Abstract
The authors address the main questions in the insanity defense debate: Should it be abolished? Should psychiatrists participate as expert witnesses? Is the profession damaged by such testimony? Is there a logical leap between providing psychiatric findings and providing an opinion to the ultimate question? Because the free will/determinism model underlying the current insanity defense positions can be used to argue either side of the debate, it does not supply any rational answers. The authors reframe the discussion, using a systems approach, and suggest answers to these questions that are in line with the clinical realities and on a firmer philosophic ground.
Footnotes
-
Dr. Ciccone is associate professor of psychiatry and director, psychiatry and law program, and Dr. Clements is assistant professor of psychiatry and co-director, program in psychiatric ethics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Address reprint requests to Dr. Ciccone, Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 300 Crittenden Blvd., Rochester, NY 14642. This paper is revision of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Nassau, Bahamas, October 25-28, 1984.
- Copyright © 1986, The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
