Factors predicting verdicts in cases where battered women kill their husbands.

Abstract

This study tested factors influencing verdicts in legal cases involving battered women who kill their husbands. A total of 388 college students (213 females and 175 males) read a fictitious but prototypical legal case. Subjects received one of three stories varying the level of force used by the husband against the wife before she killed him. Half of the subjects received courtroom testimony regarding the Battered Woman Syndrome. One-half received judge's instructions of not guilty by reason of selfdefense (NGRSD), and the other half received not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) instructions. Subjects decided on a verdict and completed a questionnaire including demographics, reasons for their verdicts, and relevant attitudinal measures. Judge's instructions were most predictive of verdicts, with NGRSD being more likely to produce not guilty verdicts. Verdicts were also influenced by the subject's view of the severity of the past beatings, the testimony of the expert witness, the subject's feelings about the woman using a weapon, race of the subject, the subject's own history of abuse, attitudes toward abuse in relationships, and the subject's belief that people are responsible even if provoked. The preference the subjects showed for NGRSD belies the commonly held belief that impaired mental defenses in these cases would be more likely to yield not guilty verdicts. Situational aspects of the case rather than long-standing attitudes of subjects appeared to be better predictors of verdicts.

Reputation and behavior of battered women who kill their partners: Do these variables negate self-defense?

“…The written material, which included the defendant's testimony, other evidence and testimony, and judge's instructions, took approximately 20 to 25 minutes to read. The prototypical case of a battered woman experiencing long-term abuse in which a "good wife/mother" did her best to pacify her husband was used in the previous study by Follingstad et aL (1989). In the current effort; the woman's actions were varied along the lines of her behavior the night of the incident and her long-standing behavior within the marriage.…”

“…Testimony by an expert about the Battered Woman Syndrome (see Follingstad et aL, 1989) was included based on Schuller's (1992) findings that expert testimony regarding Battered Woman Syndrome as it applied to the defendant. The judge's instructions did not vary and were read by all subjects.…”

“…251 0885-7482/96/0900-025159.50/0 9 1996 Plenum Publishing Corporation killing, usually following a history of physical abuse by the man (Ewing, 1987;Walker, 1984;Wolfgang, 1975). The recent focus on battered women who have killed their partners has led researchers to empirically examine factors which are hypothesized to influence the decision-making of jurors in these cases (e.g., Follingstad et al, 1989;Kasian et al, 1993;Schuller, 1992). Because cases involving battered women are often fraught with misconceptions, it appears important to determine what biases might be at work in influencing jurors' verdicts.…”

Jurors' Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

“…Brekke and Borgida (1988) found that when two opposing experts on rape trauma syndrome presented evidence, mock jurors' responses were similar to the condition when no expert testimony was presented, suggesting that jurors may resolve the issue of conflicting testimonies by ignoring both of them (and resorting to their prior belief) or by accepting the one that supports their prior belief. Studies by Follingstad et al (1989) and Finkel, Meister, and Lightfoot (1991) reached a similar conclusion: Presence of an expert on battered woman syndrome did not alter the verdict reached by mock jurors in criminal cases, but it did influence the way jurors perceived the case. By contrast, Schuller's studies found that expert evidence altered jurors' evaluations of the defendant's perceptions and resulted in greater leniency in their verdicts (Schuller 1990;Schuller and Vidmar 1992).…”

Red Collar Crime

“…Common and legitimate explanations used to rationalize homicides committed by females include killing because of a mental illness, coercion, abuse, or self-defense (Follingstad et al, 1989;Vronsky, 2007). However, women have been perceived to be capable of committing only reactive or "expressive" violence-an uncontrollable release of pent-up rage or fear-and that they murder unwillingly and without premeditation.…”