch TV (to be entertained) is a failing strategy. Some people with a greater interest in depth and complexity rather than entertainment value will tune in, but they’re a minority faction within any TV or cable market you could name. In that kind of choice, again perhaps regrettably but still realistically, the shows that titillate will win out in the ratings game and get picked up next season, while the deeper, more intellectually stimulating shows that don’t intrigue the audience will be more likely to languish and die out.

  Probably the best fronts from which to address this challenge would be within the programming processes of the networks and in schools. If people are raised with informative, entertaining shows that really address the multi-faceted nature of its subject matter, and are trained in school to be thinkers instead of just passive consumers of canned info, the more intelligent programs will have a better chance. But they’ll still have to entertain. It’s the difference between the TV continuing to be the proverbial “idiot box” or becoming a portal to areas of knowledge, interest, AND enjoyment.

  Posted by Kuya on Dec 7, 2005 at 7:38 PM

  My best friend is in jail for killing an abusive husband that was sleeping.  Most of the situations that I have heard of in real life are not like what is on TV.  It is not unusual for this to happen.  There are many women that are in prison for killing an abuse partner.  These women are sentenced to longer prison terms and serve a higher My friend was abused for over twenty years.  She was tied up and tortured for hours.  He threatened to tie her up and make her watch while her family members were cut up in to little pieces.  She had no reason to doubt that he was capable of this.  It was her or him.  I am trying to get the Governor to grant her clemency.  I have had a local channel do a show on the news twice and have been contacted by Montel.  Abuse is a problem that is not prejudice.  It affects people in all walks of life.  Many times the abusers were abused themselves.  We need to break the pattern and teach young children to respect each other and that no one should treat another person abusively.  I am looking for any comments or advice.  I would like to get in touch with an advocacy group and begin to help in this cause.  Please let me know if you have any suggestions.

  Posted by ladydiver on Dec 8, 2005 at 5:43 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 16 posts.

Also featured Throw the Books at Them
The Trouble with French Identity
Cult of Ideology

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Silja J.A. Talvi

• All Work, No Play
  Vacation time shouldn't be the privilege of a few, but the right of all Posted on October 22, 2008
• Reporting From The Ground Up
  The power of street reportingPosted on June 28, 2008
• Seattle Battles the Homeless
  Underneath the I-5 highway in south Seattle, Isaac Palmer had found a… morePosted on March 27, 2008
• Women Behind Bars
  War on drugs leads to explosion of female incarcerations Posted on February 8, 2008
• Tupperware and Tasers
  The SUV-driving, stun-gun-wielding housewife is coming to a suburb near you. In… morePosted on January 25, 2008