Kermani E J, Drob S L
Dept. of Psychiatry, New York University Medical Center, N.Y. 10016.
Psychiatr Q. 1988 Fall;59(3):193-212. doi: 10.1007/BF01064243.
The arguments for and against mental health professionals' participation in death penalty proceedings are presented against the background of U.S. Supreme Court decisions which have had a bearing on this issue. It is concluded that the possibility of presenting mitigating psychologic testimony in such proceedings necessitates the possibility of exacerbating psychiatric testimony and that hence, mental health professionals who testify for the prosecution in such cases do not, on a wider view, violate their hippocratic oaths or other ethical codes. A number of safeguards, however, should be instituted with respect to such testimony. Psychiatrists, psychologists or other qualified mental health professionals should (1) testify with medical "possibility" or "probability," (2) not be permitted to address ultimate legal issues and (3) be permitted, in fact encouraged, to present alternative interpretations of forensic psychiatric findings. It is further argued that in addition to being justified in testifying for the prosecution on death penalty cases, mental health professionals may have a moral rationale for treating death row prisoners and restoring them to competency.
支持和反对心理健康专业人员参与死刑诉讼程序的论点，是在美国最高法院与该问题相关的裁决背景下提出的。得出的结论是，在这类诉讼程序中提供减轻处罚的心理证词，必然伴随着加重刑罚的精神病学证词的可能性，因此，从更广泛的角度来看，在此类案件中为检方作证的心理健康专业人员并未违反他们的希波克拉底誓言或其他道德准则。然而，对于此类证词应制定一些保障措施。精神病医生、心理学家或其他合格的心理健康专业人员应该：（1）依据医学上的“可能性”或“概率”作证；（2）不被允许处理最终的法律问题；（3）实际上应被允许、事实上也应受到鼓励，对法医精神病学调查结果提出不同的解释。进一步的观点认为，除了在死刑案件中为检方作证具有正当性之外，心理健康专业人员可能还有道德理由来治疗死囚并恢复他们的行为能力。
