Objectivity and Advocacy in Forensic Psychiatry after Ake v. Oklahoma

Abstract

In its landmark opinion in Ake v. Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court enunciated a broad right to psychiatric assistance for criminal defendants who raise the defense of insanity or whose mental condition is relevant to sentencing in a capital case. Recognizing such assistance as essential to the proper functioning of the adversary process in cases in which an issue concerning the defendant's mental condition has been raised, the opinion may be read to pose an ethical dilemma for the psychiatrist who regards his or her assessment as objective and, hence, not a proper subject for adversarial presentation or inquiry. The authors contend, however, that rather than inviting psychiatrists to compromise their objectivity in these cases, in fact the Supreme Court's ruling challenges psychiatrists to demonstrate and assure their objectivity by revealing and explaining the bases for their opinions, thereby enhancing their utility in the criminal justice process and, ultimately, their credibility in the minds of the public.