string(0) ""
array(4) {
["txt"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_datas"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_thumbnail"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_media"]=>
string(0) ""
}
Experts and ordinary men
| Subtitle | locating R. v. Lavallée, battered woman syndrome, and the 'new' psychiatric expertise on women within Canadian legal history |
| Magazine Title | Canadian Journal of Women and the Law |
| Volume | 12 |
| Magazine Year | 2000 |
| Magazine Number | 2 |
| Pages | p. 406-438 |
| Language | English/Engels |
| Description | This article examines historically the nature of medical 'experience' and the role of the expert witness in the trials of Canadian women charged with killing their - abusive male partners. The author argues that we can add conceptual depth to our reading of R. v. Lavallée and other contemporary cases where battered woman syndrome (BWS) is raised in a self-defence claim by looking to past practices of engaging medical expert opinion evidence in the courtroom and the historical development of psychiatric expertise in such cases. Within the context of Canadian legal history, this analysis reveals how 'new' medical-legal innovations, such as BWS not only reinvent old theories about women's behaviour but also perpetuate the artificial dichotomy between 'expertise' and 'common sense'. By turning the gaze inward and focusing on the courtroom, this analysis highlights a number of the more subtle legal processes that get in the way of correcting deep gender biases in the practice interpretation of Canadian law. |
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/11653/art226498
