Observers, advisers, or authorities? Experts, juries and criminal responsibility in historical perspective
This article uses nineteenth-century cases and medico-legal writings to illustrate three conceptions of the role of the psychiatric expert in criminal trials, as 'observer', 'adviser', or 'authority'. The nineteenth-century courts in England and Scotland predominantly favoured the 'adviser' role, but since 1957 the case-law on diminished responsibility has tended to elevate the expert to the position of authority. While acknowledging the force of the nineteenth-century arguments in favour of expert authority, the article concludes that the adviser role creates a more satisfactory relationship between expert and jury.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: April 1, 2001