An exploration of Thai public perceptions of defenses in cases of women who kill their domestically violent spouses

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Battered woman syndrome domestic violence expert testimony spousal homicide

Introduction

Domestic violence and more specifically spousal abuse is the most endemic form of gender-based violence world-wide, cutting across cultural, geographic, religious, social, and economic boundaries. Domestic abuse can be physical and range from throwing objects, the threat of violence, harm to pets, unwanted physical contact, or rape and murder. Violence can also be psychological involving mental and emotional abuse, and economic and/or social control, such as controlling the victim’s money or not allowing contact with friends or family. Where research has been conducted, results indicate that violence perpetrated particularly against women by intimate partners is the most prevalent (UNODC, 2013).

Domestic violence in Thailand

In Thailand, official statistics indicate rates of domestic violence are increasing at an alarming rate. A 2012 survey conducted by Thailand's Mahidol University's National Institute for Child and Family Development showed nearly one third of households reported instances of domestic violence (Musikaphan, 2013). In 2007, Thailand passed the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence Act, which provided immediate services for victims, created protective orders, and streamlined court procedures for domestic violence cases. The Health Ministry also created the emergency One Stop Crisis Centre (OSCC), where up to 23,000 cases of victims of abuse cases are being reported annually—up from 11,500 in 2005. While these numbers point to an almost two-fold increase in the incidence of domestic violence cases, it should be noted that this increase relates specifically to the number of cases reported to the authorities. That is, the increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases may not necessarily reflect an actual increase in the frequency of domestic violence cases in the Kingdom but rather an increased willingness of Thai female victims of abuse to come forward. If this is true, then the observed increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases may simply point to the increased confidence of Thai women to step forward and to report their personal experiences as victims of domestic abuse. This increased confidence may be a direct function of the success of recent government awareness campaigns, changes to existing legislation, and enactment of new laws to protect women from domestic violence abuse.

While the above view offers an alternative plausible explanation for the observed increased number of reported domestic violence cases, there is evidence to suggest that the incidence of domestic abuse in Thailand is on the rise. This is indicated by the comments made by the Social Development and Human Security Minister Udomdet Rattanasathien who stated that more than two Thai women and children are abused every hour (IRIN, 2008). These comments point to the government’s acknowledgement that rates of domestic violence are still increasing year by year. Three major factors have been identified as barriers to curbing the domestic violence rate in Thailand.

Lack of public awareness of available protective legislation

While the increase in the number of reported domestic violence cases in the past decade may reflect a commensurate increase in women’s awareness of new laws enacted to protect them against such violence, (e.g. the 2007 Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence Act), the fact remains that many Thai women are still reluctant to seek assistance because they are unaware of the legal protection available to them. This apparent unawareness of the availability of legal protection afforded by the state is noted by the Director of the Women and Men Progressive Movement Foundation, Jaded Chouwilai who stated that many women caught up in domestic violence remained silent in the face of abuse, unaware of places they could turn for help (Corben, 2013b). This view corroborates findings from a number of earlier studies which showed a reluctance of female victims of domestic abuse to seek assistance from formal services. For example, in a joint study conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Institute of Population and Social Research at Mahidol University to assess Thai women’s experiences of violence by intimate partners, it was found that (1) 37% of physically abused women in Bangkok and 46% in Nakhonsawan never told anyone about the violence they had experienced; if they did told someone, this was usually their parents or the partner’s family, and (2) only 20% of physically abused women in Bangkok and 10% in Nakhonsawan had ever turned to formal services (health, police, religious or local leaders, etc.) for help (WHO, 2005). Boonsit, Claasen, and Piemyat (2004) conducted a large scale study (n = 1751) in Samutsakorn to investigate opinions and strategies employed by the community in cases of domestic violence. They found that 44% of the abused women interviewed said that they did not know which formal authorities to approach for assistance. Rather, there was the stated tendency that when faced with domestic violence, they would approach their parents, their relatives, or their neighbors for assistance. Thus, it appears that the kinship system and not formal services represents the primary helping resource as perceived by these abused women. These views suggest that from the Thai females’ perspective, family conflict and/or family violence is best managed within the family (rather than seeking recourse from the legal process) where they can seek help from their parents, relatives, or neighbors in stopping the domestic violence crisis.

The above suggestion fits well with Black’s (1983, 1993) self-help theory of crime which asserts that perpetrators view themselves as victims in a conflict and their own (criminal) actions as a response to deviant acts committed against them. This justice-seeking behavior is particularly relevant in homicide cases where a woman kills her abusive partner (Peterson, 1999). As asserted by Black (1993), the perpetrators of the homicide often “find that legal officials are relatively unconcerned about their conflicts, particularly if they occur in private and do not disturb anyone else. In all these settings neglected by law, crimes of self-help are comparatively common.” (p. 40)

Culture that promotes the acceptance of domestic violence

In Thailand, domestic violence can best be understood within the context of the two most important and interrelated institutions: religion and family (Xu, Kerley, & Sirisunyaluck, 2010). First, according to the IndexMundi (2015), approximately 93.6% of the Thai population identify themselves as Buddhists. While Thai women are clearly bearers and supporters of Thai Buddhism, the religion and its teachings serve as a normative foundation for gender inequality that views women as morally inferior to their male counterparts (Assavarak, 2007; Vichit-Vadakan, 1994). According to Thai Buddhism, inequality is due to Karma and anything that befalls a person is the result of his/her own past actions and his/her own present doings. Therefore, when women experience domestic violence there is the widespread acceptance that the cause of their suffering is karma (Ekachai, 2008). As pointed out by Xu et al. (2010), from a gender perspective, these Buddhist-based beliefs promote not only patriarchy and gender inequality but also play a significant role in the prevalence and incidence of domestic violence in Thailand.

