Ellen Pakkies, who has admitted to strangling her tik addict son, endured years of abuse not only at the hands of her son, but also during her childhood, the Wynberg Regional Court heard on Tuesday morning.
Arguing in mitigation of sentence, clinical psychologist Martin Yodaiken, the final witness called by Adrian Samuels, for the defence, said by killing her son, 20-year-old Adam, Pakkies had "taken on the image of her past persecutors".
Sentence is expected to be handed down next Thursday.
Yodaiken said Pakkies had experienced a state of emotional disassociation during the murder in the backyard of their house in September 2007.
"Given the nature of her personality and the degree to which she can express emotions, the fact that she was so matter-of-fact when speaking to me about the murder shows her dissociation. The pain was too severe," he said.
This was as a result of the accumulation of seven years of abuse from her son.
Yodaiken said Pakkies had reached a "limit situation", because she had not refused help from the court and the police when she approached them.
When people reached limit situations, he said, they would find themselves involved in incidents of homicide and suicide.
He said a jail sentence would be inapplicable because it would not serve any purpose for Pakkies, society or her family. He suggested a rehabilitative sentence, under which she could use her skills to give back to society.
In his closing argument, Samuels said murder could not be condoned but that substantial and compelling circumstances were "glaringly obvious" in the case of Pakkies.
By murdering her son, she had acted in self-preservation, which stemmed from desperation and utter helplessness.
"With all due respect, even Pakkies is a not a villain. She has been punished all her life."
Samuels said imprisonment would be an inappropriate sentence. He referred to similar cases in which offenders were given suspended sentences.
State prosecutor Nina Meyer acknowledged that substantial and compelling circumstances did exist and that the State would therefore not object if the court should deviate from the minimum sentence.
