Perceptions of psychiatric testimony: a historical perspective on the hysterical invective.
This paper discusses the perceptions of psychiatric testimony by the public, lawyers, and psychiatrists. Five major criticisms are put into historical perspective: psychiatrists excuse sin; psychiatrists always disagree; psychiatrists give confusing, subjective, uninformed, jargon-ridden testimony; psychiatrists dictate the law; psychiatrists give conclusory opinions. Proposed solutions to these criticisms are analyzed.
D005104:Expert Testimony; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000266:history*; D049671:History, 18th Century; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense / Q000266:history; D011639:Public Opinion; D006113:United Kingdom; D014481:United States