NCJ Number
102303
Journal
Washburn Law Journal Volume: 24 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1984) Pages: 54-77
Date Published
1984
Length
24 pages
Annotation
The current confusion over the causes and treatment of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) suggests that defense attorneys should probably try to use information about PMS to mitigate charges or sentences rather than as part of a defense plea.
Abstract
Publicity about several cases has given rise to controversy among prosecutors, defense attorneys, doctors, and women regarding the appropriateness and validity of using PMS as a defense. PMS was first recognized as a clinical disorder in 1931. However, disagreement continues about its definition, causes, incidence, and treatment. Courts have recognized PMS as a mitigating factor in crimes. However, its status as a defense is unresolved. Using an insanity or diminished capacity defense based on PMS will probably not succeed if PMS is regarded as a hormonal disorder, because hormonal disorders fall outside definitions of mental disorders. The involuntary act defense has the greatest chance of success, because it does not restrict diseases to mental disorders. Evidence focusing on the mens rea may be admissible if it satisfies the standard set in the case of Frye v. United States. In all cases involving the use of PMS as a defense, evidence from qualified doctors will be necessary. 281 reference notes.