Battered Spouse syndrome testimony: its development and lingering issues

Nupur Nataraja 

This blog post explains battered spouse syndrome (BSS) and briefly looks at how it may influence jury decisions. Battered Spouse syndrome is more commonly known as battered woman syndrome (BWS). In the late 1970s, Dr. Lenore Walker first proposed the term ‘battered woman syndrome’. The syndrome describes the violence found in abusive relationships, and the psychological impact that this violence can have on the victim.

After extensive research, Dr. Walker identified the cycle of violence theory which is a monotonous three phase cycle that illustrates the battering relationship. The first phase is the tension-building phase. This is categorized by ‘minor’ abusive incidents such as outbursts and verbal threats. The first phase of minor abusive incidents eventually lead to the second phase, referred to as the acute battering phase, which is followed by the third phase, loving contrition or absence of battering. During the absence of battering, the abuser vows to never harm the victim again by professing his/her love. The victim, almost always, believes the abuser. However, eventually, the cycle continues.

Lenore Walker also proposed a psychological reasoning to explain how the battered victim can feel psychologically imprisoned in an abusive relationship. The nature of the violence seen in these relationships is monotonous yet unpredictable. This eventually diminishes the battered victim to a state of psychological helplessness. This theory of learned helplessness clarifies how a battered victim may see the batterer as omnipotent. This makes leaving difficult as they feel leaving would not stop the violence towards them. The continuous battering, without any consequences for the batterer, confirms the victim’s belief of the batterer’s dominance. The loss of contingency between the victim’s behavior and the battering leads to learned helplessness.

 The battered woman syndrome testimony speaks of the victim’s mental state. It provides contextual understanding on why the victim perceived themselves of being in imminent danger that forced them to attack the batterer. The theory of learned helplessness, along with the theory of violence and the battered spouse syndrome, helps the jury understand why the victim remained in an abusive relationship. Since its introduction into the courtroom, the admissibility of this form of expert testimony has sparked debate and controversy. Within the psychological and legal populations, the validity and applicability of the syndrome evidence to claims of self-defense have been challenged and critiqued.

The researchers were critiqued over the singular portrayal of the battered victim as passive and helpless conveyed through the testimony. They said battered spouse syndrome testimony fails to take into account the variability in battered spouse reactions and response. The critics of the testimony also expressed their concern with usage of the term ‘syndrome’. In their opinion, this terminology was likely to be interpreted as an illness or clinical disorder by the jurors. They thought characterizing the victim as an ‘irrational and damaged’ spouse would be more ideal.

Taking the critiques into consideration, there have been immense empirical research on the impact of battered woman syndrome evidence. Most of this research employs juror stimulation techniques. By means of this approach, mock jurors are presented with stimulated trials wherein they are asked to render a verdict and provide their judgements about the defendant and the case. The mock trials vary the presence or absence of the expert testimony. Comparisons of the jurors’ responses across different versions of the trial are made to access the impact of the testimony. Most research studies have found little evidence for the impact of battered woman syndrome evidence. Although, there was evidence presented with the notion that battered woman syndrome evidence is likely to be allied with interpretations of psychological dysfunction.

On the other hand, Regina Schuller’s research suggests that the exposure to the testimony does result in more lenient verdicts and more favorable evaluations of the defendant. The mixed research results suggest that an alternative form of the testimony must be adapted that emphasizes the social aspects of the battering relationship and omits the term ‘syndrome’ for more fair verdict decisions.

Works cited

• Walker, L. E. (1992). Battered women syndrome and self-defense. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 6, 321-334.
• Walker, L. E. (2000). The battered woman syndrome (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
• Schuller, R. A., & Jenkins, G. (2007). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: Limitations and reconceptualization. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the court (pp. 203-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.