The article is not directly relevant to your ability to testify, but since QDE forensic opinions in handwritten cases are not based on what some attorney’s call hard science, it might be good reading.
The issue of what is a objective and what is subjective is at the core
of the ability to be seen as an expert witness. We are seeing tide turn
against psychiatrist is the last decade after 30 years of unlimited credibility
in courtrooms worldwide. Psychiatrists had 30 years of associations and medi
observations which paint a confusing veil of “science” around judging the mental
conditions and then attempting to prescribe medical to cure the problem, which
they recently assigned a term in their APA dictionary.
conditions and then attempting to prescribe medical to cure the problem, which
they recently assigned a term in their APA dictionary.
The courts are getting wiser. Experts are now questioned with good reason. This
article discussed why one social scientist’s useful expertise cannot be admitted at trial
in a case of and accused under age sex offender.
This would profoundly effect anyone working in the field
of social psychology or criminal psychology, such as helping
a jury decide if a defendant is insane or able to stand trial?