Dr. Robert Sadoff’s career is a reflection of his commitment - both as a scholar and as an expert witness - to the values of care, the avoidance of harm, and the well-being of those who come in contact with the forensic system. These are commitments that resonate in the therapeutic jurisprudence literature. One of the most important legal theoretical developments of the past two decades has been the creation and dynamic growth of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). Initially employed in cases involving individuals with mental disabilities, but subsequently expanded far beyond that narrow area, therapeutic jurisprudence presents a new model for assessing the impact of case law and legislation, recognizing that, as a therapeutic agent, the law that can have therapeutic or anti‐therapeutic consequences. The ultimate aim of therapeutic jurisprudence is to determine whether legal rules, procedures, and lawyer roles can or should be reshaped to enhance their therapeutic potential while not subordinating due process principles. There is an inherent tension in this inquiry, but Professor David Wexler - one of TJ’s “founding fathers” - clearly identifies how it must be resolved: “the law's use of “mental health information to improve therapeutic functioning [cannot] impinge upon justice concerns.” As I have written elsewhere, “An inquiry into therapeutic outcomes does not mean that therapeutic concerns `trump’ civil rights and civil liberties.” In this article, I first explain the fuller meaning of therapeutic jurisprudence. Next, I will look at Dr. Sadoff’s writing that has been explicitly about TJ, to be followed by (1) a consideration of his other writing that has clearly been inspired by his adherence to TJ principles (although those are not necessarily specified), and (2) a consideration of some of the reported litigated cases in which he has testified in which his testimony reflects TJ values. I conclude with some thoughts about his contributions in this area, coupled with some speculations as to why so few forensic psychiatrists ever write from this perspective.
{"title":"'Justice's Beautiful Face': Bob Sadoff and the Redemptive Promise of Therapeutic Jurisprudence","authors":"M. Perlin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2002815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2002815","url":null,"abstract":"Dr. Robert Sadoff’s career is a reflection of his commitment - both as a scholar and as an expert witness - to the values of care, the avoidance of harm, and the well-being of those who come in contact with the forensic system. These are commitments that resonate in the therapeutic jurisprudence literature. One of the most important legal theoretical developments of the past two decades has been the creation and dynamic growth of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). Initially employed in cases involving individuals with mental disabilities, but subsequently expanded far beyond that narrow area, therapeutic jurisprudence presents a new model for assessing the impact of case law and legislation, recognizing that, as a therapeutic agent, the law that can have therapeutic or anti‐therapeutic consequences. The ultimate aim of therapeutic jurisprudence is to determine whether legal rules, procedures, and lawyer roles can or should be reshaped to enhance their therapeutic potential while not subordinating due process principles. There is an inherent tension in this inquiry, but Professor David Wexler - one of TJ’s “founding fathers” - clearly identifies how it must be resolved: “the law's use of “mental health information to improve therapeutic functioning [cannot] impinge upon justice concerns.” As I have written elsewhere, “An inquiry into therapeutic outcomes does not mean that therapeutic concerns `trump’ civil rights and civil liberties.” In this article, I first explain the fuller meaning of therapeutic jurisprudence. Next, I will look at Dr. Sadoff’s writing that has been explicitly about TJ, to be followed by (1) a consideration of his other writing that has clearly been inspired by his adherence to TJ principles (although those are not necessarily specified), and (2) a consideration of some of the reported litigated cases in which he has testified in which his testimony reflects TJ values. I conclude with some thoughts about his contributions in this area, coupled with some speculations as to why so few forensic psychiatrists ever write from this perspective.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"93 1","pages":"265-292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75442109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900403
Benjamin Jacob Hayempour, S. Rushing, A. Alavi
Neuroimaging enables highly accurate and specific identification of treatable brain injuries for the purposes of preventing secondary damage as well as providing useful prognostic information. This article addresses the range of currently employed neuroimaging techniques and their utility in assessing legal claims involving the presence of brain damage.
