Pub Date : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900309
M. Commons, P. Miller
Much of what social scientists apply when addressing legal matters is based upon “folk psychology” as opposed to behavioral science. This article addresses how folk psychological notions arise and why they continue to exist, and then proposes an alternative view of criminal behavior with references to evidence-based stage theories—in particular, the Model of Hierarchical Complexity.
{"title":"Folk Psychology and Criminal Law: Why We Need to Replace Folk Psychology with Behavioral Science","authors":"M. Commons, P. Miller","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900309","url":null,"abstract":"Much of what social scientists apply when addressing legal matters is based upon “folk psychology” as opposed to behavioral science. This article addresses how folk psychological notions arise and why they continue to exist, and then proposes an alternative view of criminal behavior with references to evidence-based stage theories—in particular, the Model of Hierarchical Complexity.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"271 1","pages":"493 - 516"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78441410","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900305
J. Baker, T. Gutheil
Mental health funding cuts and associated reductions in training have exercised a starkly negative effect upon psychiatric patient care in recent years, as reflected in research conducted in the United States and abroad. This article conveys and discusses an illustrative case example with additional reference to appellate and institutional advocacy approaches to the problem.
{"title":"Effects of Funding Cutbacks in the Mental Health Field on Patient Care and Potential Liability Issues","authors":"J. Baker, T. Gutheil","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900305","url":null,"abstract":"Mental health funding cuts and associated reductions in training have exercised a starkly negative effect upon psychiatric patient care in recent years, as reflected in research conducted in the United States and abroad. This article conveys and discusses an illustrative case example with additional reference to appellate and institutional advocacy approaches to the problem.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"41 9 1","pages":"425 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90197580","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900308
F. Dattilio, R. Sadoff, E. Drogin, T. Gutheil
Forensic psychiatrists occasionally conduct psychological testing, for a host of reasons that may include a lack of access to psychological consultation, a lack of funding for such consultation, or a genuine belief that they are technically and legally qualified to select, administer, score, and interpret the most suitable instruments for informing a particular medicolegal opinion. This phenomenon may have several clinical, ethical, and legal ramifications, depending upon the forensic psychiatrist's level of training, the forensic issues being addressed, and the nature of the psychological tests employed. In this article, the authors distinguish between what constitute “psychological tests” as opposed to appraisals, rating scales, and inventories. Also addressed is the need for formal training and supervision, including familiarity with the mechanics of test construction and statistically determined interpretive limitations. The authors offer recommendations and provide several case vignettes that illustrate how these issues may surface in both civil and criminal law contexts. The article concludes with the caveat that psychiatrists should avoid using psychological tests without obtaining and maintaining necessary credentials.
{"title":"Should Forensic Psychiatrists Conduct Psychological Testing?","authors":"F. Dattilio, R. Sadoff, E. Drogin, T. Gutheil","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900308","url":null,"abstract":"Forensic psychiatrists occasionally conduct psychological testing, for a host of reasons that may include a lack of access to psychological consultation, a lack of funding for such consultation, or a genuine belief that they are technically and legally qualified to select, administer, score, and interpret the most suitable instruments for informing a particular medicolegal opinion. This phenomenon may have several clinical, ethical, and legal ramifications, depending upon the forensic psychiatrist's level of training, the forensic issues being addressed, and the nature of the psychological tests employed. In this article, the authors distinguish between what constitute “psychological tests” as opposed to appraisals, rating scales, and inventories. Also addressed is the need for formal training and supervision, including familiarity with the mechanics of test construction and statistically determined interpretive limitations. The authors offer recommendations and provide several case vignettes that illustrate how these issues may surface in both civil and criminal law contexts. The article concludes with the caveat that psychiatrists should avoid using psychological tests without obtaining and maintaining necessary credentials.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"64 1","pages":"477 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82115554","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900310
D. W. Black
The Measure of Injury: Race, Gender, and Tort Law by Martha Chamallas and Jennifer Wriggins, challenges the traditional view of tort law as neutral and objective, and aims to demonstrate instead that tort law is littered with, if not substantially shaped by, gender and racial bias. When the first page asserts that “from the types of injuries recognized, to judgments about causation, to the valuation of injuries,” tort law “has been affected by the social identity of the parties and cultural views on gender and race,” traditionalists and moderates cannot help but read the rest of the book with more than an insubstantial level of skepticism. The basic notion that tort law is less accepting of claims by women and minorities simply would not strike many readers as immediately plausible because negligence and intentional tort claims, on their face, know no race or gender. Most students of tort law can search their knowledge of the subject and not call to mind any more than maybe a few examples that fit Chamallas and Wriggins’ claim. While not perfect, tort law’s open ended concepts of negligence, intent, fault, and harm would seem immediately available to all on equal terms. Thus, against this backdrop, the book’s aim is no small task, nor its success a foregone conclusion, which is what makes the book so insightful and compelling in the end.