While Thai Buddhism, guided by its perspective on gender inequality, may contribute to the prevalence of domestic violence in the Kingdom, there is the perception that other religions’ views on domestic violence may also sustain and indeed encourage violence against women in the family. For example, Islam is the dominant religion in Southern Thailand. The Islamic perspective on domestic violence is usually attributed to the Qur’anic verse 4:34 that seems to legitimize wife beating. Verse 4:34 suggests a three-step solution in the event of a family dispute where the wife is perceived as having committed some ill-conduct. This three-step solution includes what appears to be the sanctioning of wife-beating as the following English translation of this verse shows:

As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next) do not share their beds, (and last) beat them. (4:34)

However, in a recent critical analysis of Qur’an 4:34 and its relevance to intimate partner violence (IPV) in Muslim families, Ibrahim and Abdalla (2010) presented both legal and Islamic law-based arguments to show how the content of verse 4:34 is often read out of context to legitimize wife beating in Muslim societies. They pointed out that the problem rests primarily with the failure to understand Islam’s legal position on IPV and in particular the meaning and legal implications of the evidence provided by Islam’s primary legal texts that prohibits all forms of IPV. Their arguments are in line with those presented by Haddad (2000) who argued that wife beating is clearly outside the teachings of Islam and that those who use verse 4:34 to support wife beating have misinterpreted the verse and misrepresented Islam entirely. Furthermore, Abou El Fadl (2006) questioned that if the overall ethos of Islamic law does not permit violence generally (less so against other Muslims), how could it be sanctioned as a normal, permissible practice against women or wives? He pointed out that the greater objectives of Islamic law regarding marriage indicate that the beating of women is forbidden in Islam. According to Ibrahim and Abdalla (2010), many Prophetic traditions based on expert interpretation of Islamic law support this view on wife beating. Still, for some Muslim men, wife beating is essentially a gesture of disgruntlement for their wives’ disobediences in the morality of the household. Supported by their misinterpretation of verse 4:34, the husband who is responsible for maintaining the honor and respect of it may feel duty bound (and justified) to physically discipline his wife.

Second, part and parcel of the Thai family structure is the recognition of male dominance perpetuated by a patriarchal social system that fosters and sustains discriminatory cultural norms, rules, beliefs, and laws against women (Assavarak, 2007; Xu et al., 2010). Such a system creates an imbalance of power within the family where husbands are traditionally designated as heads and masters of their households, and their wives relegated to the subordinate position of serving their husbands’ needs. This gender traditionalism can be traced back to the 18th- and 19th-century Thai legal codes that designated wives as their husband’s property, and as such husbands were allowed to use physical punishment to discipline their wives (Quicker, 2002). These gendered norms serve as a normative basis for gender hierarchy and widespread acceptance of domestic violence in Thailand.

Police attitude toward domestic violence

Thailand has been party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women since 9 August 1985. The country also passed its first-ever domestic violence law in 2007 to protect victims abused by their partners. The act was praised for enforcing harsher punishments, more prosecutions and better protection for women. So, has the situation improved in the eight years since the law was passed? Given the increased rates in domestic violence incidence across the years, the answer is clearly “no,” with police attitudes toward family violence a significant hindrance to the law’s effectiveness. The problem is that while the law may theoretically protect, those responsible for enforcing it—the police—are not exactly enforcing or protecting (Nguyen, 2013). There appears to be still a lack of understanding among the Thai police force of both the law itself, and the necessity for such a law. For example, domestic violence complaints are viewed by police officers as personal or family matters and are therefore not taken seriously (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 2007). Such inaction is based on the general perception among police officers that domestic violence is a personal dispute to be resolved within the family, a perception reinforced by the Thai traditional belief that domestic violence is a private issue to be kept behind closed doors (IRIN, 2008).

When the abused woman strikes back

The issue of domestic violence, especially in the case of wife abuse, has recently received a great deal of attention in Thai society. One reason for the increased public attention lies with the increased publicity generated by both the phenomenon of battering and by trials of women who take matters into their own hands (Corben, 2013a). Although some women leave abusive partners, others stay in violent relationships and experience long-term victimization. Occasionally, battered women break out of the cycle of violence and kill their abusers. In such spousal homicide cases, when the battered woman is arrested, she typically does not deny killing her abusive husband but rather claims that her lethal action was in response to long-term provocation by her abusive spouse and that she acted in self-defense. It should be noted that within the context of Thai criminal code, provocation is defined as deliberate action or speech that is calculated to deprive a reasonable person of self-control and to cause him/her to act out of passion rather than reason; self-defense is defined as the right to prevent force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence (Jullamon, 2008).

The Thai Criminal Code with regard to homicide

At the outset, it must be noted that Thailand does not have a jury system like in the US. Criminal cases are conducted by a judge or judges who specialize in the case at hand. So how does the Thai Criminal Law consider such spousal homicide cases? In Thailand, the Thai Criminal Code states that any person who kills another person shall be punished by death or imprisonment for a period of 15–20 years. Further, the Thai Criminal Code imposes the maximum penalty of death when the killing was judged to be premeditated. However, the Thai Criminal Code also differentiates between homicide and homicide by provocation or self-defense. That is, if the act of killing, though intentional, be judged to be committed as the result of reasonable provocation, i.e. by which the perpetrator lost control of reason rather than because of any wickedness of heart or cruelty, or as an act of self-defense (to protect oneself from imminent death or injury), then the law regards the offense as less heinous than murder, and gives it the designation of manslaughter (The Criminal Code of Thailand, section 290). Given this differentiation and the recognition by the court of the effect of provocation and self-defense on the killing, it would be expected that Thai judges would give more weight to a battered woman’s claim of provocation and self-defense in homicide trials.

However, a primary barrier to the woman’s claim of provocation and self-defense rests with the laws of self-defense (Jullamon, 2008). To claim self-defense or provocation, it is incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate her reasonable perception of imminent danger to her life, that the force she used against her batterer was both reasonable and necessary, and furthermore, her obligation to retreat or try to escape from the attack. Clearly, reasonableness is the key to the self-defense law: reasonable belief that the harm is imminent and the force necessary to repel it. However, in deciding what is reasonable, the battered woman’s situation is typically at variance with what is considered to be legally justifiable violence.

