NCJ Number
70647
Journal
Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform Volume: 63 Issue: 2 Dated: (April 1980) Pages: 108-115
Date Published
1980
Length
8 pages
Annotation
Problems of judges in appointing medical specialists are illustrated with the example of a sexual offense case.
Abstract
From the standpoint of the needs for expert testimony, specialization in medicine has diversified the range of the field while narrowing individual expertise. The judge must be able to select a competent expert for a particular problem, even though the judge himself may not grasp the psychological implications of a case. An expert chosen to assess the mental state of a sexual offender must possess outstanding capabilities in diagnosing physiological and psychological elements of an illness. Unfortunately, in attaining the necessary depth in a specialty, experts often lose touch with the general context, especially when they have not undergone a broad-based education. For example, a psychoanalytic expert has the necessary expertise to evaluate an offender, but the psychoanalytic method tends to clash with rules of evidence and other legal norms. In comparison, a clinical psychiatrist is better equipped to assess the individual offender's mental state. The case of a sexual offender who gets off with a light sentence by claiming an abnormal lack of self-control in sexual matters shows the danger of relying on the narrow subjective interpretation of an expert in sexual behavior without regard for descriptive phenomenological examinations and other objective indicators. It is cautioned that experts must recognize the limitations of their own knowledge and exercise restraint in defining the causes of sexual and other anomalies. A bibliography (approximately 12 entries) is supplied.