Christiane: Now to the United States and the State of Oklahoma where new legislation is being worked out for women who kill their abusers in self-defense.

There are currently hundreds of women in jail on murder charges because their history of trauma and abuse was not taken into account when the were sentenced.

Tony Housel Beck tells Michelle Martin how she hopes to change that.

>> Thank you, thank you for talking with us.

>> Thank you for having me.

>> In February 2 introduced Oklahomans to mess to could be a.

That would help the mystic violence survivors who fought back against the person abusing them.

Why does Oklahoma need this, in your opinion?

>> Oklahoma is the second-highest place for a woman to be killed by a man in the United States of America.

And as you've probably covered, some of our gun laws, some of the things we do in the legislature.

There isn't a dad alive who thinks it would be OK for his daughter not to fight back in her own home against anyone.

>> As I understand, 38% of men have said that they experienced intimate partner physical violence.

Let me just asked, why do you think that is?

>> I think it's one of those realities of years of a lack of knowledge and a lack of recognition of mental health problems.

>> I feel like sadly mental challenges exist around the world but not everyplace seems to have the same problem that you are experiencing in Oklahoma .

When something stands out is such an outlier, you have to ask yourself what's going on.

>> I think to mystic violence is one of those realities that crosses every socioeconomic boundary that we have.

And so we are second in the nation, I'm sure whoever's 14th or first or 50th, they feel there is too much to mystic violence going on in their state.

So sometimes when you are in the middle of America we are slower to look at these issues and take them up on different coasts.

>> How did you get started on this project to begin with?

Christiane: Ice -- >> I became interested in this project when I found the strength of your partner was not a violent crime.

That blew my mind.

And so I started to requesting different statutes to look at, and understand more about what's going on.

For five years I've been on the edges trying to understand what current statute says and what types of things are going on.

It's just one of those things that I have been thinking about for a long time.

Christiane: What would your bill do, what specifically would it do and what hole in the law would it fill?

>> Basically in Oklahoma, domestic violence or the surviving domestic violence is not really looked at before sentencing occurs.

And so a person who has to fight back against their domestic partner inside their home gets all the way through the sentencing stage and then at that point, they receive a exorbitant sentence.

And then typically women get a more exorbitant sentence then men, and we are going to allow for that to be declared at the beginning.

Christiane: When I first learned about your bill I was taken aback because it's known and understood that some states have strong stand laws.

Those are controversial, not everyone feed -- fits them.

But it is policy in Oklahoma.

Why is it standing around is a case in other cases but it's not for someone defending themselves in an intimate partner situation.

Why is that?

>> My first term in the Oak Loma legislator was five years ago and we were on the House floor and it was late at night and a Democrat brought up the bill that made it so in the state of Oklahoma that if you strangled your domestic partner that would be considered a violent crime.

Up until then, strangling your domestic partner was not a violent crime.

And typically when you don't go back and codify some of these crimes, then law enforcement looks at them is just this is how it's been and we are not going to get involved.

We have a lot of work to do.

When you strangle your wife within an inch of her life, or your husband or any other domestic partner, and you don't get in trouble for it you're going to do it again to get your way.

We change strangulation, and this is really just designed to stop some of these exorbitant sentences because he domestic violence survivor had a very good reason, typically the women that are incarcerated for committing these crimes inside their home, this is the own the crime they've ever been convicted of.

They been law-abiding citizens that had to fight for themselves or children.

Christiane: You commissioned a study on this last fall in which you heard from survivors who would be protected by this legislation and part of your study said that 60% of incarcerated women in Oklahoma bro in abusive relationships of the time of their rest.

And you also said that Oklahoma incarcerates women at rates far above the rest of the country.

Again, I'm sort of puzzled by this, when you started this issue and you started talking about what did your colleagues say did they say it's too bad or -- how did they respond?

>> My colleagues responded with being a cosponsor on the bill and adding advantage.

That's how my colleagues have responded to it, we've looked at the system a bit.

Before I published this language, they didn't want have look backs on this case.

I had attorneys look at this link which.

The prevailing thought if you are a -- if you are surviving inside your home every day and you finally got to a position where you could equalize yourself against her abuser, and you did, that deserves a look back.

We have work to do to change the hearts and minds of our 47 strict attorneys across the state that do not feel that we need to look back on these issues.

>> You are saying that your colleagues in the political realm, and just like your constituents, they are saying that the district attorneys have been opposing it.

Is it because they do not want the lot to be retroactive.

Is that the issue, they do not want to go -- >> It will require some of these cases to be looked at with a fresh set of eyes.

And we will have to say, well, domestic violence is a compelling reason to fight for your life.

Christiane: Why do they think it is not appropriate?

To take a look back, if it's -- if in injustice was done is it because they think it will degrade.

But arguments have they given?