Reasonable apprehension that the threat was imminent or immediate

In the context of male/male violence, the perception of imminent harm has traditionally been narrowly defined to mean that the attacker is in the process of attack, and the defender is thus in immediate danger and strikes back in self-defense. In lethal domestic violence situations, the question is often raised as to the battered woman’s reasonable belief about the imminence of harm. In these violent episodes where the abused wife kills during an acute physical assault incident, her self-defense claim on the basis of the immediacy of the attack is likely to be perceived as justified. However, when the killing does not occur during an acute battering incident, such as when a battered woman kills during a time lag between the violent attacks and the deadly act (e.g. when the abuser is asleep, had his back turned to her, or was turning to leave), then her claim of self-defense on the basis of imminent harm may be much more difficult to sustain. This is the US common law view which argues that that a lengthy lapse of time between the provocation and the act of killing will render the self-defense and provocation defenses inadequate “as a matter of law” and therefore deprive the defendant of the right to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Likewise, in Thailand, a period of time between the provocation and the act of killing is the decisive factor whether the defendant could assert the self-defense and provocation defenses. An act immediately or within a short period of time after being provoked would justify these defenses (Jullamon, 2008).

The force used to repel the threat must be a reasonable and necessary response

The law of self-defense with regard to the use of deadly force allows a battered woman to use deadly force to protect herself from what she reasonably believes to be an imminent deadly attack (Colb, 2011). Unfortunately though, the use of a deadly weapon against an unarmed attack often leads to the lay observer’s perception of intention of the battered woman using the weapon to inflict deadly harm on the victim, a perception that is difficult to overcome as women are more likely than men to resort to weapons during, in anticipation of, or after a violent episode, or while the abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated (Jackson, 2008). Thus, a battered woman who shoots her sleeping abuser or when he had his back turned does not appear to meet the criterion of reasonableness. Nevertheless, in battered women homicide trials, the battered woman’s testimony about the abuse over time, her belief about the imminence of future attacks, and her belief that she could not escape her abuser in any real way, may provide the context needed to meet the test of reasonable force—even when she killed her abusive spouse when he had his back turned to her. Moreover, the battered woman’s testimony may also go some way in convincing the court that to fight equally with a man, a woman may need to use a weapon simply because of their physical differences.

The obligation to retreat or try to escape from the attack

A common question that has often been raised during trials of battered women who killed their abusive spouses is “why did the battered woman not leave her abusive husband?” This question reflects the common belief among lay observers that the easiest and most logical way to end an abusive relationship is for the victim to walk away from that relationship. However, past research has shown that despite the fact many battered women want the abusive relationship to end, numerous factors influence a woman’s decision to stay with an abusive spouse despite the likelihood that not only will the violence not cease but will actually increase in frequency and severity over time (WHO, 2012). These factors include the following.

Culture. Culturally, women more so than men, tend to invest themselves in their relationships and derive meaning and identity from them (Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Thus, her devotion to her partner and her family motivates her to make every effort to resolve family conflicts and create peace in hopes of avoiding future violence. Within the Thai cultural context, when an abused wife initiates a complaint with the criminal justice system, it is not unusual that she will later request the police or prosecutor to withdraw the complaint for fear that the husband will be punished, usually incarcerated, a result which will directly affect the wife and her children economically and socially (UN Women, 2013). Coupled with the fact violent episodes are often interspersed with normal interactions reinforce the emotional attachment the woman feels for her partner and can be difficult for her to overcome.

Fear of losing their children. According to the Thai Social Development and Human Security Ministry Inspector Ubol Limsakul, capitalism, increased competition, and the transformation from an agricultural to an industrial society had created changes to the Thai family structure, making it less extended and more like the nuclear families of the west, i.e. limited to parents and children (The Nation, 2006). This view corroborates statistics presented by the National Statistical Office (1996) that since the 1980s, nuclear family households constitute the bulk of the households in Thailand. The traditional nature of the nuclear family generally allows the batterer to not only maintain sole control of the family’s finances but also to isolate the woman from her family and friends, restricting her access to both funds and social support that could enable her to leave (Lomratanachai, 2009). Where children are involved, the battered woman with children may also be deeply concerned about the well-being of her children if she leaves. The fear of losing custody of her children, either in divorce settlement or through later kidnapping by the man is a primary motivator for her to stay with the abuser (WHO, 2012). Confronted with threats of violence against her, the children, and/or family and friends, many battered women remain in abusive relationships out of fear of retaliation.

Separation assault. A number of researchers in the west have pointed out that while many battered women do leave abusive relationships or attempt to, they often end up back with the abuser (e.g. Jones, 1994; Liss & Stahly, 1993). A common fact in these abusive relationships is that women who experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner cannot assume that leaving, by itself, will end the abuse. Research has shown that violent assaults often continue after women leave or separate from their abusers (American Psychological Association, 1996; Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2000). Simply discussing separation or divorce, or actually leaving may further aggravate the man’s perception of loss of control/power and possession, and thus provoking an escalation of violence. The evidence is clear in showing that women who leave their abusers are at substantially greater risk of being killed or injured by the abuser than those who stay (Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness, 2015; Domestic Violence Intervention Program, 2016). This is supported by Jaree Srisawt, an official of the Women and Men Progressive Movement Foundation who claimed that the incidence of women killed or injured by their abusive husbands after they have left or separated from their abusers is on the rise, with Bangkok seeing the highest number, followed by Samut Prakan, Nakhon Pathom, Pathum Thani, and Chon Buri (The Nation, 2013a).

