NCJ Number
112341
Journal
Canadian Journal of Criminology Volume: 30 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1988) Pages: 215-229
Date Published
1988
Length
15 pages
Annotation
Groups of laypeople, psychiatrists, forensic social workers, forensic psychiatric nurses, and lawyers viewed videotapes of actual psychiatric interviews of accused individuals and were asked to make decisions of dangerousness, mental illness, treatability, and criminal responsibility.
Abstract
They were additionally asked to indicate the degree of confidence they felt in these decisions. Patterns of decision outcomes indicated similar responses for all groups for all decisions, except treatability, which was somewhat more scattered; however, confidence levels were highest for psychiatrists and lawyers for the most part, suggesting they were comfortable making these decisions. The relevance to the courtroom is obvious; the more confident the witness, the more credibility is the testimony. Finally, the findings (consistent with those of an earlier study by the author which used case summaries) question the expert witness status of clinicians. If others can reach similar decision outcomes, wherein lies the unique clinical contribution? (Author abstract)