NCJ Number
86115
Journal
Journal of Psychiatry and Law Volume: 9 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1981) Pages: 247-262
Date Published
1982
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This essay identifies and counters criticisms of psychologists' participation in insanity defense proceedings.
Abstract
Critics of participation by psychologists in insanity defense proceedings argue that psychological-scientific laws are so inexact as to be incapable of explaining behavior upon which the fact-finder must rule. Critics are also concerned about the ethics of such participation, since it creates divided loyalties between an agent of the state and defendant who was psychologically evaluated. The ethics of confidentiality is also considered by some to be compromised. Critics also question the utility of a psychologist's testimony in an insanity defense. Advocacy for the involvement of psychologists in an insanity defense can be based in the central issue in the adversarial debate, i.e., whether mental illness has impaired a person's decisionmaking power to the extent that he/she is incapable of making a free-will choice to commit the crime alleged. This issue cannot be properly addressed without some input from behavioral science testing. Confidence limits in such testing should be acknowledged when the issue is raised in court questioning, and it is the task of the court decisionmakers to determine the value of the testimony in deciding the issue of legal insanity. So far as the ethical issues are concerned, it is understood by all the parties involved that the use of the insanity defense involves the testing and airing of the defendant's mental state, so the role of the psychologist is clearly defined and accepted by the representatives of the defendant. The concluding advocacy argument for the use of psychologists in insanity defenses is that no reasonable alternative has yet been proposed to decide the issues involved in the insanity defense. Twenty-five notes are listed.