NCJ Number
56913
Journal
Law and Psychology Review Volume: 2 Dated: (1976) Pages: 99-118
Date Published
1976
Length
20 pages
Annotation
THIS ARTICLE ADVOCATES A DECREASED RELIANCE ON THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS, PREFERRING THE JURY TO ASSESS CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DETERMINE GUILT.
Abstract
RELIANCE ON PSYCHIATRISTS EXISTS TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT SUCH EXPERTS HAVE USURPED THE ROLE OF JURIES IN DETERMINING A DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THE LAW, AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOCIETY. THE INSANITY DEFENSE STILL SERVES A JUST PURPOSE IN PROVIDING A TRULY BLAMELESS OFFENDER WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE PROPER TREATMENT. THE APPLICATION OF THE DEFENSE TO TRIAL PROCEDURES, HOWEVER, HAS BECOME AN EXERCISE IN MEDICAL SPECULATION, WITH THE OPINIONS OF THE EXPERTS LACKING ANY RELATION TO THE FACTUAL DECISIONS WHICH A JURY MUST MAKE. IF PSYCHIATRISTS ARE TO BE USED IN TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, THEN EVERY CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO ASSURE THAT POOR DEFENDANTS ARE PERMITTED ACCESS TO THE INSANITY DEFENSE. THE OPINIONS OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS, RATHER THAN BEING CONSIDERED CONCLUSIVE, SHOULD MERELY SERVE AS GUIDELINES FOR THE JURY. MEDICAL EXPERTS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO MAKE DECISIONS ON SOCIAL POLICY AND MORALITY AT THE EXPENSE OF TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)