{"title":"Book Section: Essays and Review: The Measure of Injury: Race, Gender, and Tort Law","authors":"D. W. Black","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900310","url":null,"abstract":"The Measure of Injury: Race, Gender, and Tort Law by Martha Chamallas and Jennifer Wriggins, challenges the traditional view of tort law as neutral and objective, and aims to demonstrate instead that tort law is littered with, if not substantially shaped by, gender and racial bias. When the first page asserts that “from the types of injuries recognized, to judgments about causation, to the valuation of injuries,” tort law “has been affected by the social identity of the parties and cultural views on gender and race,” traditionalists and moderates cannot help but read the rest of the book with more than an insubstantial level of skepticism. The basic notion that tort law is less accepting of claims by women and minorities simply would not strike many readers as immediately plausible because negligence and intentional tort claims, on their face, know no race or gender. Most students of tort law can search their knowledge of the subject and not call to mind any more than maybe a few examples that fit Chamallas and Wriggins’ claim. While not perfect, tort law’s open ended concepts of negligence, intent, fault, and harm would seem immediately available to all on equal terms. Thus, against this backdrop, the book’s aim is no small task, nor its success a foregone conclusion, which is what makes the book so insightful and compelling in the end.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"1 1","pages":"517 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82988226","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900311
B. Fedders
{"title":"Book Section: Essays and Review: Justice for Girls?: Stability and Change in the Youth Justice Systems of the United States and Canada","authors":"B. Fedders","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900311","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"13 1","pages":"523 - 527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75206185","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900306
Brian A. Falls
Several states have recently considered legislation that effectively prohibits physicians from asking patients about firearm ownership. In 2011, Florida passed the Privacy of Firearm Owners Act, which prevented the state's medical personnel from asking patients about gun ownership, documenting information concerning firearms in a patient's medical record, and denying care for patients who refuse to answer questions about gun ownership. This article considers the legislation's constitutionality and its implications for public health, clinical standards of care, and medical ethics.
几个州最近考虑立法，有效地禁止医生询问病人枪支的所有权。2011年，佛罗里达州通过了《枪支所有者隐私法》(Privacy of firearms Owners Act)，该法案禁止该州的医务人员询问病人是否拥有枪支，禁止在病人的病历中记录有关枪支的信息，禁止对拒绝回答有关拥有枪支问题的病人进行治疗。本文考虑立法的合宪性及其对公共卫生、临床护理标准和医学伦理的影响。
{"title":"Legislation Prohibiting Physicians from Asking Patients about Guns","authors":"Brian A. Falls","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900306","url":null,"abstract":"Several states have recently considered legislation that effectively prohibits physicians from asking patients about firearm ownership. In 2011, Florida passed the Privacy of Firearm Owners Act, which prevented the state's medical personnel from asking patients about gun ownership, documenting information concerning firearms in a patient's medical record, and denying care for patients who refuse to answer questions about gun ownership. This article considers the legislation's constitutionality and its implications for public health, clinical standards of care, and medical ethics.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"12 1","pages":"441 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84188446","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900303
T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons
This pilot study examines the “preparedness” of attorneys as perceived by respondent expert witnesses. Retaining and opposing counsel were rated with regard to their familiarity with the respondent's qualifications, with the respondent's published writings, and with the psychiatric and legal issues of the case in question. Respondents also addressed whether retaining and opposing counsel were sufficiently ready for deposition, direct examination at trial, and cross examination at trial. Respondents found familiarity with legal issues of the case and readiness for deposition as well as cross examination at trial to be the most salient indicia of “preparedness,” particularly when these attributes were ascribed to opposing counsel.
