The emperor in the courtroom: psychology and pseudo-science

The defence of sane automatism and non-pathological criminal incapacity in South Africa: an epistemological intersection between psychology and law

“…In a scathing editorial titled ‘The emperor in the courtroom: psychology and pseudo-science’, Coles (2000b) argues that although psychologists (in particular) describe their discipline as the ‘scientific study of behaviour’, their court testimony (and that of other mental health professionals) frequently falls short of scientific requirements and routinely refers to possibilities rather than probabilities (p. 1). Coles (2000b) notes thatThe courtroom testimony of many health experts fails to meet one or more of the criteria of science by lacking an open, sceptical mind, presenting idiosyncratic data or theories, failing to follow established methods in drawing conclusions, and/or the inappropriate presentation, or quantification, of data. Among these criteria, the first – the lack of an open, sceptical mind – is foremost.…”

The Role of Canadian Psychologists in Conducting Fitness and Criminal Responsibility Evaluations.

“…Namely, can mental health professionals, in general , reliably and accurately assess these types of forensic issues? This question has been asked on numerous occasions throughout the history of mental health professionals' involvement in the courts, and has been answered in the affirmative (Miller et al, 1978; Rice, 1961), negative (Faust & Ziskin, 1988; Gass, 1979; Ziskin, 1975), and varying degrees in between (Coles, 2000; Yuille, 1989).…”

“…The criticisms advanced against criminal responsibility evaluations are similar to those made against fitness evaluations. Specifically, concerns have been expressed that evaluators have a poor understanding of the legal criteria for the insanity defence, and incorrectly reformulate legal concepts as mental health concepts (Coles, 2000; Veiel & Coles, 1999). Rogers and colleagues (1987, 1988), for instance, surveyed Canadian forensic psychiatrists and psychologists, and found their understanding of the legal standards for the insanity defence to be very poor.…”

“…Within psychology, support for objective approaches, or a combination of objective and clinical approaches, has grown (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989; Heilbrun, 1992). Certainly, the distinction between clinical and objective approaches appears to have contributed heavily to the identity of psychologists who, as Coles (2000, p. 2) asserts, are sometimes apt to “contrast their science with the ‘art’ of psychiatry.”…”