The battered woman syndrome (BWS)

It is claimed that the lay public harbors a host of misconceptions regarding the cause and effects of wife abuse (e.g. that battered women stay with their violent partners because they enjoy the violence; that they enjoy the role of martyr in the abuser–victim relationship; that they do not want to leave the relationship because of their masochistic desire for violence and pain; see Walker, 2009). Such beliefs are also common in Thailand and make it difficult for the lay public to understand the woman’s perception of imminent fear or to accept the reasonableness of her fatal action. Given these common beliefs and the variance between the woman’s actions and the existing laws of self-defense, convincing the judge of the reasonableness of the woman’s lethal behavior can be extremely difficult. Thus, the push for the use of expert testimony about the BWS in trials of women who killed their abusive spouses represents a direct response to these difficulties. More specifically, the testimony attempts to establish a standard against which the defendant’s behavior might be judged more equitably. The purpose of the expert testimony evidence is to provide the judges with an alternative framework from which to interpret the woman’s beliefs and actions—a framework from which to view her actions as reasonable rather than aberrant. Specifically, information about the BWS serves to explain to the judges why a woman suffering from BWS might perceive herself in imminent danger, even though her partner was not actually assaulting her at the time, why she would be unable to leave him, and how the use of a knife or gun might reasonably be considered a “proportionate” response to physical assault in such cases. Information about the syndrome also attempts to dispel any misconceptions that judges may have about the dynamics and consequences of wife abuse.

In Thailand as in the west, there is a growing concern with respect to the protection of battered women. Given the history of violence against a woman antecedent to the killing of her abusive husband, it is not unreasonable to argue that the court should take the battered condition of the defendant as relevant to the application of reasonable person requirement. As pointed out by Jullamon (2008), to be fully aware of the battered woman's situation, one simply has to take such circumstances into account. However, according to Supreme Court judge Vacharin Patjekvinyusakul, not only does Thai society lack enough knowledge about the BWS, but that there is a lack of clear stipulations under Thai criminal law that BWS could apply as a mitigating factor (The Nation, 2013b).

If BWS information is admitted, the question arises as to how, if at all, will the information affect the judges’ decision-making process? This question is of considerable importance for the debate over the admissibility of the BWS in Thai courts. Indeed, this question brings into focus not only the specific debate concerning the utility or otherwise of BWS information in homicide trials of battered women who kill, but also the more general issue of how the Thai lay public attribute responsibility to the battered woman over her fatal action.

Gender differences

How do men and women differ in their decision-making process when judging the lethal action of a battered woman who kills her abusive spouse? Statistics clearly show that males are more likely to be perpetrators of domestic violence. In a recent global study on homicide conducted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, 2013), the findings clearly showed that intimate partner/family-related homicide disproportionately affected women: two-thirds of its victims globally are female (43,600 in 2012) and one third (20,000) are male. Almost half (47%) of all female victims of homicide in 2012 were killed by their intimate partners, compared to less than 6% of male homicide victims. Given that males are more prone to violence against women (than vice versa), their perception of domestic violence and the situation leading up to the homicide may differ from that of females. In other words, the decision-making process when judging the lethal action of a battered woman who kills her abusive spouse may follow different dynamics for males and females.

Indeed, one of the most robust effects in trials of battered women who kill is the gender of the observer. In mock-juror research, the findings have been consistent in showing that gender exhibited the greatest predictive validity, with women holding less negative attitudes toward battered women and are more pro-defense in such cases (e.g. Russell & Melillo, 2006; Terrance, Matheson, & Spanos, 2000). Two explanations have been offered to account for this female gender bias. First, based on attribution theory, there is the tendency for observers to use defensive attribution when attributing responsibility for events with tragic consequences, such as in spousal homicide (Janoff-Bulman, 1979; Shaver, 1985). The use of such attribution is a self-protective mechanism which makes the action more predictable and hence avoidable for the self (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). The theory argues that the occurrence of defensive attributions depends largely upon the observer’s perceived personal and situational similarity to the perpetrator. That is, if the observer perceived personal or situational similarity as low, greater responsibility is attributed to the perpetrator as the severity of the tragic event’s consequences increases, whereas if the identification with the perpetrator is high, responsibility attributions are diminished (Fincham & Jaspars, 1980).

Second, in their recent study of factors impacting on jurors’ decision processes of battered women who kill, Hodell, Dunlap, Wasarhaley, and Golding (2012) argued that the line between the gender of the perpetrator and victim becomes blurred as the woman may be considered both a victim of domestic violence as well as the perpetrator in killing her husband. The abusive husband who is considered the perpetrator may also be viewed as the victim in the case at hand as he is the victim of homicide. Such a situation may lead to a reverse juror gender effect in which women are more likely to identify with the battered woman or find the situation more credible than are men.

Based on the above, it seems likely that there is the tendency for female observers to employ defensive attribution when reacting to women who kill their abusive spouses. That is, many women would probably perceive personal similarities (e.g. smaller size, lower physical capacities) and even situational similarities (e.g. been involved in an abusive relationship) between themselves and the defendant, resulting in attributions of low responsibility. For men, the situation would be reversed, in that seeing themselves as dissimilar to the woman, would probably assign greater responsibility for the homicide. As a consequence of such gender-based observations, it would be expected that women would be more empathic with and feel more sympathetic toward the battered woman, and thus would be less punitive in their judgment of her than men would.

The present study has been designed to achieve two aims. First, the study was designed to investigate Thai peoples’ reactions to a battered woman who killed her abusive spouse, and how such reactions could be influenced by the BWS information. It is argued that BWS information provides an alternative framework to interpret the woman’s beliefs and actions. If this framework is accepted by the public, then one would expect that people’s interpretation of the woman’s motivation (i.e. self-defense, provocation) to use deadly force would be more consistent with the BWS information presented, and thus leading to more lenient verdict decisions. The second aim of the study was to determine how men and women may differ in their decision-making process when judging the lethal action of a battered woman who kills her abusive spouse. Given that males are more prone to violence against women (than vice versa), their perception of domestic violence and the situation leading up to the homicide may differ from that of females. In other words, the decision-making process when judging the lethal action of a battered woman who kills her abusive spouse may follow different dynamics for Thai males and females.

Figure 1 presents the BWS model representing the structural relations hypothesized to exist between expert testimony related to the BWS, the mediator variables of self-defense, provocation, and impaired mental state, and the dependent variable of verdict/judgment attributed to the battered woman who killed. The model is fully specified. Based on this model, it is hypothesized that the structural relations between BWS and the dependent variable of verdict/judgment are both direct and indirect, being mediated by the motives of self-defense, provocation, and impaired mental state. The hypothesized direct relationship reflects the argument that expert testimony associated with the BWS is a significant indicator of the battered woman’s state of mind, and operates directly to influence the lay observer’s verdict judgment of the woman’s lethal action. The hypothesized indirect relationships suggest that at least part of the hypothesized direct relationships may be mediated by the defense motives of self-defense, provocation, and impaired mental state.

