Advertisement

Judges and Psychiatrists

The Question of a Collaborative Relationship
  • Howard Owens
Chapter
  • 67 Downloads
Part of the Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law book series (CIAP, volume 5)

Abstract

In his typically satirical fashion, Jonathan Swift understood the familiar process by which stereotypes, which modern physicians might attribute to anxiety, projection, and paranoid fantasies, can be broken down by actual, concrete experience with the hated and feared object—and yet the stereotype may still live on, coexisting on a different plane of the mind with day-to-day cordiality and cooperation. In recent years, the history of the apparently very troubled relationship between psychiatrists and the courts has fallen into a similar pattern: many psychiatrists have approached any involvement with the courts with great trepidation, disgust, or abhorrence and have even avoided doing psychiatric-legal work if at all possible. At the same time, specialists in forensic psychiatry have found that immersing themselves in the daily problems dealt with by the courts and working as consultants to judges and attorneys can actually be fascinating, intellectually stimulating, and rewarding.

Keywords

Acad Psychiatry Supreme Court Decision Trial Court Forensic Psychiatry Court Judge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Swift J: Gullivers Travels and Other Writings. Cambridge, Riverside Press, 1960, pp 493–494.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stone A: The ethical boundaries of forensic psychiatry: A view from the ivory tower. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1984; 12:209–218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ziskin J: Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony. Venice, Calif, Law and Psychology Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosner R: Misguided loyalty, therapeutic grandiosity, and scientific ignorance: Limitations on psychiatric contributions to family law and juvenile justice, in Rosner R (ed): Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law. Springfield, 111, Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1982. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosner R: The roots of the controversy between psychiatry and the law: An essay in speculative ideological archeology, in Rosner R (ed): Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law. Springfield, 111, Charles C Thomas Publisher, 1982, p 231.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charles S, Kennedy E: Defendant: A Psychiatrist on Trial for Medical Malpractice. New York, Vintage Books, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Low P, Jeffries J, Bonnie R: The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.: A Case Study in the Insanity Defense. Mineola, Foundation Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frankel M : Criminal Sentences: Law without Order. New York, Hill & Wang, 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank J: Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bazelon D: The perils of wizardry. Am J Psychiatry 1974; 131:1317–1322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry: Misuse of Psychiatry in the Criminal Courts: Competency to Stand Trial. Report 8, Part 2: 1974; pp 859–919.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robey A: Criteria for competency to stand trial: A checklist for psychiatrists. Am J Psychiatry 1965; 122:616–623.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Balcanoff EJ, McGarry AL: Amicus curiae: The role of the psychiatrist in pretrial examinations. Am J Psychiatry 1969; 126:342–347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petrila J, Selle J, Rouse PC, et al: The pretrial examination process in Missouri: A descriptive study. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1981; 9:60–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Geller JL, Lister ED: The process of criminal commitment for pretrial psychiatric examination: An evaluation. Am J Psychiatry 1978; 135:53–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooke G, Johnston M, Pogany, E: Factors affecting referral to determine competency to stand trial. Am J Psychiatry 1973; 130:870–875.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hess JH, Thomas HE: Incompetency to stand trial: Procedures, results, and problems. Am J Psychiatry 1963; 119:713–720.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone A: Mental Health and the Law: A System in Transition. New York, Jason Aronson, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Appelbaum P: The supreme court looks at psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141:827–835.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goldstein R: Castles in the air: The credibility of forensic psychiatrists. AAPL Newsletter 1986; 11:35–37.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldstein R: Sanctum Sanctorum: The psychiatrist’s role in posttrial competency examination of jurors. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1985; 13:191–196.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stone A: Comment on Goldstein’s posttrial competency examination of jurors. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1985; 13:197–199.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reich JH, Tookey L: Disagreements between court and psychiatrist on competency to stand trial. J Clin Psychiatry 1986; 47:29–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Melton G, Weithorn L, Slobogin C: Community Mental Health Centers and the Courts. Lincoln, University of Nebraska, 1985.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Owens H, Rosner R, Harmon R: The judge’s view of competency evaluations. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1985; 13:389–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Owens H, Rosner R, Harmon R: The Judge’s View of Competency Evaluations II. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1987; 15:381–390.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Owens
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Forensic Psychiatry Clinic for the Criminal and Supreme CourtsNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations