al interaction and social/power ratios within the relationship. In other words, the context in which the evolution of defendant/sibling behavior would be key (Maguigan, 1998), and it would have to be arrayed against objections that BWS is just one more in a long line of attempts to sidestep responsibility for actions and give an excuse of helplessness as justification for actions against an abuser, however bad the abuser might have been.
The reason that context would figure so prominently in the defense and not the syndrome per se is that it provides a systematic approach to understanding the toxicity of some relationships and the behavior that ensues therefrom. The pattern of "continuous abuse" is decisive because such a condition may "make women feel powerless and make them stay in abusive relationships until they reach a point where they come to believe that their only option of getting out is either by suicide or homicide" ("First," 2002, p. 5).
2. Will tables be turned just because one finds oneself having an abuser for a sibling? Undoubtedly, family members who are overwhelmed by shame and guilt that there is an abusive family member have closed ranks, gone blind, and excused much. That said, one would hope that if one observed a sibling engaging in abusive behavior, it might be possible to engineer a therapeutic intervention before the extremes of violence in the relationship were reached. Indeed, it should still be a key object to isolate the abused person from danger.
The fact that the ultimate might occur, however, forces one to consider the possibility that BWS could be used as an excuse by a battered defendant to avoid taking responsibility for attacking the attacker. That is an argument advanced by Downs (1996), who sees "syndrome logic" being continually used in courtrooms by persons who want to benefit from their actions but also escape responsibility for them. One must admit that this possibility hangs in the ai...