Ultimate opinion proscriptions: A cosmetic fix and a plea for empiricism |
| |
| Authors: | Richard Rogers Charles Patrick Ewing |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3. Faculty of Law and Jurisprudence, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA
|
| |
| Abstract: | In recent years, ultimate opinion testimony given by mental health experts in insanity trials has come under strident criticism as an unwarranted incursion into the legal arena. This article examines the merits of such criticism and concludes that attempts to eliminate such testimony will not achieve their intended goals but will obscure more substantive issues inherent in insanity evaluations and subsequent testimony. The article then recasts problems in expert testimony in a broader conceptual basis buttressed with empiricism. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
