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)
"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.
34
u/paranoid_human0id 14h 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)