Figure 1.

Path model of the hypothesized direct and indirect influences (being mediated by the defense strategies of self-defense, provocation, impaired mental state) of the battered woman syndrome on the judgment of a battered woman who killed her abusive spouse.

Method

Sampling plan and procedure

Participants were recruited from the Bangkok metropolitan area, Thailand, via cluster sampling. This involved identifying all the major suburbs within the city and randomly selecting a predetermined number of suburbs (10) to be included in the sampling frame. Within each chosen suburb, 10 streets were randomly selected. This resulted in a sampling pool of 100 streets from which the study’s participants were drawn. A number of households from each street were then randomly selected and potential participants were invited to fill in the study’s questionnaire by the researchers’ assistants. All interviews were conducted in Thai.

Participants

The sample consisted of 1190 participants who completed the study’s questionnaire (representing a response rate of 96%). Of these, 376 (31.6%) were males and 814 (68.4%) were females (compared to the current male population of 49.1% and the current female population of 50.9%). The participants had an age range of 18–66 years and a median age within the range of 26–35 years (compared to the population median age of 38.5 years (Worldometers, 2016)). In terms of educational level, 80.9% had achieved tertiary/technical-trade educational status (compared to the population enrollment ratio (2010) of 48%). In terms of marital status, 65.1% of participants had never been married, and 30.7% were currently married or in a de facto relationship. Together, these demographic statistics suggest that the current sample may not be representative of the Thai population. As such, caution should be taken when generalizing the study’s findings to the rest of the country.

Materials

The study employed a survey questionnaire which consists of four sections. Section 1 consists of four items written to elicit information about the participants’ gender, age, educational status, and marital status.

Section 2 consists of a short fictionalized account of a violent domestic situation which ends with the killing of the husband by his battered wife. While the story is fictional, the writing incorporated many commonly noted features of violent domestic relationships, and leans heavily on actual biographies documented by Angela Browne (1987) in her book When Battered Women Kill, together with the personal experiences of several victims acquainted with the researchers. The story presents the married life of a young couple (Adul-husband and Daeng-wife) living in Bangkok and tracked Adul’s physical aggression against Daeng over the course of their 10-year marriage. Over this period, Adul put Daeng in hospital twice, once with three cracked ribs, and once with a badly broken jaw. The final incident occurred in the early hours of a Saturday morning after a particularly brutal attack during which Adul repeatedly screamed that he was going to kill her. Daeng blacked out for a few minutes as a result of blows to the head and Adul’s attempt to choke her. When she regained consciousness, she saw Adul sprawled across the bed, apparently asleep. Daeng smoked half a pack of cigarettes at the kitchen table, holding her head. Two or perhaps three hours later she went to the hall cupboard and took out a loaded handgun that Adul kept in case of burglars. Returning to the bedroom, she placed the barrel as close to Adul’s temple as she dared and fired, killing him instantly.

At the end of the story, participants were asked to indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the 18 items written to measure the defence motives of self-defence (six items) (e.g. In killing her husband, the defendant was justified in using whatever force (including lethal force) to protect herself), provocation (six items) (e.g. In killing her husband, the defendant acted in response to the long-term and violent provocative conduct of the deceased), and impaired mental state (six items) (e.g. The killing of her husband is the action of a mentally impaired person). Each item was to be rated on an 8-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8 (strongly agree), with high scores indicating strong agreement with that defence motive.

Section 3 consists of a detailed description of the BWS. Participants were asked to read this description, with the advice that “This information may help you to better understand the actions and reactions of the woman in the story, and her state of mind at the time she killed her husband.” Following the description of the BWS, participants were presented with six statements written to measure (1) the participants’ perception of the BWS as “believable/real,” (2) their level of support for the use of the BWS in spousal homicide trials, (3) their perception of the extent to which the BWS applied to the defendant in the present case, (4) the extent to which they believed that the BWS is not real and is simply a ploy/excuse used by the defense attorney to convince the judge to acquit the defendant (reverse scored), (5) their level of support for the presentation of BWS information as standard practice in spousal homicide trials, and (6) the extent to which they believe that the BWS offers a legitimate explanation for why battered women kill their abusive spouses. Each BWS statement was to be rated on an 8-point scale with high scores indicating high believability, high support, high applicability, high perceived reality, high agreement with its presentation as standard practice, and high legitimacy.

Section 4 consists of three items (dependent variables) written to measure the participants’ quasi-legal judgment of the woman. The first item measured the level of responsibility attributed to the woman for the fatal outcome; the item was to be rated on an 8-point scale with high scores indicating high attribution of responsibility for the outcome. The second item asked the participants to respond to the following question: “If you were the judge on the woman’s homicide trial, would you find her: (1) not guilty on the grounds of self-defence? (2) guilty of manslaughter? or (3) guilty of murder?” If the participants found the woman guilty of manslaughter or murder, he/she was asked to indicate the length of jail sentence he/she would recommend. Six levels were provided, ranging from (1) 1–5 years, to (6) death penalty.

Results

Multi-group path analysis via structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the path model presented in Figure 1. The specific research question tested was whether or not the pattern of structural relationships represented in the path model presented in Figure 1 followed the same dynamics for males and females. The following sequence of hypotheses was developed for analyzing group differences in this model: (1) path coefficients have the same pattern for males and females; and (2) path coefficients are identical for males and females.

In determining the consistency of the model across groups, the model was first specified to have the same pattern of path coefficients for both males and females, but allowed these coefficients to be estimated separately within each group. For this unconstrained/variant model, χ² (df = 162) = 579.673, p < .001. The incremental fit indices (NFI, IFI, TLI, CFI) are at or above 0.90 (range: 0.90–0.93). These fit indices indicated that the posited model provided a good fit relative to the null or independence model, and support the hypothesized structure of the model posited for the male and female participants. The RMSEA value of 0.047 is also within the range suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993) and indicates that the variant model fits the population covariance matrix well.