>> Oh Michelle, I've had a lot of arguments.

One is the workload.

One is, women lie.

I've had that told me.

And I've been approached with, women stay, women go back.

I've had some people who say, we don't want to make the law so that one of these manipulative abusers can use it for themselves.

This is a men versus women issue in a lot of cases.

My argument is that men have been new mutilating the law in this country for a long time -- have been manipulating the lawn this country for a long time.

If we can help anyone suffering from the situation I think we do.

>> Was there anything -- a woman name Apryl Wilkins it is disturbing -- >> It is disturbing.

April is a beautiful, smart, well educated woman.

Who found herself in a position where she was being controlled, and raped and beaten, she got to the point she had enough and fought back.

She saved her life.

I listen to some podcasts and I read her story and I realized, wow, this could happen to anyone because she was beautiful, and by all measures seemed intelligent and affluent.

She just celebrated her 53rd birthday.

>> I'm going to let people know it's uncomfortable to hear.

My understanding is that she was dragged to the basement, handcuffed and physically assaulted.

That she was able to get her abusers a firearm away from him and killed him.

But even though she was handcuffed at the time, she was will given a life sentence for this which he continues to serve.

I understand there's another case, a woman who was pregnant, by a man who had abused her previously.

She did everything she has been advised to do.

She moved away, changed her phone number and make sure she blocked him on social media.

At some point she -- he tracked her down.

He assaulted her while she was pregnant.

She was able to get the knife away from an and to defend herself.

She was also given a life sentence.

I am wondering why it is that -- is it the way that stand your ground is interpreted is only interpreted when the individual is a stranger?

I don't understand that there is a duty to retreat in Oklahoma.

Is that right?

So -- here is where I need to ask you bluntly.

Is this because the forces that created these laws just don't believe women?

>> I think that was the case for a long time in the state of Oklahoma and 20 years ago we had a female legislator who put in place to Messick violence laws.

We do have some, we need to -- domestic violence laws.

We have some and we need to make them available for those in vulnerable situations.

And you asked me why is Oklahoma number two in these areas, it's because our statute is not caught up to what's been going on.

And sometimes that takes time.

It took New York State five years to get this legislation passed.

I grew about on a farm in Oklahoma and our citizenry believes in capital punishment.

The majority of our people believe if you harm woman or child, in any way it does matter who you are or what you look like, you probably need to be punished by death for that.

One of the reasons I got published in this bill, was there was a man in Texas whose child was raped by a man that lived down the road.

This man went down the road and pulled this man out of his house and killed them in the front yard.

In Oklahoma there are a lot of people who believe that is 100% justified.

There is a case in Oklahoma of a woman who shot her rapist and she is sitting in jail.

We person -- we pretend that it is for everyone, but I'm fighting for a 97 pounds woman who's trying to fight against the 220, man who she has no chance of equalizing.

I'm trying to make it better for that situation and they think if we do that we will make it better for a lot of people in other situations.

It's frustrating that we have all of these other laws that we are still not protected in our own homes.

If you're a woman and fighting with your to Messick partner.

>> Is the -- your domestic partner.

>> Is the issue that women do not have the right to defend themselves?

>> Not a single person has said to me that people do not -- women do not have the right to defend themselves.

So many people have been for the idea.

But those who are not for it, the argument goes back to, they will never say that the woman doesn't have the right.

But these husband and wife situations are very icky.

And we don't know what's going on in those situations.

>> There are those the issue -- that argued the issue is guns.

There are some any guns in this country easy to get and easy for people to use when they are angry.

While this bill is laudable in addressing a long-standing problem of inequity, it doesn't do anything to keep people alive .

What would you say to that?

>> Unfortunately, guns are not the only ways that domestic partners kill each other.

And there not the only ways that coercion and manipulations are used.

If guns were removed from every one these situations, I think a diligent person who is trying to harm their domestic partner would find another way.

They would use a knife, they would use more advanced tools first regulation, or -- strangulation.

I've seen a lot of court files come across our desk, it's not always guns.

I am a very conservative Republican woman who grew up on a farm.

It's not the guns.

It's the people.

We still need to find a way to protect women and men who find themselves in a situation where they need to kill their domestic partner save their own life.

>> What are the prospects for this coming into law?

>> We are going to look at rejecting the Senate amendments which would cause it to go to a conference committee.

And then conferees will be assigned, and then we will have an opportunity to sit down and hammer out the details of this bill.

>> Do you feel confident that it is going forward?

>> I do.

I've had three bills signed by the governor so far this session, and this session has been the most contentious one I've seen in five years.

A lot of really good policy has not made it through because of the politics inside our capital right now.

>> You're not sure.

>> I'm not sure, but I feel good about it.

Think use so much for talking to us today.

>> Thank you for having me.