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

Phillip J. Resnick

25 citations0/0 files storedPubMed

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Legal processes and jurisprudence Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending Jury Decision Making Processes

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

References

1953Life And Work Of Sigmund Freud 1984The detection of malingered mental illness 2017Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony. 1 1974Psychiatrists and the Adversary Process 1983Differences in repeated psychiatric examinations of litigants to a lawsuit 1915Wigmore on Evidence

Cited by

2011Reel forensic experts: Forensic psychiatrists as portrayed on screen.1992Increasing the reliability, validity, and relevance of psychological expert evidence: An introduction to the special issue on expert evidence.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.