Understanding Battered Woman Syndrome and PTSD: A Forensic Perspective

As a forensic psychologist, I’ve been called upon in many cases where the defense centers around the effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) on the accused. One term that frequently arises in these cases is "Battered Woman Syndrome" (BWS), often invoked to explain the mental and emotional state of someone who has been subjected to prolonged abuse. However, it’s crucial to recognize that "Battered Woman Syndrome" is not an official diagnostic label, but rather a colloquialism that has gained traction in both legal and research circles.

BWS was first introduced by Dr. Lenore Walker in the 1970s, who was attempting to describe the psychological and behavioral patterns commonly observed in women who have been repeatedly abused by their intimate partners. While her research provided an important framework for understanding the psychological toll of domestic violence, BWS itself is not recognized in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Instead, we use more standardized diagnoses, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), when the person meets the requisite threshold for a diagnosis.

BWS vs. PTSD: Why the Diagnostic Distinction Matters

Although BWS is a helpful way to conceptualize the experiences of victims, it lacks the clinical precision that PTSD offers. PTSD is a well-established diagnosis in the DSM-5, with specific criteria that must be met, including re-experiencing traumatic events (e.g., flashbacks, nightmares), avoidance behaviors, negative changes in thoughts and mood, and hyperarousal (e.g., hypervigilance, irritability). Many victims of IPV exhibit these symptoms, and when they do, PTSD becomes a more appropriate label.

Why is this distinction important? Because using a scientifically recognized diagnosis like PTSD lends more credibility to both the forensic evaluation and expert testimony in legal proceedings. Courts rely heavily on expert testimony to help jurors understand the psychological state of defendants, and a clear, scientifically backed diagnosis like PTSD is more likely to be taken seriously than a term that is not universally accepted in the clinical community.

That said, BWS has played an essential role in shaping how we understand the psychological impact of domestic abuse, particularly in the legal context. While it may not be a formal diagnosis, it has been instrumental in opening up discussions about how IPV can lead to long-term psychological trauma, affecting a person’s decision-making and behavior, sometimes to the point of committing acts they wouldn’t otherwise engage in under normal circumstances.

The Catina Curley Case and Louisiana Supreme Court Precedent

One case that was pivotal in establishing the legal standing of expert testimony in situations involving IPV was State v. Catina Curley in Louisiana, where I served as an expert witness. Catina Curley was convicted of second-degree murder after killing her abusive husband. Her defense argued that years of abuse had caused her to snap in a moment of extreme emotional distress.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that expert testimony regarding a defendant’s state of mind, particularly in cases involving a history of intimate partner violence, could be essential for the jury to understand the psychological impact of the abuse. This case set an important precedent by allowing forensic experts to explain how prolonged exposure to domestic violence can impact a person’s perception of imminent danger and justify their defensive actions, even when they might not seem reasonable to someone who has not experienced similar abuse.

In this case, I testified about Curley’s psychological state, drawing on both her history of IPV and her symptoms of trauma, which aligned with a diagnosis of PTSD rather than BWS. This distinction was critical in explaining why she believed her life was in danger at the moment she took her husband’s life, even if the immediate circumstances did not present an overt, life-threatening situation.

Moving Forward: The Role of Forensic Psychology in IPV Cases

The Catina Curley case highlights the necessity of expert testimony in cases involving intimate partner violence. Understanding the psychological effects of prolonged abuse can be key to a fair trial, particularly in cases where the defendant claims they acted in self-defense or in a state of diminished capacity due to years of trauma.

However, as a forensic psychologist, I believe it is equally important to use precise, diagnostic language when presenting these cases in court. PTSD provides a well-researched and understood framework that allows us to explain the impact of trauma in a way that is credible to both the legal system and the scientific community. Battered Woman Syndrome, while useful as a conceptual tool, does not offer the same level of clinical rigor, and we must be careful not to use it as a catch-all explanation for every case involving IPV.

Ultimately, my goal as an expert witness is to ensure that the psychological impact of intimate partner violence is fully understood and appropriately considered in the courtroom. By providing clear, scientifically backed testimony, we can help ensure that defendants are treated fairly and that the true impact of domestic abuse is acknowledged in the eyes of the law.