Katz J
Yale Law School, New Haven, CT 06520.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1992;20(2):141-52.
This article, in memory of Bernard Diamond, revisits his seminal editorial on the "Fallacy of the Impartial Expert." In a later article he formulated his thesis most succinctly: "There is no such thing as an impartial expert witness; the objectivity of the expert witness is largely a myth." I argue that the implications of his challenging assertion have as yet not been fully recognized. Ultimately, they also invite a revision of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law's Guidelines for the Practice of Forensic Psychiatry. The Guidelines should emphasize more than they do experts' commitment to honesty and to informing fact finders about the extent and limits of their scientific knowledge, the facts on which their opinions are based, as well as the scientific and value assumptions that underlie their testimony.
本文为纪念伯纳德·戴蒙德，重温了他关于“公正专家谬误”的开创性社论。在后来的一篇文章中，他最简洁地阐述了自己的观点：“不存在公正的专家证人；专家证人的客观性很大程度上是个神话。”我认为，他这一具有挑战性的论断的影响尚未得到充分认识。最终，这些影响还促使人们修订美国精神病学与法律学会的法医精神病学实践指南。该指南应比以往更加强调专家对诚实的承诺，以及向事实认定者告知其科学知识的范围和局限性、其意见所依据的事实，以及其证词背后的科学和价值假设。
