Participation by Psychologists in Insanity Defense Proceedings: An Advocacy

Abstract

There are many arguments against participation by psychologists in insanity defense proceedings. The critics' concerns focus on ethical problems, the utility of testimony, and scientific imprecision. These arguments seem to be based on political and moral as well as scientific positions. An affirmative case for participation is made by examining the commonality among all insanity defense rules: Can mental illness impair a person's decision-making power to the extent that he or she is incapable of making a free-will choice to commit the crime alleged? This question does appear to be answerable.