This paper provides an analysis of the psychological testimony in an amnesty application to the TRC based on the court record. Arguing that PTSD and its diagnostic criteria has become so well known that the DSTMIV caution regarding malingering and benefit eligibility should be given greater weight during psychological testimony than has occurred. Especially where potential beneficiaries of testimony have repeatedly perjured themselves even greater caution should be exercised rather than unequivocally endorsing their truthfulness as in the case of Mr Benzien.
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.
2.
BowmanM. L. (1999) Individual differences in Posttraumatic Distress: Problems with the DSMIV model. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry44, 21–33.
3.
KaplanH.I.SadockB.J.GrebbJ.A. (1994). Synopsis of Psychiatry. Maryland: Waverley.
4.
KrogA. (1998). Country of my skull. Johannesburg: Random.
5.
NelJ.BurgersT. (1996, March). The South African Police Service: Symptom bearer of the new South Africa. Track Two, 17–20.
6.
NelJ.BurgersJ. (1998). Stress and trauma in the work environment: The South African Police Service. UNISA Psychologist, 25, 17–24.
7.
PauwJ. (1997). Into the Heart of Darkness: Confessions of Apartheid's Assassins. Jeppestown: Jonathan Ball.
8.
Unpublished Psychological Report (1997). J T Benzien.
