The Battered Women Syndrome: A Comparative Analysis of Psychological Evidence and Criminal Responsibility in the United States, United Kingdom, and India

Abstract

Criminal law’s traditional categories of intent, reasonableness, and culpability are increasingly strained by the psychological realities of domestic abuse. This paper examines that tension through a comparative analysis of the treatment of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India. Using State v. Mott as a conceptual anchor, it highlights how the exclusion of psychological evidence to negate mens rea exposes a deeper conflict between doctrinal certainty and trauma-informed understanding. The study contrasts the United States’ fragmented jurisprudence, the United Kingdom’s decisive legislative reform through the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and India’s creative adaptation of BWS within its colonial penal framework, including culturally rooted constructs like “Nallathangal Syndrome.” These divergent paths reveal an unresolved question: can criminal responsibility remain coherent without integrating contemporary trauma science? The paper concludes by advocating a shift toward “evidence of battering and its effects” and targeted judicial education.