An Unwelcome Guest in the Courtroom

Editor:

Drs. Kapoor and Williams¹ brought an important matter to our attention, with which I am in agreement, given some 45 years of general and forensic practice.

I was surprised that a commentary was not presented, especially by a practitioner of both psychoanalysis and forensics. My education and practice have been guided by psychoanalytic theory for both psychotherapy and forensic examinations.

Given that, I was drawn to page 456, paragraph 3. I reviewed citations 7 to 9, all three of which referenced sexual boundary violations from 1990 and 1992. The authors assert that these “violations tarnished the reputation of psychoanalysis in the latter part of the 20th century, which led to a general questioning of its value ” (emphasis added). Where is the authors' evidence that “psychoanalysis lost its dominance as the explanatory model of human behavior”? No citations were noted to justify such a profound and overarching declaration.

I don't accept the authors' conclusions as fact. I'd like to hear opinions from psychoanalysts about the authors' “belief,” which is what I have to term it, without evidence presented.

Also, on page 457, citations are lacking for their statement that “magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomographic (CT) scans have become commonplace in the courtroom…. ” (My focus is on their use of the term commonplace). I would welcome published studies that document these assertions; if they exist, I've missed them.

So, yes, teach and keep a “role for psychodynamic formulation in forensic practice” (Ref. 1, p 459).