Search

The implications of the definition of forensic psychiatry are explored, with particular reference to the field as a subspecialty of general psychiatry. The allegation of undue moral uncertainty in forensic psychiatry is denied and the moral issues are revealed to be related to the status of the underlying philosophical disputes. An outline for the organization of the forensic psychiatric assessment is presented. The charge that forensic psychiatry is not as "hard" a science as the other forensic sciences is denied. The administrative and political organizational problems facing the subspecialty are explored. The practitioners in the field are encouraged to recognize that forensic psychiatry is a subspecialty and to work for official subspecialty status. Cautious predictions about the future of the field are provided.

Twenty trial court judges were surveyed to determine what information they considered pertinent in psychiatric examinations for competence. These judges showed a clear understanding of what they were asking for in ordering the examinations but also showed a significant tendency to use the competency exam to advise them about other issues in addition (e.g., dangerousness or the need for treatment). As a group the judges appeared to be eager for psychiatric input. Typical judges could be described as pragmatic in their views of psychiatry in the courtroom, having a relatively low level of expectation but a high degree of satisfaction with the psychiatric opinions they receive.