Jonnette Watson Hamilton

Theories of Categorization: A Case Study of Cheques.

Categorization plays a key role in legal reasoning but it has been under-theorized, particularly within common law legal systems. In this article, the author uses the Canadian law governing cheques to illustrate two different theories of categorization. The law governing ordinary cheques is relatively certain and the results of its application are mostly predictable. However, when that law is applied to variations on the basic form – to post-dated, certified, and double-dated cheques – the results are wildly unpredictable. The reason for this, the author argues, is the theory of categorization embodied in the governing legislation, the Bills of Exchange Act. That act assumes cheques can be defined by a list of necessary and sufficient conditions. However, such a theory cannot account for consumer and corporate practices. A theory of categorization based upon prototypes is necessary to explain the variations. They are systematic and coherent elaborations of a central model. They are not arbitrary because they are constrained by a prototype, but neither are they predictable. The theory of categorization assumed by the law obscures the complexity and fluidity of even such a seemingly simple category as cheques. A prototype theory of categorization, on the other hand, explains both the structure of the category, accounting for the variations, and the source of the laws indeterminacy.

Expert Testimony on Domestic Violence: A Discourse Analysis

Melissa Hamilton analyzes the impact of expert testimony about battered women’s syndrome (BWS) on appellate judges in Expert Testimony on Domestic Violence: A Discourse Analysis. The author considers sixty-three decisions of the appellate state courts in California that were rendered between 1996 and 2004 in cases where female defendants had been convicted of at least one criminal charge as a result of killing men who had battered them. She concludes that the expert testimony was highly influential. The topic, and Hamilton’s research, had excellent potential to inform our thinking on the use of expert testimony on BWS in the unusual research context of appellate courts. Unfortunately, this book does not meet that potential. Sex stereotypes of proper behaviour for women, gender bias in the laws of selfdefence, and myths and misconceptions about female victims of domestic violence have historically prevented battered women 1 from presenting their acts of killing their batterers as acts of self-defence. 2 BWS was developed to explain to judges and juries the common experiences of, and the impact of repeated abuse on, battered women in order to lend credibility to, and provide context for, the defendant’s explanation of her actions. 3 Drawing heavily on the work of Lenore Walker, 4