The preceding model specified the same pattern of fixed and free parameters for the two groups, but estimated these parameters separately within each group. In order to test the consistency of the model across males and females, the model was re-specified to have the path coefficients constrained to be invariant across the two groups of participants. Results from the analysis indicated that this constrained/invariant model fitted the data well, χ² (df = 169) = 586.023, p < .001; the incremental fit indices of NFI, IFI, TLI, CFI ranged from 0.90 to 0.93. The RMSEA value of 0.046 is also within the range suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993) and indicates that the invariant model fits the population covariance matrix well. Results of a chi-square difference test comparing this model with one that simply specified the same pattern of path coefficients indicated no significant difference in fit between the variant and invariant model, χ² (df = 7) = 6.350, p > .05. This suggests that the hypothesized pattern of structural path relationships (between the exogenous, mediator, and criterion variables) posited to represent the judgment of the battered woman operated similarly for the male and female participants.

The goodness-of-fit of competing models can also be compared by means of the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) measure (Akaike, 1987). In evaluating hypothesized models, this measure takes into account both model parsimony (i.e. achieving a higher degree of fit per degree of freedom used) and model fit. Simple models that fit well receive low scores, whereas poorly fitting models get high scores. Comparing the AIC measures for the constrained (invariant) model and the unconstrained (variant) model, it is evident that the AIC for the constrained/invariant model (728.023) is lower than that for the unconstrained/variant model (735.673), indicating that the constrained/invariant model is both more parsimonious and better fitting than the unconstrained/variant model. Table 1 presents the goodness-of-fit indices for both these models, together with the model comparison statistics.

Table 1.

Chi-square goodness-of-fit values, incremental fit indices (NFI, IFI, TLI, CFI), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) RMSEA, and model comparison.

Model	χ² (N = 1190)	df	p	NFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	AIC	RMSEA
Null Model	5929.59	210	<.001	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	5989.59	.151
Model A
Unconstrained (Variant) Model	579.67	162	<.001	0.90	0.93	0.91	0.93	735.67	.047
Model B
Constrained (Invariant) Model	586.02	169	<.001	0.90	0.93	0.91	0.93	728.02	.046
Model comparison
Model A vs. Model B	6.35	7	>.05	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	7.65

The standardized path coefficients for the BWS model for males and females (in brackets) are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Path model for male and female participants. Path coefficients presented are significant (i.e. p < .05) (in brackets for females) ns = non-significant (p > .05).

Standardized regression paths for males and females

Results obtained from the multi-group analysis showed that the invariant model (path coefficients were set to equality for the male and female participants) represents a better fitting model than one in which the coefficients were estimated freely within each group. These findings suggest that the hypothesized pattern of path relationships (between the exogenous, mediator, and criterion variables) posited to represent the decision-making processes about the battered woman operated similarly for the male and female participants. This conclusion is reflected in the highly similar pattern of structural relations hypothesized for the male and female participants as well as in the significance and direction of the path coefficients (see Figure 2). Thus, for both male and female participants, their endorsement of the BWS was not found to be directly related to their verdict judgment of the battered woman. Rather, the relationship appears to be in indirect, being mediated by the defense strategies of self-defense and impaired mental state. Thus, the more positively the male and female participants endorsed the BWS, (1) the more they perceived that the battered woman acted in self-defense in killing her husband (male: Beta = .38; female: Beta = .41), and subsequently the less punitive the verdict judgment rendered (male: Beta = −.39; female: Beta = −.36), and (2) for the male participants only, the more they believed that the woman suffered from an impaired mental state (Beta = .14), and subsequently the more punitive was the verdict judgment rendered (Beta = .22). For the female participants, their endorsement of the BWS was not found to be significantly related to their assessment of the defense strategy of an impaired mental state. Nevertheless, like their male counterparts, the more they believed that the woman suffered from an impaired mental state, the harsher was the verdict judgment rendered (Beta = .17).

For both male and female participants, their endorsement of the BWS was found to be positively and significantly related to the defense strategy of provocation. Thus, the more positively the male and female participants endorsed the BWS, the more they believed that the battered woman acted out of provocation by her abusive husband (male: Beta = .51; female: Beta = .54). However, the perception of provocation was not found to be significantly related to the severity of the verdict judgment rendered by either the male or female participants.

Discussion

The primary focus of the present study was to investigate how the defense strategies of self-defense, provocation, and impaired mental state may be influenced by BWS information presented in the trial of a battered woman who killed her abusive spouse. It was hypothesized that the presentation of the BWS information may reduce the responsibility attributed to the battered woman’s lethal action and thus leads to more lenient verdict decisions. Results obtained from the path analysis provided overall support for the “fit” of the hypothesized BWS model and suggests that the verdict/judgment decision-making process follows the hypothesized sequential influence of the BWS information on the verdict/judgment rendered, being mediated by the defense strategies of self-defense, provocation, and impaired mental state. However, contrary to prediction, the results show no significant direct influence of BWS information on the verdict/judgment rendered. This finding suggests that the provision of such information in spousal homicide trials within the Thai context may not exert any positive effect on the participants’ verdict judgments.

A number of explanations for the non-significant finding of a direct influence can be offered. First, the cultural imperative that dictates how a Thai woman lives her life clearly overrides the public’s belief that she has the right to act independently in a domestic violence episode. The culture-based gender-specific socialization that marks the Thai child-rearing process creates an imbalance of power via the inculcation of the belief in Thai male superiority, values that give men proprietary rights over women and girls, notion of the family as the private sphere and under male control, and the acceptability of violence as a means to resolve conflict (Lomratanachai, 2009). As stated earlier, the socialization of and adherence to these Thai cultural mores promotes the notion of being a “good woman,” first by being a good daughter and then a good wife. However, in a domestic violence situation where an abused wife kills her abusive husband, the woman’s lethal action is clearly at variance with these societal expectations of her social role as “good woman.” Even when expert testimony relating to the BWS is introduced during her trial, such information may not be enough to override centuries of such gendered cultural beliefs.