{"title":"Attorney Preparedness as Judged by Experts: An Empirical Pilot Study","authors":"T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900303","url":null,"abstract":"This pilot study examines the “preparedness” of attorneys as perceived by respondent expert witnesses. Retaining and opposing counsel were rated with regard to their familiarity with the respondent's qualifications, with the respondent's published writings, and with the psychiatric and legal issues of the case in question. Respondents also addressed whether retaining and opposing counsel were sufficiently ready for deposition, direct examination at trial, and cross examination at trial. Respondents found familiarity with legal issues of the case and readiness for deposition as well as cross examination at trial to be the most salient indicia of “preparedness,” particularly when these attributes were ascribed to opposing counsel.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"22 1","pages":"397 - 409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80712892","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900304
T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons
We conducted a pilot study about the professionalism of opposing expert witnesses as perceived by subject experts. The investigated topics included opponents' disorganization; forgetfulness; failure to examine a relevant party or review relevant documents; ignorance of the legal standard; giving an opinion or espousing a theory beyond the case facts or the relevant science; and replacement of objectivity with advocacy. We also looked at perceptions of opposing experts as “hired guns” and at treating professionals serving as experts. Significant findings were: opposing experts' lack of professionalism was perceived by half of the sample; lack of professionalism was attributed to espousal of idiosyncratic theories and loss of objectivity; participants professed a high degree of certainty about these views. “Hired gun” status in opponents and treating professionals as opposing experts were viewed as rare events.
{"title":"Expert Professionalism as Judged by Experts: An Empirical Pilot Study","authors":"T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900304","url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a pilot study about the professionalism of opposing expert witnesses as perceived by subject experts. The investigated topics included opponents' disorganization; forgetfulness; failure to examine a relevant party or review relevant documents; ignorance of the legal standard; giving an opinion or espousing a theory beyond the case facts or the relevant science; and replacement of objectivity with advocacy. We also looked at perceptions of opposing experts as “hired guns” and at treating professionals serving as experts. Significant findings were: opposing experts' lack of professionalism was perceived by half of the sample; lack of professionalism was attributed to espousal of idiosyncratic theories and loss of objectivity; participants professed a high degree of certainty about these views. “Hired gun” status in opponents and treating professionals as opposing experts were viewed as rare events.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"179 1","pages":"411 - 424"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76465930","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 : 2011-09-01DOI: 10.1177/009318531103900307
D. Meyer, E. Drogin
Mental health experts are often needed to provide expert testimony about a respondent healthcare professional's retrospective mental state and prospective fitness for duty. This calls for the expert to parse the degree to which educational deficiency and mental illness were substantial contributing factors to any alleged past misconduct, and to offer recommendations for prospective mental health treatment and educational and supervisory remediation of any diagnosed disorders or deficiencies. Unlike adjudication of malpractice—in which the goal is to make an injured party whole by financial compensation for negligent harm—the goal of administrative agency investigation, adjudication, and peer review is to protect the public by serving as an overseer of the quality of the profession. Health care agency investigators and finders of fact require mental health experts who can discern applicable standards of care and procedure and who can offer opinions that may differ in nature substantially from those typically required in ordinary malpractice litigation.
{"title":"Administrative Law Adjudications Involving Healthcare Professionals: Mental Health Expert Testimony","authors":"D. Meyer, E. Drogin","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900307","url":null,"abstract":"Mental health experts are often needed to provide expert testimony about a respondent healthcare professional's retrospective mental state and prospective fitness for duty. This calls for the expert to parse the degree to which educational deficiency and mental illness were substantial contributing factors to any alleged past misconduct, and to offer recommendations for prospective mental health treatment and educational and supervisory remediation of any diagnosed disorders or deficiencies. Unlike adjudication of malpractice—in which the goal is to make an injured party whole by financial compensation for negligent harm—the goal of administrative agency investigation, adjudication, and peer review is to protect the public by serving as an overseer of the quality of the profession. Health care agency investigators and finders of fact require mental health experts who can discern applicable standards of care and procedure and who can offer opinions that may differ in nature substantially from those typically required in ordinary malpractice litigation.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"1 1","pages":"465 - 476"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89379994","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：