Limited access to an individual’s mental content: a constraint on the strength of our knowledge in courts

Werdie Van Staden

doi:10.4102/sajpsychiatry.v15i3.223

Abstract

No abstract available.

Highlights

In a recent issue of SAJP Professor Kaliski wrote an editorial entitled ‘My brain made me do it – how neuroscience may change the insanity defence’.1 The paper warns that the testimony provided by brain scientists may end up being found wanting, similar to psychoanalysts testifying that an accused could not choose
This issue of SAJP contains an offended letter by Dr Lakie in response to the editorial, as well as Kaliski’s reply
Both authors state their sentiments in unequivocal terms

Summary

Introduction

In a recent issue of SAJP Professor Kaliski wrote an editorial entitled ‘My brain made me do it – how neuroscience may change the insanity defence’.1 The paper warns that the testimony provided by brain scientists may end up being found wanting, similar to psychoanalysts testifying that an accused could not choose (willfully or consciously). I have sympathy on both sides for a number of reasons, but rather than attempting to address these, I thought of highlighting three related mistakes that in my view we mental health workers may make when we lose sight of a significant constraint on the strength of our knowledge. The constraint is that we have limited access to an individual’s mental content.

Results

Conclusion