The input from psychiatrists should be strictly advisory to give the court information regarding the mental health and capacity of the accused. This information should help insure that individuals are dealt with fairly and should increase public awareness about mental illness and culpability. There exists, however, a disparity between what is expected by the criminal justice and mental health systems, and what is delivered. Much of the confusion and frustration involved with expert testimony results from the vagueness or lack of provisions in the "Criminal Code." To remedy this problem it is suggested that the "Code" be amended to specifically state the purpose of the remand report for each issue concerning mental illness and to explicitly define critical terms and provide appropriate criteria to serve as guidelines for the observations requested of the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist should redefine or reassess his role in the prosecution process to relieve the lack of mutual cooperation and tolerance that is a major part of the contention which exists between the fields of law and psychiatry. Working toward an improved partnership is essential because of the role psychiatric testimony plays in educating the public, instigating law reforms, and influencing public attitudes toward mental illness and psychiatry in general. 2 notes, bibliography (Author abstract modified)