Psychiatric evidence in criminal courts: the need for better understanding

Abstract

The rules of admissibility of expert evidence from mental health professionals are not clear. The task of a psychiatrist providing expert opinion to criminal courts is far from clear. Psychiatric experts are trained in a particular set of ethical and philosophical frameworks. They have expertise in the diagnosis and management of behaviours arising from mental disorders. The concept of mental disorder itself is a dimensional one. Such a dimensional view of human behaviour and mental disorders is hard to fit into the categorical view of human behaviour that the law follows. The task of the psychiatric expert is to marry these two philosophically different branches. Such a task would be facilitated by clear rules of admissibility of expert psychiatric evidence, clear definition of the roles and limitations of psychiatric evidence in criminal cases, a better understanding and training of mental health professionals in legal principles and a better understanding by the legal professionals of the mental health concepts. This article aims to analyse the legal basis of the admissibility of expert mental health evidence, the differences in the philosophies of the two disciplines and the challenges in addressing legal criteria while staying faithful to the ethos of psychiatry and psychology.