Abstract
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.
Footnotes
-
This paper is a revision or the Presidential Address to the American Academy or Psychiatry and the Law. October 10. 1985. in Albuquerque. New Mexico.
- Copyright © 1986, The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law





