Location

DePauw Libraries, Roy O. West Library Wood Study

Event Website

https://depauw.campuslabs.com/engage/event/9085478

Start Date

3-5-2023 10:50 AM

End Date

3-5-2023 11:00 AM

Presentation Type

Thesis

Description

Legal scholars have been grappling with how to handle legal cases concerning battered women since the 70s. Lenore Walker argued that battered women have a condition called battered woman syndrome that alters their perceptions. The cases by themselves do not fulfill requirements for self-defense, a justification doctrine nor duress, an excuse doctrine. I argue that battered women should be excused, not through using battered women syndrome to support pre-existing claims, but instead by using other psychological research to support Morse’s partial excuse doctrine. The first part of the paper argues why battered woman syndrome does not work as a psychological basis for establishing legal claims. Instead of battered women syndrome, I present a holistic perspective of the psychology of battered women and discuss the prevalence of certain psychological conditions and their effects on decision-making. I focus especially on PTSD and TBIs as factors that impact decision-making. TBIs are especially crucial for understanding why abuse victims, especially victims of severe abuse become violent themselves. Damage to the brain are linked to increased aggression, impulsivity, and other cognitive problems. These risk behaviors naturally increase the probability that abuse victims will resort to violence to escape the situation. This paper also discusses why women struggle to leave their relationships. After discussing what happens internally and externally for battered women, I also discuss from more of a public safety perspective, that abuse victims, especially women, do not pose a threat to society. So we are “safe” so to speak in reducing or not punishing them. Given these points, we ought to excuse them. Implementing Stephen Morse’s proposal for partial excuse seems to be the best path forward for this type of defendant and others suffering more extreme circumstances and/or psychological conditions. Essentially he argues that we should add a type of verdict where the defendants are guilty but not fully responsible for their actions. This kind of proposal would allow the court system to be a little bit more flexible where they can better help defendants in unusual and difficult circumstances in an otherwise rigid and strict court system. This seems like the best foot forward because it doesn’t compromise the integrity of pre-existing doctrines of duress and self-defense by stretching them too much and institutes a doctrine that allows more flexibility in the court system overall.

Comments

Prepared as part of the DePauw University Honor Scholar Program

Advisors: Dr. Marcia McKelligan, Dr. Scott Ross, Dr. Katrina Sifferd, Monica Fennell

Share

COinS
 
May 3rd, 10:50 AM May 3rd, 11:00 AM

Women Who Kill: Providing and Justifying Alternative Legal Pathways to the Use of Battered Women Syndrome as Self-Defense

DePauw Libraries, Roy O. West Library Wood Study

Legal scholars have been grappling with how to handle legal cases concerning battered women since the 70s. Lenore Walker argued that battered women have a condition called battered woman syndrome that alters their perceptions. The cases by themselves do not fulfill requirements for self-defense, a justification doctrine nor duress, an excuse doctrine. I argue that battered women should be excused, not through using battered women syndrome to support pre-existing claims, but instead by using other psychological research to support Morse’s partial excuse doctrine. The first part of the paper argues why battered woman syndrome does not work as a psychological basis for establishing legal claims. Instead of battered women syndrome, I present a holistic perspective of the psychology of battered women and discuss the prevalence of certain psychological conditions and their effects on decision-making. I focus especially on PTSD and TBIs as factors that impact decision-making. TBIs are especially crucial for understanding why abuse victims, especially victims of severe abuse become violent themselves. Damage to the brain are linked to increased aggression, impulsivity, and other cognitive problems. These risk behaviors naturally increase the probability that abuse victims will resort to violence to escape the situation. This paper also discusses why women struggle to leave their relationships. After discussing what happens internally and externally for battered women, I also discuss from more of a public safety perspective, that abuse victims, especially women, do not pose a threat to society. So we are “safe” so to speak in reducing or not punishing them. Given these points, we ought to excuse them. Implementing Stephen Morse’s proposal for partial excuse seems to be the best path forward for this type of defendant and others suffering more extreme circumstances and/or psychological conditions. Essentially he argues that we should add a type of verdict where the defendants are guilty but not fully responsible for their actions. This kind of proposal would allow the court system to be a little bit more flexible where they can better help defendants in unusual and difficult circumstances in an otherwise rigid and strict court system. This seems like the best foot forward because it doesn’t compromise the integrity of pre-existing doctrines of duress and self-defense by stretching them too much and institutes a doctrine that allows more flexibility in the court system overall.

https://scholarship.depauw.edu/library_symposium/2023/2023/9