The present study investigated the issue of domestic violence in Thailand and in particular the reactions of the Thai populace (male versus female) to a battered woman who killed her abusive spouse, as well as how such reactions could be influenced by the presentation of expert testimony related to the battered woman syndrome. Cluster sampling conducted within the Bangkok metropolitan area in Thailand yielded a sample of 1190 participants who voluntarily filled in the study’s questionnaire. Multi-group path analysis showed no significant gender difference in the direct influence of battered woman syndrome information on the verdict/judgment rendered and suggests that the provision of such information in spousal homicide trials within the Thai context may not be efficacious in influencing the participants’ verdict judgments. Results however did indicate an indirect effect of the battered woman syndrome information on the verdict/judgment rendered being mediated by the defense strategy of self-defense. This finding indicated that the battered woman syndrome information presented aided the participants in contextualizing the defendant’s killing in a frame of self-defense, rather than inappropriately applying a form of “reasonableness” in their verdict/judgment. These findings are discussed in relation to their implications for the presentation of battered woman syndrome information in trials of Thai battered women who killed their abusive spouses.
Abou El FadlK. (2006) The search for beauty in Islam: A conference of the books, Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
2.
AkaikeH. (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika52: 317–332.
3.
American Psychological Association (1996) Violence and the family, Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Assavarak, P. (2007). Patriarchy: Behind the silent voice of domestic violence. Presented in website: http://humansecurityconf.polsci.chula.ac.th/final.html. International Development Studies Conference on “Mainstreaming Human Security: The Asian Contribution, Bangkok, 4–5 Oct. 2007.
5.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
6.
BiddleB. J.MartinM. M. (1987) Causality, confirmation, credulity, and structural equation modeling. Child Development58: 4–17.
7.
BlackD. (1983) Crime as social control. American Sociological Review48: 34–45.
8.
BlackD. (1993) The social structure of right and wrong, San Diego: Academic Press.
9.
Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In S. L. Morgan (Ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 301–328), Chapter 15. New York: Springer.
10.
BoonsitA.ClaassenR.PiemyatS. (2004) Restorative justice and domestic violence resolution in Thailand. Connections17: 1–16.
11.
BrowneA. (1987) When battered women kill, New York: Free Press.
12.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (eds) Testing structural equation models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 445–455.
Colb, S. F. (2011). Barbara Sheehan and the “battered woman’s defense”: Must domestic violence be imminent to justify self-defense? Criminal Law, October 19, 2011.
FinchamF. D.JasparsJ. M. (1980) Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In: BerkowitzL. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychologyVol 13, New York: Academic Press.
20.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991) Social cognition, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
FleuryR. E.SullivanC. M.BybeeD. I. (2000) When ending the relationship doesn’t end the violence: Women’s experiences of violence by former partners. Violence Against Women6(12): 1363–1383.
HodellE. C.DunlapE. E.WasarhaleyN. E.GoldingJ. M. (2012) Factors impacting juror perceptions of battered women who kill their abusers: Delay and sleeping status. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law18(2): 338–359.
24.
IbrahimN.AbdallaM. (2010) A critical examination of Qur’an 4:34 and its relevance to intimate partner violence in Muslim families. Journal of Muslim Mental Health5(3): 327–349.
25.
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (2007). Thailand: Domestic violence; state protection and resources available to victims of domestic abuse. THAI02669.E, 20 December – Attachment 7.
Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) (2008). Signing up to fight violence against women. IRIN, 27 November – Attachment 4.
28.
JacksonN. A. (2008) Encyclopedia of domestic violence, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
29.
Janoff-BulmanR. (1979) Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37: 1798–1809.
30.
JonesA. (1994) Next time she’ll be dead: Battering and how to stop it, Boston: Beacon Press.
31.
Jullamon, K. (2008). Homicide – Provocation and extreme emotional disturbance: The US and Thai approach: A comparative study. Thailand Law Journal, 11, 17–22.
32.
LissM. B.StahlyG. B. (1993) Domestic violence and child custody. In: HansenM.HarwayM. (eds) Battering and family therapy, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
LomratanachaiS. M. (2009) Domestic violence and human security. Inter-Asia Civil Society Archive4(1): 1–16.
National Statistical Office (1996) Household and family: Household structure, Bangkok, Thailand: Social Statistics Division, National Statistical Office.
36.
NguyenM. (2013) Kiss with a fist: A look at Thailand’s Domestic Violence Act. e-Citylife22(4): 1–6.
37.
Pearl, J. (2012). The causal foundations of structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modelling (pp. 68–91). New York: Guilford Press, Chapter 5.
38.
PetersonE. (1999) Murder as self-help: Women and intimate partner homicide. Homicide Studies3(1): 30–46.
39.
QuickerJ. C. (2002) Thailand. In: SummersR. W.HoffmanA. M. (eds) Domestic violence: A global view, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 155–167.
40.
RoseA. J.RudolphK. D. (2006) A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin132(1): 98–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98.
41.
RussellB. L.MelliloL. S. (2006) Attitudes toward battered women who kill: Defendant typicality and judgments of culpability. Criminal Justice and Behavior33: 219–241. Doi:10.1177/0093854805284412.
42.
SchullerR. A.RzepaS. (2002) Expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome: Its impact on jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior26(6): 655–673. doi:10.1023/A:1020933618221.
43.
ShaverK. G. (1985) The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness, New York: Springer-Verlag.
44.
TerranceC. A.MathesonK.SpanosN. P. (2000) Effects of judicial instructions and case characteristics in a mock jury trial of battered women who kill. Law and Human Behavior24: 207–229. Doi:10.1023/A:1005411003414.
Vichit-VadakanJ. (1994) Women and the family in Thailand in the midst of social change. Law & Society Review26: 515–524.
51.
WalkerL. E. (2009) The battered woman syndrome (3rd edition), New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company LLC.
52.
World Health Organization (2005) WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women (Thailand), Geneva, Switzerland: Department of Gender, Women and Health, World Health Organization.
XuX.KerleyK. R.SirisunyaluckB. (2010) Understanding gender and domestic violence from a sample of married women in urban Thailand. Journal of Family Issues32(6): 791–819.
