Wife beating historically was viewed as the marital privilege of the husband and at times even considered his duty. While this prerogative has faded, it is still reflected in police and prosecutor nonarrest strategies. Scientific studies have not discovered conclusively why men abuse their wives and thus cannot predict what men will become wifebeaters. Moreover, the reasons why battered women stay with their husbands are similarly complex, particularly when emotional dependency is involved. Criminal remedies theoretically available to redress the problem include misdemeanor assault and battery charges and statutes defining spouse beating as a felony. However, they are ineffective because of police and district attorney reluctance to arrest and prosecute matters involving family violence. Restraining orders, diversion programs, shelters, and victim-witness assistance programs provide some help, but do not ensure the victim's future safety or punish the offender. Consequently, the sociological and legal acceptance of wife beating must be considered in cases where battered women charged with killing their husbands plead self-defense. Problems that arise in this defense are whether the woman reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary and that she was in immediate danger. Little relevant case law exists, but State v. Wanrow -- a 1977 plurality decision of the Washington Supreme Court -- held that in order to comply with the equal protection clause the reasonableness of the woman's belief in the necessity of force and immediate danger must be evaluated in light of her subjective perception of the situation. The immediate danger issue becomes paramount when a battered wife kills her husband during a lull in the beatings. Research on the battered wife syndrome showing that these women live in a state of constant terror supports the contention that such action constitutes legitimate self-defense. The paper contains 191 footnotes.