A second explanation may lie with the Thai public’s refusal to accept the BWS expert testimony as part of an excuse doctrine to excuse the battered woman for her killing. The word “syndrome,” by definition, implies some sort of disorder, and is commonly used by clinicians to describe a mental illness. Thus, in cases where a battered woman kills her abusive spouse, the use of the term “syndrome” pathologizes the defendant rather than rationalizing her behavior. Using testimony about a “syndrome” to explain what a reasonable person would do therefore, is not only a contradiction in terms, but shifts the attribution of responsibility from the victim’s abusive environment (e.g. being prevented by her abuser to have contact with family and friends; prevented from seeking outside help) to the defendant’s personal problems (e.g. fear, learned helplessness, psychological dysfunction). Thus, for many Thais, testimony regarding the BWS is inherently filled with implications that the victim-defendant is somehow psychologically impaired or incapacitated, a view that contradicts the accepted cultural and societal role of the good Thai woman.

Although the presentation of the BWS information in the battering scenario employed in the present study did not exert any significant positive effects on the participants’ verdict/judgment, it cannot yet be dismissed as a potential factor influencing judgments. This is indicated by the finding of an indirect effect of the BWS information on the verdict/judgment rendered being mediated by the defense strategy of self-defense. Specifically, the results from the path analysis indicated that the more the participants subscribed to the BWS information presented, the more they perceived that the battered woman acted in self-defense, which subsequently is associated with a reduction of the harshness of the verdict/judgment rendered. This shows that the BWS 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” to a psychologically and socially limited woman (Schuller & Rzepa, 2002).

The second major aim of the present study was to investigate how Thai men and women may differ in their decision-making process when judging the lethal action of a battered woman who kills her abusive spouse. For the present study, the only clear-cut gender difference obtained from the path analysis lies with the mediating effect of the defense strategy of an “impaired mental state.” For the male participants, exposure to the BWS information increased their perception that the battered woman’s killing was due to her impaired mental state, and which subsequently resulted in their rendering of harsher verdict/judgment. For the female participants, exposure to the BWS information was not found to be associated with their perception of an impaired mental state. Nevertheless, like their male counterparts, the more they perceived that the battered woman’s killing was due to her impaired mental state, the harsher their verdict/judgment rendered.

An explanation for this gender difference may once again lie with the cultural imperative that dictates how a Thai good woman should behave in Thai society. As mentioned earlier, centuries of socialization leads to the inculcation of the image of the Thai woman as being passive, loyal to her husband, and who provides unconditional support. However, in a domestic violence situation where an abused wife kills her abusive husband, the woman’s lethal action clearly conflicts with these societal expectations of her social role as “good woman.” When expert testimony relating to the BWS is introduced during her trial, such testimony contradicts centuries of cultural beliefs that a good Thai woman lives to support her husband and not to kill him. One possible and perhaps easiest way to resolve this conflict is to attribute her lethal action to her impaired mental state. Such a form of attribution shifts the blame for the killing away from the cultural-sensitive issues of socialization, male-female power relationship, gender inequality, and the accepted use of violence to subjugate women, back squarely to some impaired state of the woman herself. An implication of this finding is that the cultural placement of women in Thai culture plays an important role in mitigating a full appreciation of BWS because the actions place the woman outside of traditional views about “good” Thai women. Taking this into account it may be useful to consider the benefit of community education to help shift traditional cultural views about women to enable a better understanding of BWS within the Thai context.

There are limitations to any empirical study and the applied significance of the study’s findings must be interpreted with this in mind. First, the design of the study involved presenting the participants with a short fictionalized account of a violent domestic situation followed by a brief description of the BWS. This procedure does not closely replicate an actual courtroom setting in which BWS testimony is being given. Differences in environment, the testimonial processes, and the actors involved could have confounded the decision-making processes relating to the defendant’s culpability.

A second limitation relates to the topic of the investigation itself. Given the emotive nature of the topic of domestic violence, it is possible that the participants’ reactions could have simply reflected a social desirability bias in which the verdict rendered was less punitive than otherwise. While such bias is impossible to eliminate, steps were taken in the present study to minimize its effects by assuring participants of their anonymity and the confidentiality of their responses.

A third limitation concerns the design of the study and the implied causality of the BWS model. Although the modeling of the BWS model is based on sound theoretical “causal assumptions” and thus implies causality at the conceptual level (Baron & Kenny, 1986), the correlational nature of the path analysis results (Bollen & Pearl, 2013; Pearl, 2012), the cross-sectional design, and the order in which the study’s variables were presented (vignette; items measuring self-defense, provocation, impaired mental state; BWS information; items measuring perceptions of BWS; items measuring quasi-legal judgment) prevent any definitive conclusions to be drawn about the causal effect that the exogenous variable may have on the endogenous variables in the BWS model. In order to validate the sequential causal ordering of the presented variables, further research employing panel-study data from a two-or-more wave study, in which intervening variables are measured during intervening waves of data collection, may be necessary (Biddle & Martin, 1987).

In conclusion, the overall results highlight the significant role expert testimony plays in providing mitigating evidence in domestic violence cases that lay people otherwise would not have considered. Especially in homicide cases where Thai battered women kill their abusive partners, these women face a unique dilemma when being evaluated by a judge. On the one hand, the case is clear-cut and she does not deny the killing. Yet, she must present a case that facilitates understanding between the judge and her account of events that enable the judge to empathize with her mental state—that is, she killed in self-defense. It has been in response to these difficulties that the use of the BWS evidence has been most readily accepted as an alternative framework to interpret the woman’s beliefs and actions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article: This study was funded by an Assumption University Research Grant (Grant number AU-R1).

References

Abou El Fadl

(2006) The search for beauty in Islam: A conference of the books, Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Akaike

(1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52: 317–332.

American Psychological Association (1996) Violence and the family, Washington, DC: Author.

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.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986) The moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

Biddle

B. J.

Martin

M. M.

(1987) Causality, confirmation, credulity, and structural equation modeling. Child Development 58: 4–17.

Black

(1983) Crime as social control. American Sociological Review 48: 34–45.

