THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF PSYCHIATRIC COURT CLINICS IS THE EVALUATION OF CONVICTED OFFENDERS PRIOR TO SENTENCING. A REPORT IS PREPARED WHICH OFTEN INCLUDES RECOMMENDATIONS BY PSYCHIATRISTS IN THEIR ADVISORY CAPACITIES ON THE MOST SUITABLE LEGAL AND PSYCHIATRIC DISPOSITIONS OF THE OFFENDERS. THIS REPORT IS OFTEN VERY IMPORTANT TO THE JUDGE IN MAKING SENTENCING DECISIONS. THE ROLE OF THE PSYCHIATRIST IS AMBIGUOUS, AS HE HAS, IN EFFECT, TWO 'CLIENTS' -- THE JUDGE AND THE OFFENDER. THE EVALUATION OF AN UNWILLING 'PATIENT' WITH WHOM THE PSYCHIATRIST HAS NO FURTHER CONTACT AND ABOUT WHOM HE WRITES A REPORT TO BE READ BY A THIRD PARTY TENDS TO VIOLATE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE USUAL ORIENTATION OF A PSYCHIATRIST. THE ISSUES OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE, ESSENTIAL TO THE PRACTICE OF PSYCHIATRY, ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED WHEN DEALING WITH A DEFENDANT. A MAJOR AREA OF CONTROVERSY IS THAT OF DISCLOSURE OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, I.E., WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO SEE IT. ARGUMENTS AGAINST DISCLOSURE CITE VIOLATION OF THE TRUST OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHER INFORMANTS, AS WELL AS POSSIBLE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF DISCLOSURE, WHICH ARE SEEN TO OUTWEIGH THOSE AGAINST, ARE THE DETECTION OF BIAS WHICH MAY HAVE ENTERED INTO THE REPORT AND OF ANY FACTUAL MISTAKES, AND THE VIEW THAT IT CAN BE THERAPEUTIC FOR THE DEFENDANT TO BE AWARE OF AREAS THAT PSYCHIATRISTS FEEL NEED CHANGE. MORE AND MORE JUDGES ARE USING PSYCHIATRIC PRESENTENCE REPORTS IN SENTENCING, AND THE EVIDENCE OF COURT PSYCHIATRISTS IS GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED.