skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 63998 Find in a Library
Title: PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE OF COURT PHYSICIANS IN NORTHRHINE-WESTPHALIA (WEST GERMANY) - ONE HUNDRED-FIFTY-TWO REJECTED REPORTS IN 1976
Journal: MONATSSSCHRIFT FUER KRIMINOLOGIE UND STRAFRECHTSREFORM  Volume:62  Issue:2  Dated:(APRIL 1979)  Pages:76-87
Author(s): G WOLFSLAST
Corporate Author: Carl Heymanns Verlag
Germany (Unified)
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: Carl Heymanns Verlag
5 Cologne 1, Germany United
Format: Article
Language: German
Country: West Germany (Former)
Annotation: THE 152 REPORTS REJECTED BY A WEST GERMAN COMMITTEE OF COURT DOCTORS ARE ANALYZED, AND THE COMMITTEE'S DECISIONS ARE CRITICIZED.
Abstract: THE COMMITTEE OF COURT PHYSICIANS OF THE WEST GERMAN STATE OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA IS IN CHARGE OF EXAMINING ALL PSYCHIATRIC-NEUROLOGICAL EXPERT REPORTS IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. IN 1976 THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED 1,001 REPORTS, REJECTING 152. THE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR REJECTION INCLUDED (1) UNCLEAR PASSAGES AND LACK OF SUPPORTING MATERIALS (30 PERCENT OF THE REJECTIONS), (2) FAULTY CONCLUSIONS (26 PERCENT OF THE REJECTIONS), (3) INSUFFICIENT MEDICAL EVIDENCE (24 PERCENT), AND (4) BLATANT ERRORS IN STYLE AND EXPRESSION (12.5 PERCENT). TWO TYPES OF REPORTS WERE REJECTED WITH PARTICULAR FREQUENCY: THOSE IN WHICH PARTICULAR PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOANALYTICAL THEORIES WERE APPLIED AND THOSE IN WHICH SHOPLIFTERS WERE PRONOUNCED AS LEGALLY NOT RESPONSIBLE ON THE ASSUMPTION OF CLEPTOMANIA. THE ANALYSIS OF MANY PARTICULAR EXAMPLES INDICATES THAT THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE AS AN ASSISTANT TO THE JUDGES' DECISION IS UNNECCESSARY SINCE THE METHOLOGICAL SHORTCOMINGS IN THE EXPERT REPORTS DISCOVERED BY THE COMMITTEE WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS TO THE COURT, THE CRITICISM OF THE COMMITTEE (ESPECIALLY IN THE SHOPLIFTING CASES) IS BIASED, AND IF THE COMMITTEE REJECTS A REPORT THE JUDGE IS NONE THE WISER FOR HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO OPPOSING EXPERT TESTIMONIES. THE ARTICLE INCLUDES REFERENCES AND IS FOLLOWED BY A CRITICISM OF ITS METHOD OF ANALYZING THE DOCUMENTS. --IN GERMAN. (SAJ)
Index Term(s): Criminal intent; Criminal responsibility; Critiques; Expert witnesses; Forensic medicine; Forensic psychiatry; Germany
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63998

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.