Related Experiment Videos
The insanity defense: asking and answering the ultimate question
1Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY 14642.
The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
|January 1, 1987
Summary
This study reframes the insanity defense debate, moving beyond free will arguments. It suggests answers aligning clinical realities with philosophical grounding for psychiatric expert testimony.
Area of Science:
- Forensic Psychiatry
- Legal Psychology
- Philosophy of Mind
Background:
- The insanity defense is a contentious issue in legal and psychiatric fields.
- Current debates often rely on the free will/determinism model, yielding no consensus.
- Key questions involve abolition, psychiatrist participation, and the scope of expert testimony.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically examine the core questions surrounding the insanity defense.
- To analyze the limitations of the free will/determinism framework in this debate.
- To propose a new framework for addressing these issues.
Main Methods:
- Re-framing the insanity defense debate using a systems approach.
- Analyzing the philosophical underpinnings of current positions.
- Evaluating the role and impact of psychiatric expert witnesses.
Main Results:
- The free will/determinism model fails to provide rational answers to the insanity defense debate.
- A systems approach offers a more robust foundation for discussion.
- The study identifies logical inconsistencies in expert testimony regarding ultimate questions.
Conclusions:
- The current debate on the insanity defense requires a paradigm shift.
- A systems approach provides a more philosophically sound and clinically relevant perspective.
- Psychiatric expert testimony can be better integrated by addressing the limitations of existing models.