{"title":"The Role of Neuroimaging in Assessing Neuropsychological Deficits following Traumatic Brain Injury","authors":"Benjamin Jacob Hayempour, S. Rushing, A. Alavi","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900403","url":null,"abstract":"Neuroimaging enables highly accurate and specific identification of treatable brain injuries for the purposes of preventing secondary damage as well as providing useful prognostic information. This article addresses the range of currently employed neuroimaging techniques and their utility in assessing legal claims involving the presence of brain damage.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"68 1","pages":"537 - 566"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85680462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900405
S. Morse
Legislators, jurists, and advocates often turn to science to solve complicated normative problems addressed by the law. This article addresses what motivates these parties, surveys the psychology of law and its concepts of the person and responsibility, and describes the general relation of neuroscience to law in terms of the issue of “translation.” Numerous distractions have clouded our understanding of the relationship between scientific, causal accounts of behavior and responsibility. The notion of “NeuroLaw” is examined here in detail, with the conclusion that a cautious optimism regarding the contributions of neuroscience to the law is warranted.
{"title":"The Status of Neurolaw: A Plea for Current Modesty and Future Cautious Optimism","authors":"S. Morse","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900405","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900405","url":null,"abstract":"Legislators, jurists, and advocates often turn to science to solve complicated normative problems addressed by the law. This article addresses what motivates these parties, surveys the psychology of law and its concepts of the person and responsibility, and describes the general relation of neuroscience to law in terms of the issue of “translation.” Numerous distractions have clouded our understanding of the relationship between scientific, causal accounts of behavior and responsibility. The notion of “NeuroLaw” is examined here in detail, with the conclusion that a cautious optimism regarding the contributions of neuroscience to the law is warranted.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"2 1","pages":"595 - 626"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85422997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900407
B. Nordstrom, C. Dackis
Drug law violations and other crimes related to substance abuse incur dire costs in terms of both financial outlay and human suffering. This review of the current professional literature addresses the identification of risk factors and the longitudinal course of addiction and criminal behavior. Results indicate that neither criminally active drug users nor drug users in general are monolithic groups in terms of manifestations of criminal behavior. Drug use and criminal activity are depicted as mutually facilitative behaviors, with research outcomes tending to convey that although drug addiction does not turn nonviolent criminals into violent criminals, active addiction does increase the frequency of criminal activity.
{"title":"Drugs and Crime","authors":"B. Nordstrom, C. Dackis","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900407","url":null,"abstract":"Drug law violations and other crimes related to substance abuse incur dire costs in terms of both financial outlay and human suffering. This review of the current professional literature addresses the identification of risk factors and the longitudinal course of addiction and criminal behavior. Results indicate that neither criminally active drug users nor drug users in general are monolithic groups in terms of manifestations of criminal behavior. Drug use and criminal activity are depicted as mutually facilitative behaviors, with research outcomes tending to convey that although drug addiction does not turn nonviolent criminals into violent criminals, active addiction does increase the frequency of criminal activity.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"52 1","pages":"663 - 687"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78719823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900404
S. Rushing, D. Langleben
Neuropsychological testing—medical imaging of the brain structure and function—allows the expert to inform the court on the brain structure and function of the forensic examinee. Supported by extensive clinical use, neuropsychological testing and structural imaging in the form of computerized tomography and structural magnetic resonance imaging have achieved general acceptance in court. However, functional imaging such as functional MRI and nuclear medicine techniques, such as positron emission tomography (PET), have faced more admissibility challenges. While functional imaging is becoming an increasingly important tool in assessing neuropsychiatric illness, we surmise that evidentiary challenges are largely related to the phase of trial in which the nuclear study is offered as evidence. This article will review the basic science of functional nuclear imaging including PET and single photon emission computed tomography. We will then review cases where admissibility of these techniques has been challenged and consider whether and how nuclear brain imaging can influence the outcome of the trial.
