Regulating (Hetero)Sexual Offences in British Columbia, 1885-1940

Abstract

Since the late twentieth century, much literature and debate has addressed the use and misuse of science and expertise in the courts and the relationship between science and law in the determination of legal outcomes. Feminists have examined these issues in relation to the adjudication of criminal cases involving women accused (battered woman syndrome – BWS; pre-menstrual syndrome – PMS) and women complainants/victims (rape trauma syndrome – RTS) as well as cases in other areas of law such as sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Their research demonstrates that expert testimony reflects class-based, gendered, racialized, and sexualized assumptions and is clearly important to case outcomes. On one hand, judges often are swayed by expert testimony given at trial and/or submitted at the pre-trial or pre-sentence stage of the criminal process. On the other hand, non-legal experts often act like legal agents on behalf of either the prosecution or the defense. Indeed, the issue of competing experts is central to much discussion and debate about their place in criminal proceedings.