ABSTRACT
A variety of forms of psychological evidence has been adduced in the courts over the past 25 years in attempts to disabuse triers of fact of misconceptions that allegedly they may have harbored. The mainstream forms of such evidence have included “rape trauma syndrome” (“RTS”) evidence, “battered woman syndrome” (“BWS”) evidence, “child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome” (“CSAAS”) evidence, “repressed memory syndrome” (“RMS”) evidence, “false memory syndrome” (“FMS”) evidence, “premenstrual syndrome” 1 (“PMS”) evidence, “cult indoctrinee syndrome” (“CIS”) evidence and latterly even “Vietnam Veteran syndrome” (“VVS”) evidence and “false victimization syndrome” (“FVS”) evidence. It is timely after a quarter of a century of syndrome evidence to ask whether the experiment is or should be coming toward its conclusion. Are there better means than syndrome evidence to introduce counterintuitive information into the courts?