{"title":"Relative Function: Nuclear Brain Imaging in United States Courts","authors":"S. Rushing, D. Langleben","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900404","url":null,"abstract":"Neuropsychological testing—medical imaging of the brain structure and function—allows the expert to inform the court on the brain structure and function of the forensic examinee. Supported by extensive clinical use, neuropsychological testing and structural imaging in the form of computerized tomography and structural magnetic resonance imaging have achieved general acceptance in court. However, functional imaging such as functional MRI and nuclear medicine techniques, such as positron emission tomography (PET), have faced more admissibility challenges. While functional imaging is becoming an increasingly important tool in assessing neuropsychiatric illness, we surmise that evidentiary challenges are largely related to the phase of trial in which the nuclear study is offered as evidence. This article will review the basic science of functional nuclear imaging including PET and single photon emission computed tomography. We will then review cases where admissibility of these techniques has been challenged and consider whether and how nuclear brain imaging can influence the outcome of the trial.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"12 1","pages":"567 - 593"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76646485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900408
F. Dattilio
The longstanding relationship between forensic psychiatrists and psychologists has been fraught with tension and controversy over the years, particularly pertaining to the issue of their overlapping roles and what some consider a competitiveness in the field. This article reviews some of that controversy and also addresses the issue of how psychiatrists and psychologists actually do different things and can work harmoniously in a collaborative fashion. The text also addresses how this collaborative relationship can be best promoted—not only through forensic training programs, but also in the eyes of attorneys and jurists.
{"title":"Toward a Good Fit between Forensic Psychiatrists and Psychologists","authors":"F. Dattilio","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900408","url":null,"abstract":"The longstanding relationship between forensic psychiatrists and psychologists has been fraught with tension and controversy over the years, particularly pertaining to the issue of their overlapping roles and what some consider a competitiveness in the field. This article reviews some of that controversy and also addresses the issue of how psychiatrists and psychologists actually do different things and can work harmoniously in a collaborative fashion. The text also addresses how this collaborative relationship can be best promoted—not only through forensic training programs, but also in the eyes of attorneys and jurists.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"75 1","pages":"689 - 696"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83781777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2011-12-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900406
K. Weiss
Shortly after Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and their application to human imaging, the legal profession began to use the technology in litigation. Though the use of brain imaging did not find its way into formal arguments about criminal responsibility early in its evolution, such an analysis has been sought. 19th Century attempts to connect “pathological anatomy” to behavior were mostly disappointing. In 1924, the celebrated murder trial of Leopold and Loeb in Chicago became an early example of the use of scientific testimony that included radiographic exhibits. The penalty-phase decision to spare the defendants' lives was not based on scientific arguments. Sixty years later, the trial of John Hinckley included admission of CT scans to aid psychiatric testimony. Using excerpts from the expert reports and testimony, this article examines the nature and purpose of scientific evidence pertaining to blameworthiness. The author concludes that improvements in neuroimaging will continue to force a dialog between science and the law.
{"title":"Head, Examined: Clarence Darrow's X-Ray Vision of Criminal Responsibility","authors":"K. Weiss","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900406","url":null,"abstract":"Shortly after Roentgen's discovery of X-rays and their application to human imaging, the legal profession began to use the technology in litigation. Though the use of brain imaging did not find its way into formal arguments about criminal responsibility early in its evolution, such an analysis has been sought. 19th Century attempts to connect “pathological anatomy” to behavior were mostly disappointing. In 1924, the celebrated murder trial of Leopold and Loeb in Chicago became an early example of the use of scientific testimony that included radiographic exhibits. The penalty-phase decision to spare the defendants' lives was not based on scientific arguments. Sixty years later, the trial of John Hinckley included admission of CT scans to aid psychiatric testimony. Using excerpts from the expert reports and testimony, this article examines the nature and purpose of scientific evidence pertaining to blameworthiness. The author concludes that improvements in neuroimaging will continue to force a dialog between science and the law.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"164 1","pages":"627 - 661"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85979819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：