Dr Rogers' 'insanity detector' and the admissibility of novel scientific evidence

The R-CRAS (Rogers' Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales) purports to be a systematic and empirically based approach to evaluations of criminal responsibility. This 'insanity detector' has been heralded as a reliable instrument in the resolution of the psycholegal controversies surrounding the plea of insanity. It is contended that, regardless of its possible scientific merit, most courts will find that the R-CRAS fails to satisfy the Frye test for admissibility of novel scientific evidence (that is, general acceptance by the relevant scientific community). Moreover, it is argued that the R-CRAS's potential for prejudice outweighs its probative value, in that it might unfairly bolster the testimony of the expert witness who relies upon it and might overwhelm the jury because of its 'aura of special reliability and trustworthiness'. Until such time as the R-CRAS does gain widespread acceptance and is shown to be sufficiently reliable to outweigh any potential prejudice (if ever), the author is of the opinion that forensic psychiatrists and psychologists may have to continue to conduct evaluations of criminal responsibility 'the old-fashioned way'. 'Truth does less good in the world than its appearances do harm' --La Rochefoucauld.