I think people are misunderstanding how the crime of passion theory is generally used in law. There has been a worldwide sense that "domestic crimes" involving ones children or romantic partners are less horrible than others. There has been an historical, international attitude that when it comes to matters of love, people sometimes can't control themselves. This has been reflected in laws around the world. For example, in Brazil, Domestic violence complaints used to be put on the back burner indefinitely and never prosecuted. And, penalties for beating your spouse to death were much less than assaults on strangers. (In fact, I think men used to get away with it entirely, IIRC).
I am 100% seeing that attitude here. He made her jealous and angry and that's somehow inherently understandable, so her crime is not as bad as say, the same crime committed by a stranger. I guarantee that had a stranger broken in and butchered Travis that way, many many more would feel this is a death penalty worthy case.
But crime of passion in a legal sense does not mean intimate partner, jealousy murder. That's a misconception. It basically refers to second degree or unpremeditated sudden rage killings that occur because someone's passions were SUDDENLY aroused.
Typically, such murders can involve lots of blood and overkill. Which may be another reason for some of the confusion here. But in this case, the gun stuff evidences premeditation so a crime of passion theory would not apply.
Don't misunderstand me. He did not deserve to die no matter
what he did but I think that it has become easier for people to
paint the victim as completely innocent of anything. It all has to be in black and white. Innocent church boy killed by slutty psychopath.
My point is that even if he raped her it would not be justification
for his murder, so why are people so eager to imply that he was
not responsible at all for the sexual relationship.
Speaking of the double standards, lets reverse the roles as you mentioned,
if a young woman was being stalked, had someone slashing her tires and sneaking into her home and that woman was having sex with this stalker, how would you respond? Why is it different ? because he's a man so he's not supposed to have control of his penis.
He even told a friend that "it's hard to say no to a woman that sneaks into your house, crawls in your bed and tries to, you know, seduce you." If a woman said that, how would you feel about it? Now what if that woman never called the cops or filed a police report but just continued a sexual relationship with him?
He did not have this coming. He did not deserve his murder.
However, I am more inclined to believe that he had
an image to protect, possibly even from himself. Actions speak louder than
words. He said he didn't want her and that she was stalking him and so on but did that stop him from having sex with her? He probably got off
on thinking she was aand he could just use her. Isn't that what
Many women are ignorant to the fact that sex doesn't equal love.
He may not have ever said to her that he loved her or wanted to be with her
but having sex with her could have been read that way by many women.
Jodi clearly killed him and she is obviously a liar but she did not force him to
have sex. He was an adult with fully functional right and left hands which I am sure is frowned on but it's not as bad as real sex.
The continued use of the word "innocent" belies the protestations from those criticizing Travis, that he didn't deserve it or bring it on himself.
Again, with perhaps one exception, no one is saying Travis was perfect, or a choir boy or a faultless sweetheart. But he sure as heck was innocent. He did nothing to bring on this crime except to reject a psychopath.
And if those who keep asserting that, while they feel Travis is being whitewashed and was a user (or sociopath even, for goodness sake), truly believe he did not deserve or cause his own murder due to his bad behavior, then why mention it at all? What's the purpose of speaking ill of the dead? In this case, only one purpose, IMO.
As to what we would think of a female victim in this scenario who kept having sex with her stalker, we would probably assume she was totally fearful, forced or crazy. Why the difference? Because it is a biological fact that men view sex differently than women and are motivated to have it for vastly different reasons. Women see it, generally, (and biologically or instinctively) as a bonding mechanism and a way to secure a monogamous mate while men's primary biological motivator is to propagate the species by spreading their seeds as far and wide as possible.
Thus, men are more able to divorce emotion from sex and tend to be able to engage in more risky behaviors to get it.
As to your assertion that those of us who fail to see Travis as a user are of that mind because we believe men can't control themselves, nonsense. Clearly, they can. It was Travis' weakness and huge error in judgment for choosing not to say no. But that weakness and error in judgment is a far difference from being a user - again, he did not pursue her or lie to her or make false promises in order to have sex with her- and IMO, those who fail to see the difference are blaming Travis, albeit some subconciously, for his own death.
Hence, perhaps, the attitude that this gruesome murder is just not as bad as others and should not be subject to the ultimate penalties.
Please don't apologize! Thank you so much. You are the best!!!!
