Well, ladies and gentlemen, here it is, another case of a reason becoming an excuse. But this one has a twist. Here the prosecution is charged with actually betraying the public trust in even attempting to try a woman who violently removes a portion of her husband's genitals. In the mind of the defense it was ipso facto a case of self-defense. End of issue. How dare the state even consider trying this woman?
What is the simplest way to protect yourself from a violent person who's sleeping? Do you poke around in his crotch with a knife? No. You tip-toe far, far, far way.
And friends, this is where I ask myself "Am I crazy? Am I in the twilight zone?" What stuns me a bit about this whole approach is that it doesn't seem to occur to anybody that you can't do just anything you want to a person you perceive as a threat, even if the threat is a deadly one. Even the defense tries to argue that there was no real threat, that the motive for the attack wasn't self-defense but rather jealousy or anger. My response is to concede, for the sake of argument, that there was a real threat to the lives of these women in these cases. Let's just concede that. That's not the point. The point is, can we do anything we want to someone we think is going to hurt us? Even if he said, "I'm going to kill her", he admits it to everyone, and puts it on a billboard by the freeway, how does that justify taking a shot at his cojones?
What if a woman nagged her husband to insanity and even threatened to kill him if he didn't take out the garbage and fix the leak in the sink? Can he sneak into her bedroom at night, grab the offending member--her tongue--and whack it off? Let's say for the sake of argument that she really was intending to kill him, that he overheard the phone conversation in which she hired the hit man. Can he cut her tongue out? I know what you're going to say. "Of course not. What has the tongue got to do with the threat to his life? That's ridiculous, Koukl." Of course it is. That's precisely my point!
But there are feminists who will ignore the idiocy of this reasoning because they rejoice to see male genital parts separated from the bodies of their owners by women, regardless of how flimsy the excuse.
The harm of these kinds of decisions is that they officially sanction vengeance. In fact, I don't even have to know the details of this case to know that self-defense could not possibly be the motive. All I have to know is what these women did to know vengeance was unquestionably the motive here, not self- defense.
How do I know? Let me ask you a question, ladies and gentlemen: What is the simplest way to protect yourself from a violent person who is asleep? Think about it. This could be hard, I realize. What is the simplest way to protect yourself from a violent person who's sleeping? Do you poke around in his crotch with a knife? No. You tip-toe far, far, far way. You certainly do not do anything that might possibly wake him up, especially if the particular thing that you are doing is probing with sharp instruments around private and--very sensitive parts of his body.
But flee is precisely what both of these women did not do. Instead, they got vengeance for alleged crimes (crimes for which John Wayne Bobbit was acquitted, by the way) and then claimed self-defense, and amazingly (and this is what really scares me) the jury bought it, both times.
If these women really felt that their lives were in danger, then how do they figure they're removing the threat by emasculating their husbands? Men don't kill people with their penises or testicles.
What doesn't seem to occur to anyone, the jury, the prosecution, the judge, the public at large, is that sexual mutilation on the very face of it is not defensible for any reason. Period. What should be patently evident to everyone involved is that if you have time to methodically remove the body parts of an attacker, then you have time to defend yourself through flight, because it takes more time to do the first than to do the second.
Secondly, if these women really felt that their lives were in danger, then how do they figure they're removing the threat by emasculating their husbands? Men don't kill people with their penises or testicles. Please forgive me for stating the obvious. I don't know anyone who has died by being beaten with that particular blunt instrument. The genitals in both of these cases were the offending instruments, not the life-threatening instruments, proving this was clearly a case of revenge and not self-defense. In fact, one could argue that the actions of these women, rather than removing the supposed threat to their life by the husband, actually increased their risk. Wouldn't you be more motivated to kill someone who took a slice at your family jewels?
Once again another woman who carved up her husband's genitals is released, adding one more ludicrous justification for lawlessness, and adding one more wacky woman with a weapon and an attitude into the general population. And I don't know who's wackiest: the woman who did it, or all of the allegedly sane people who thought that what she did was a good idea.
And here's the message we send out, ladies and gentlemen, and in this message there is risk to everyone, not just those with testicles or penises. The message is that a reason is an excuse. If you have a reason for your actions, especially an emotionally compelling reason, then your actions are excused regardless of what the actions were. If you feel victimized, do whatever you want to get back at the person. Debilitate them in your rage because after all, you've had it rough, honey. Go get 'em. And if what you go get is a sexual organ, all the better. It sure makes great copy.
But the fact is, whether you bob it or snip it, it's not self-defense. It's still plain, old- fashioned, revenge. | 
