Why the Experts Disagree: Variations in the Psychiatric Evaluation of Criminal Insanity

Psychiatric opinion as to a defendant's criminal responsibility is divided far less often than press coverage suggests. Evaluations are influenced by the settings in which they occur, the ideology and qualifications of the examiner, and the techniques of interviewing, investigation, and decision making used. If the insanity defense is as important a foundation of the criminal law as legal commentators argue, it is important to improve psychiatric evaluations by improving evaluative settings, the qualifications of evaluators, and the resources devoted to investigation and other elements of evaluations. These improvements would not, however, eliminate disagreement, which would still arise as an inevitable consequence of heterogeneity in the theories, methods, and interpretations of psychiatrists evaluating defendants.