Lyn Lavallee Substance Abuse

There’s a point in many people’s lives where they cannot bear to live with the pain they suffer; doing anything to stop it. On the other hand, there are some people who take their decisions too far because of their suffering. Angelique Lyn Lavallee was a young woman in her early twenties who made a choice many women wouldn’t consider. Lavallee was in a relationship with her common law partner Kevin Rust, a twenty four year old male. Their relationship, instead of compassion, was filled with constant and various forms of abuse. The abuse of the relationship went on for a very long time. Lavallee was never able to defend herself. Rust was just way too strong for her to defeat, until the day she won. On October 31st, 1986, was the day Rust and

Lavallee hosted a party and Rust threatened her about the abuse she was going to get once everyone left. In this process, Rust also gave Lavallee a .303 calibre shotgun.

Lavallee was frightened, and did not know what would happen next. At that point Lavallee made the “kill or be killed” decision. Rust was leaving and Lavallee fired two shots, one did not hit him and the second shot hit Rust in the back of the head. Lavallee was then charged with second degree murder, but it was argued in her trial that she carried this out in self defense. Expert witness Dr. Fred Shane informed the court that Lavallee suffered from “Battered Wife Syndrome”; results from a woman who suffers emotional and physical from the abuse from their partners. Lavallee’s verdict at Manitoba’s Queen Bench was an acquittal. The decision was overturned by the Manitoba’s court of Appeals because they believed the expert testimony given by Dr. Fred Shane shouldn’t be admissible. The Supreme Court of Canada appealed this case again upholding the original verdict because without the expert testimony; it would be impossible for a jury to appreciate Lavallee’s position and mindset without understanding Battered Woman Syndrome (Lavallee Summary,

2014)

I firmly agree with the verdict in Lavallee’s case.

Lavallee was suffering from “Battered Wife Syndrome”. Lavallee was under pressure and feared that Rust was going to kill her that day. Rust abused Lavallee emotionally, sexually, mentally and physically; to her, there was no other option to stop him other than shooting him. John Stuart Mill and his theory of Utilitarianism, supports this. Mill says that “an action may maximize the good in the world and yet be unjust in the way in which it distributes it” (Perez & Moore 2013). Yes, Lavallee did shoot Rust in the back of the head but, Mill would say that her actions were good because Rust wasn’t a good person, he was the evil. Even though it may seem horrible for Lavallee to have shot Rust, Mill would say its right because it’s eliminating an evil. “The small action of doing good can create the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people1” (Perez & Moore 2013). More importantly, by Lavallee shooting Rust, he would not be able to abuse any other women like he did to Lavallee. Act Utilitarianism applies because Lavallee wanted individual happiness. John Stuart Mill says “solving a person’s immediate problem would be in the best interests of the community at large” (Perez & Moore 2013). By removing Rust from her life forever he would no longer be able to further cause pain, therefore bringing her

happiness.
Immanuel Kant’s theory on Ethical Formalism would oppose Utilitarianism. Kant says “that there should be equal treatment of similarly situated people” (Perez & Moore 2013). With the court acquitting the charges against Lavallee it would not be fair. What would happen to other women who also choose to kill their partners? Kant would not agree that they should all be acquitted for self-defense, and because of that it wouldn’t be fair if Lavallee was as well. No court could make the same verdict for all cases similar to Lavallee’s because it just simply wouldn’t be fair. The Kantian would have probably wanted Lavallee’s verdict to be the charge of second degree murder.
Both theorist John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant have very strong points relating to their theories of Utilitarianism and Ethical Formalism in regards to the verdict of the Lavallee case. Personally, I agree with the verdict because Lavallee did the best thing by eliminating the person who harmed her emotionally, mentally and physically. Lavallee was set free from a horrible relationship; freeing her from future strain. Although the Kantian would disagree with my perspective because the same outcome cannot be given to all in Lavallee’s position, Utilitarianism agrees with me because Rusts’ death was for Lavallee’s greater good.