Battered Women in Criminal Court and Admission of Expert Testimony on the Battered Woman Syndrome

Domestic violence and women suffering from the pattern of violence in abusive relationships are prevalent in our society, and many cases that involve battered women who kill their abusive partners raise a significant challenge to the current law of self-defense. In South Korea, according to one empirical study, the majority number of incarcerated women are convicted of murdering their partners, and the study further reveals that those women suffered from a long-term learned helplessness as Walker's theory in Cycle of Violence. See generally, Other similar studies have been conducted in South Korea and they also show that many battered women suffered from severe violence in their abusive relationships which eventually led them into a helpless situation, both physically and mentally. See generally, While a number of precedent studies on Battered Woman Syndrome (hereinafter “BWS”) in the court has focused on the issue of self-defense rules, the article attempts to examine the U.S. cases of BWS in which various social science expert witnesses had testified in the court to enhance the juror’s understandings. To assist jurors in their holistic comprehension of the experiences of battered women, various experts in the field of domestic violence and BWS should be admitted into the court to testify. Upon hearing the expert testimony on the social constraints that many battered women encounter, the jury finds it easier to account for the context within which the battered women live, and, therefore, may better appreciate the reasonableness of a battered woman’s actions. See generally, Cheryl A. Terrance & Karyn M. Plumm, Battered Women Who Kill: The Impact of Expert Testimony and Empathy Induction in the Courtroom 15 Violence Against Women 186 (2009) In South Korea, the court decides whether the experts testify in the court or review the evidence presented, and generally, the decisions on the probative value of the expert evidence rest with the judge. While there exist differences in the legal system of expert testimony between the U.S. and South Korea, the author still attempts to emphasize the necessity of further empirical social psychological research in the legal field and the significance of non-traditional expert witnesses who may provide an alternative framework in the cases of BWS.