skip navigation


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: 72363 Find in a Library
Title: Psychologist as an Expert Witness in the Criminal Courts
Journal: Australian Psychologist  Volume:12  Issue:2  Dated:(July 1977)  Pages:133-150
Author(s): A A Bartholomew; P Badger; K L Milte
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 18
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: Psychologists and psychiatrists have been playing the role of expert witness in criminal courts for over 50 years, but that role is still evolving in Australia and needs ongoing clarification.
Abstract: The psychiatrist's role is more respected by the courts, as psychiatrists are 'doctors' and give opinions based on ther generally understood medical model. The clinical psychologist is still fighting for recognition and must be careful to select solidly supported testing techniques, objective analyses of data, and multiple judges for examining test data, and avoid psychodynamics, hypothetical questions, and items taken out of context. The psychologist tends to offer objective test results to support the psychiatrist's clinical opinion based on history, physical examination, and clinical interview. In this respect, there is a notion that nonmedical persons (viz., psychologists) may not offer the opinion that the defendant suffered from a particular disease but that they may offer the opinion that the test results are in agreement with test results obtained from a population of patients diagnosed as suffering from a particular condition. Yet, psychologists appear more and mnore to base their evidence and their opinions on clinical interviews, so that distinguishing psychologists from psychiatrists becomes difficult. Psychologists need not necessarily take a history; simple testing to elucidate a point would have a greater credibility. If the psychologist continues to conduct clinical interviews, the courts will need to clarify the difference. As areas of distinction and similarity between the two professions become ever more complex, they become less understandable to the laity and the degree of expertness is less easily testable in the courts. Overall, regular forensic psychologists must together work out their proper role and clarify it to the public and the courts. About 70 references are provided.
Index Term(s): Australia; Expert witnesses; Forensic psychiatry
Note: This paper formed the basis of a paper read at the 10th Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, at La Trobe University, on Tuesday, August 19th, 1975 and formed the subject matter of the Conversation Hour held later the same day.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.