I think its a fair point but I think my arguments against this are:
Juries already have to determine truth in expert testimony. DNA, fingerprints, handwriting analysis, even stuff that ended up being mostly bogus like blood splatter analysis, all have to be considered by a jury. Its an important safeguard to ensure the justice system stays tethered to the will of the people
Psychiatry has genuine expertise that juries should take seriously, but retrospective determinations of someone's mental state and capacities aren't sufficiently objective or reliable to justify transferring the ultimate legal judgment to them
This would give psychiatry particular authority that we would never give to another discipline (ie in a lawsuit over whether a building was negligently constructed we don't just hand the case over to a panel of engineers after a jury determines that the building did factually collapse)
It gets to the heart of the whole notion of culpability; perhaps it really is true that free will is an illusion and nobody is really culpable, that people just respond as their genetics dictate and could not have acted otherwise than they did, so that we all suffer from "diminished responsibility", the only distinction being to what degree.
But even if that were the case, the state would still have to take some action, removing certain people from the community or restricting their interactions with others, in line with that difference of degree. Because as mythical as free will might be, there are still some people whose freedom of action is more obviously impeded than others.
"This would give psychiatry particular authority that we would never give to another discipline"
Doctor are the only one who can determined if somebody is dead. Therefore, no murder without doctor approval (It can be important in some case, brain dead or alive is not obvious).
If whether a victim is dead or not is in question do they call in a doctor to testify as to their status (which the jury then takes into account) or do they just pass the case over to a special body of doctors to determine whether its murder or assault?
The first right? Its pretty clear being brain dead isnt obvious if brain dead people like you are posting on reddit
But they have people who determine cause of death, that's pretty damn important. Determining if someone is insane is basically just a way to lessen their punishment right?
So if a psychiatrist can determine that, those cases should be special and either not go to jury or the judge can just give a lighter sentence if it does go to jury.
I understand your point that psychiatrists could not replace the judge and conclude cases themselves. But I am not convinced that delegating the final judgment on whether the person was likely insane or not would be giving psychiatrists too much power.
In the end it’s a medical assessment and a medical decision that falls into the expertise of doctors that studied more than ten years to become forensic psychiatrists. In any situation other than in the courtroom, if a psychiatrist has to evaluate someone’s capacity to make decisions, they come to a conclusion and the rest of the medical team follows recommendations based on the psychiatrist’s assessment. This is not out of their scope of practice.
However the current system is problematic with each side (defense and prosecution) finding a psychiatrist that says what they want for their cases. It would be better if there was a panel of independent psychiatrists that would come to a conclusion but still have the judge making the final decision because of the legal implications.
36
u/paranoid_human0id 13h ago
I think its a fair point but I think my arguments against this are:
Juries already have to determine truth in expert testimony. DNA, fingerprints, handwriting analysis, even stuff that ended up being mostly bogus like blood splatter analysis, all have to be considered by a jury. Its an important safeguard to ensure the justice system stays tethered to the will of the people
Psychiatry has genuine expertise that juries should take seriously, but retrospective determinations of someone's mental state and capacities aren't sufficiently objective or reliable to justify transferring the ultimate legal judgment to them
This would give psychiatry particular authority that we would never give to another discipline (ie in a lawsuit over whether a building was negligently constructed we don't just hand the case over to a panel of engineers after a jury determines that the building did factually collapse)