Perceptions of psychiatric testimony: a historical perspective on the hysterical invective.

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.