Disciplinary differences between mental health and legal discourses limit the implementation of mental health knowledge (MHK) in legal proceedings. This study examined the interchange between these discourses, focusing on sexual assault cases that required testimonies of mental health expert witnesses (MHEWs) in Israel. 42 multi-perspective interviews including 16 MHEWs and 26 legal practitioners were analyzed using critical discourse analysis. Participants’ statements relayed three depictions of the interchange between mental health and legal discourses: a dichotomized one, which regards both discourses as incompatible; a tactical one, which regards MHK as beneficial when serving legal interests; and a radical one, which regards MHK as imperative to legal discretion, placing therapeutic considerations ahead of legal ones. The study provides a first empirical analysis of the law-mental-health interchange. In particular, it identifies an emerging practice of therapeutic-legal ("theralegal") discretion, which reflects an understanding that legal considerations alone cannot address complex criminal legal issues.
AjzenstadtMSteinbergO (2001) Never mind the law: Legal discourse and rape reform in Israel. Affilia16(3): 337–359.
2.
AviramH (2020) Bad Role Models? American influence on Israeli criminal justice policy. University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review28: 309–374.
3.
BarskyEA (2012) Clinicians in Court: A Guide to Subpoenas, Depositions, Testifying, and Everything Else You Need to Know, 2nd edNew York: The Guilford Press.
4.
BlumenthalAJ (2002) Law and social science in the twenty-first century. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal12(1): 1–53.
5.
BrodskySL (2013) Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness. Washington: American Psychological Association.
6.
BrooksSLMaddenRG (2009) Relationship-centered lawyering: Social science theory for transforming legal practice. Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico78: 23–53.
7.
CohenI (2016) Standing at a Crossroad – The Crossroad between Therapy and Law as Manifested in the Testimony of Mental Health Professionals. Hamishpat23: 139–180. [Hebrew].
8.
CrookLSMcEwenLE (2019) Deconstructing the lost in the mall study. Journal of Child Custody16(1): 7–19.
9.
DaicoffS (2006) Law as a healing profession: The "comprehensive law movement. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal6(1): 1–61.
10.
Dancig-RosenbergH (2008) Chapter seven sexual assault victims: Empowerment or re-victimization? The need for a therapeutic jurisprudence model. In: Ronel N, Jaishankar J and Bensimon (eds) Trends and Issues in Victimology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing, 150–174.
EllisonL (2005) Closing the credibility gap: The prosecutorial use of expert witness testimony in sexual assault cases. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof9(4): 239–268.
13.
FaustDGrimmPWAhernDC, et al. (2010) The admissibility of behavioral science evidence in the courtroom: The translation of legal to scientific concepts and back. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology6: 49–77.
14.
FoucaultM (1971) Orders of discourse. Social Science Information Journal10: 7–30.
15.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House-Vintage Books.
16.
FoucaultM (1978) The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
17.
FoucaultM (2010) The Archaeology of Knowledge and Discourse on Language. New York: Random House-Vintage Books.
18.
GallettaA (2013) Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyond. New York: New York University Press.
19.
GilliganC (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20.
GoelSRaoJMShroffR (2016) Personalized risk assessments in the criminal justice system. American Economic Review106(5): 119–123.
21.
GoldbergS (1994) Culture Clash. New York: New York University Press.
22.
GreenbergASShumanWD (2007) When worlds collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice38(2): 129–132.
23.
GrondahlPStridbeckUGronnerodC (2013) The truth and nothing but the truth: Court-appointed forensic experts’ experience with testifying and their perceptions of legal actors in criminal courts. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology24(2): 192–204.
24.
HaneyC (1980) Psychology and legal change: On the limits of factual jurisprudence. Law & Human Behavior4: 147–200.
25.
HansonRKMorton-BourgonKE (2009) The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment21(1): 1–21.
26.
HeltzelT (2007) Compatibility of therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice38(2): 122–128.
JagerSMaierF (2009) Theoretical and methodological aspects of foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp.34–61.
29.
KendallMMurrayASCarduffE, et al. (2009) Use of multi-perspective qualitative interviews to understand patients’ and carers’ beliefs, experiences, and needs. British Medical Journal339: b4122–b4122.
30.
KingSMFreibergABatagolB, et al. (2014) Non-Adversarial Justice, 2nd edSydney: The Federation Press.
31.
MalterudKSiersmaDVGuassoraDA (2016) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research26(13): 1753–1760.
32.
MeltonBGPetrilaJPoythressGN, et al. (2017) Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health, 4th edNew York: Guilford Publications.
33.
Menkel-MeadowC (2000) When winning isn't everything: The lawyer as problem solver. Hofstra Law Review28(4): 905–923.
34.
MilchmanMSGeffnerRMeierJS (2020) Ideology and rhetoric replace science and reason in some parental alienation literature and advocacy: A critique. Family Court Review58(2): 340–361.
35.
MillerL (2015) PTSD and Forensic Psychology: Applications to Civil and Criminal Law. Fort Lauderdale: Springer.
PopeKSVasquezMJ (2016) Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counselling: A Practical Guide. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
39.
RichardsKARHemphillMA (2018) A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education37(2): 225–231.
40.
ScurichNJohnR (2010) The normative threshold for psychiatric civil commitment. Jurimetrics50(4): 425–452.
41.
SimonJ (2005) Reversal of fortune: The resurgence of individual risk assessment in criminal justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science1: 397–421.
42.
SmithC (2000) The sovereign state v. Foucault: Law and disciplinary power. The Sociological Review48(2): 283–306.
43.
SmithT (2012) Zealous advocates: The historical foundations of the adversarial criminal defence lawyer. Law, Crime and History2(1): 1–20.
44.
StevensonMSloboginC (2018) Algorithmic risk assessments and the double–edged sword of youth. Behavioral Sciences and the Law36(5): 638–656.
45.
StrashnovA (1994) Sexual offences legal reforms. Hamishpat2: 265–287. [Hebrew].
46.
ThorburnM (2008) Justifications, powers, and authority. Yale Law Journal117(6): 1070–1130.
47.
WexlerDB (1990) Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Law as a Therapeutic Agent. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
48.
WexlerDB (2008) Two decades of therapeutic jurisprudence. Touro Law Review24(1): 17–30.
49.
WexlerDB (2015) Moving forward on mainstreaming therapeutic jurisprudence: An ongoing process to facilitate the therapeutic design and application of the law. In: BrookbanksW (ed) Therapeutic Jurisprudence: New Zealand Perspectives. Toronto: Thomson Reuters, pp.15–10.
50.
WilliamsNEMorrowLS (2009) Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychotherapy Research19(4-5): 576–582.
51.
WinickJB (2006) Therapeutic jurisprudence: Enhancing the relationship between law and psychology. Law and Psychology9: 30–48.
52.
WodakRMeyerM (2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp.1–13.
