Review Note
Last Update: 11/04/2024 12:36 PM
Current Deck: PCM_B2::Violence Against Women
Published
Fields:
Front
In the 2004 case, why did the court rule
against a woman claiming BWS as a defense?
A. She was unable to prove the abuse actually
occurred.
B. The abuse did not follow the typical 3-stage cycle associated with BWS.
C. There was no recurring pattern of abuse, as it happened only once.
D. She did not present a psychiatrist to testify on her behalf.
B. The abuse did not follow the typical 3-stage cycle associated with BWS.
C. There was no recurring pattern of abuse, as it happened only once.
D. She did not present a psychiatrist to testify on her behalf.
Back
C. There was no recurring pattern of abuse, as it happened only once.
Suggested Changes:
Deck Changes (Suggestion to move the Note to the following Deck):
Field Changes:
Tag Changes: