Forensic psychiatric evaluation, NGRI standards and unitary theory of mental illness
Forensic psychiatric evaluation, NGRI standards and unitary theory of mental illness
Unitary Theory of Mental Illness - Topic Updates from Behavior and Law
*
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g9v42351550135ur/
Abstract
An address presented to the Second International
Congress of Psychiatry in Zurich, Switzerland, September 4, 1957. A portion of a
book on psychiatric diagnosis now in preparation to be published by Harcourt,
Brace & Company. Reprinted from theBull. Menninger Clin. 22:4–12,
1958, by permission.
Fulltext Preview
*
 |
General Psychopathology, Volume 2
By Karl Jaspers, J. Hoenig, Marian W. Hamilton
*
*
*
Mecacci L.
Cortex. 2005 Dec;41(6):816-22.
- PMID:
- 16350662
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
*
Wallerstein RS.
Int J Psychoanal. 2002 Dec;83(Pt 6):1247-67.
- PMID:
- 12521531
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
*
*
*
*
Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense.
Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense.
Behav Sci Law. 2011 Jul;29(4):592-607
Authors: Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ
Abstract
The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant.
PMID: 21744379 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
*
Opatow B.
Int J Psychoanal. 1993 Jun;74 ( Pt 3):437-57. Review.
- PMID:
- 8344766
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Kaplan ML, Kaplan NR.
Behav Sci. 1991 Jul;36(3):161-78. Review.
- PMID:
- 1877965
- [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Friedman RC.
Am J Psychiatry. 1975 Sep;132(9):967-9.
Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense.
Behav Sci Law. 2011 Jul;29(4):592-607
Authors: Schweitzer NJ, Saks MJ
Abstract
The introduction of neuroscientific evidence in criminal trials has given rise to fears that neuroimagery presented by an expert witness might inordinately influence jurors' evaluations of the defendant. In this experiment, a diverse sample of 1,170 community members from throughout the U.S. evaluated a written mock trial in which psychological, neuropsychological, neuroscientific, and neuroimage-based expert evidence was presented in support of a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) defense. No evidence of an independent influence of neuroimagery was found. Overall, neuroscience-based evidence was found to be more persuasive than psychological and anecdotal family history evidence. These effects were consistent across different insanity standards. Despite the non-influence of neuroimagery, however, jurors who were not provided with a neuroimage indicated that they believed neuroimagery would have been the most helpful kind of evidence in their evaluations of the defendant.
PMID: 21744379 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
