The Diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was presented as the core testimony in mitigation of sentence in the Eugene de Kock criminal trial. Several hundred pages of expert witness testimony were assessed and the difficulties of diagnosing PTSD for forensic determination, especially when the client is familiar with the usually well-publicised symptoms, are presented. The obligation of expert witnesses to remain objective, testify within their areas of expertise, not assume the role of lie detectors and write accurate reports were emphasised.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.
BowmanM. L. (1999) Individual differences in Posttraumatic Distress: Problems with the DSMIV model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry44, 21–33.
4.
BreslanN.KesslerR.C.ChilcoatH.D. (1998) Trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder in the community. Archives General Psychiatry55, 626–632.
5.
CornishD. B.ClarkeR. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory. Criminology25 (4), 933–974.
6.
De KockE. (1998). A long night's damage. Working for the Apartheid State. Saxonwold: Contra Press.
7.
PauwJ. (1997). Into the Heart of Darkness: Confessions of Apartheid's Assassins. Jeppestown: Jonathan Ball.
8.
Transcripts (1994). Unpublished transcripts of the expert witness testimony at the criminal trial of Eugene de Kock. 13638–14195.
9.
SparL.F.AtkinsonR. M. (1986). Posttraumatic stress disorder as an insanity defense: Medicolegal quicksand. American Journal of Psychiatry143 (5), 608–613.
10.
YehudaR. (1999) Biological factors associated with susceptibility to PTSD. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry44, 34–39.