Black

(1993) The social structure of right and wrong, San Diego: Academic Press.

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.

Boonsit

Claassen

Piemyat

(2004) Restorative justice and domestic violence resolution in Thailand. Connections 17: 1–16.

11.

Browne

(1987) When battered women kill, New York: Free Press.

12.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(eds) Testing structural equation models, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 445–455.

13.

Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness (2015). Barriers to leaving an abusive relationship. Retrieved from http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/barriers-to-leaving-an-abusive-relationship/.

14.

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.

15.

Corben, R. (2013a). Violence against Thai women escalating. DW Made for Minds. Retrieved from http://www.dw.com/en/violence-against-thai-women-escalating/a-17273095.

16.

Corben, R. (2013b). Efforts to turn back rising rates of violence against women in Thailand. Voice of America. Retrieved from http://www.voanews.com/content/efforts-to-turn-back-rising-rates-of-violence-against-women-in-thailand/1812771.html.

17.

Domestic Violence Intervention Program (2016). Myths and facts about domestic violence. Retrieved from http://www.dvipiowa.org/myths-facts-about-domestic-violence/.

18.

Ekachai, S. (2008). A fighting chance: Peace activist embraced Buddhist spirituality in her work to help victims of gender-based violence. The Bangkok Post. Retrieved from www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/peace_activist_Ouyporn_Khuankaew.htm#top.

19.

Fincham

F. D.

Jaspars

J. M.

(1980) Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In: Berkowitz

(ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology Vol 13, New York: Academic Press.

20.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

(1991) Social cognition, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

21.

Fleury

R. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

D. I.

(2000) When ending the relationship doesn’t end the violence: Women’s experiences of violence by former partners. Violence Against Women 6(12): 1363–1383.

22.

Haddad, G. F. (2000). Living Islam: Questions and answers. Retrieved from http://www.abc.se/∼m9783/fiqhi/fiqha_e32.html.

23.

Hodell

E. C.

Dunlap

E. E.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Golding

J. M.

(2012) Factors impacting juror perceptions of battered women who kill their abusers: Delay and sleeping status. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 18(2): 338–359.

24.

Ibrahim

Abdalla

(2010) A critical examination of Qur’an 4:34 and its relevance to intimate partner violence in Muslim families. Journal of Muslim Mental Health 5(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.

26.

IndexMundi (2015). Thailand Demographics Profile 2014. Retrieved from http://www.indexmundi.com/thailand/demographics_profile.html.

27.

Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) (2008). Signing up to fight violence against women. IRIN, 27 November – Attachment 4.

28.

Jackson

N. A.

(2008) Encyclopedia of domestic violence, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

29.

Janoff-Bulman

(1979) Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 1798–1809.

30.

Jones

(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.

Liss

M. B.

Stahly

G. B.

(1993) Domestic violence and child custody. In: Hansen

Harway

(eds) Battering and family therapy, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

33.

Lomratanachai

S. M.

(2009) Domestic violence and human security. Inter-Asia Civil Society Archive 4(1): 1–16.

34.

Musikaphan, W. (2013). Family-happiness indicator studies between 2009–2012, Thailand. National Institute for Child and Family Development (NICFD). Retrieved from http://www.dw.de/violence-against-thai-women-escalating/a-17273095.

35.

National Statistical Office (1996) Household and family: Household structure, Bangkok, Thailand: Social Statistics Division, National Statistical Office.

36.

Nguyen

(2013) Kiss with a fist: A look at Thailand’s Domestic Violence Act. e-Citylife 22(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.

Peterson

(1999) Murder as self-help: Women and intimate partner homicide. Homicide Studies 3(1): 30–46.

39.

Quicker

J. C.

(2002) Thailand. In: Summers

R. W.

Hoffman

A. M.

(eds) Domestic violence: A global view, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 155–167.

40.

Rose

A. J.

Rudolph

K. 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 Bulletin 132(1): 98–131. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98.

41.

Russell

B. L.

Mellilo

L. S.

(2006) Attitudes toward battered women who kill: Defendant typicality and judgments of culpability. Criminal Justice and Behavior 33: 219–241. Doi:10.1177/0093854805284412.

42.

Schuller

R. A.

Rzepa

(2002) Expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome: Its impact on jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior 26(6): 655–673. doi:10.1023/A:1020933618221.

43.

Shaver

K. G.

(1985) The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness, New York: Springer-Verlag.

44.

Terrance

C. A.

Matheson

Spanos

N. P.

(2000) Effects of judicial instructions and case characteristics in a mock jury trial of battered women who kill. Law and Human Behavior 24: 207–229. Doi:10.1023/A:1005411003414.

45.

The Nation (2006). Extended families are no longer the norm. Retrieved from http://www.thailandqa.com/forum/showthread.php?10195-Extended-families-are-no-longer-the-norm-in-Thailand.

46.

The Nation (2013a). Spousal killings on the rise. Retrieved from http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/632272-spousal-killings-on-rise-in-thailand-with-bangkok-seeing-the-highest-number/.

47.

The Nation (2013b). Judges, experts discuss integration of women's rights. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Judges-experts-discuss-integration-of-womens-right-30214385.html.

48.

UNODC (2013). Global study on homicide 2013: Trends, contexts, data. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf.

49.

UN Women (2013). Strengthening the capacity of the Thai judiciary to protect survivors of domestic violence: Justice for society’s “Little Dots.” United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Retrieved from http://www2.unwomen.org/∼/media/field%20office%20eseasia/docs/publications/2013/promising_practice_report_final.pdf?v=1&d=20150722T104443.

50.

Vichit-Vadakan

(1994) Women and the family in Thailand in the midst of social change. Law & Society Review 26: 515–524.

51.

Walker

L. 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.

53.

World Health Organization (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77432/1/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf.

54.

Worldometers (2016). Thailand population. Retrieved from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/thailand-population/.

55.

Kerley

K. R.

Sirisunyaluck

(2010) Understanding gender and domestic violence from a sample of married women in urban Thailand. Journal of Family Issues 32(6): 791–819.