Bennett G T, Sullwold A F
J Forensic Sci. 1985 Apr;30(2):462-6.
Organized psychiatry has recently begun to define limits to expert testimony. The American Psychiatric Association filed an amicus brief in the case of Barefoot v. Estelle urging legal curtailment of psychiatric testimony as to future dangerousness and prohibition on Constitutional grounds of expert psychiatric testimony solely based on hypothetical data. The Supreme Court refused relief on both questions. Psychiatric testimony to ultimate questions at law is limited by the inherent contextual variables of psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. A forensic science model for psychiatric participation with explicit psychiatrically defined limitations is proposed using competence to stand trial as an example.
有组织的精神病学最近开始界定专家证词的界限。美国精神病学协会在“赤脚诉埃斯特尔案”中提交了一份法庭之友意见书,敦促从法律上限制关于未来危险性的精神病学证词,并基于宪法理由禁止仅基于假设数据的专家精神病学证词。最高法院在这两个问题上均未给予救济。关于法律最终问题的精神病学证词受到精神病学临床和实验知识及实践中固有的背景变量的限制。以受审能力为例,提出了一种具有明确精神病学界定限制的精神病学参与的法医学模型。