|
|
|
|
 |
home > research >
Research Project - Ivan Crozier: The Boundaries of Forensic Psychiatry
Research Project -
Ivan Crozier: The Boundaries of Forensic Psychiatry
My research to date has been concerned with a number of issues: the
emergence of the field of sexology in England, America, and on
the Continent; the development of English medical writing about sex (in
psychiatry and
psychology as well as other human sciences like ethnology and biology);
the organization of the World League for Sexual Reform Congress
in
London in 1929; sexological case histories; sexual crime as a medico-legal
issue;
and forensic psychiatry and criminal responsibility. My main focus
throughout this work has been to map the emergence of the field of
sexology, a field
that constructed knowledge about sexual behaviour, often in order
to challenge and correct popular beliefs about sexuality that were
held
in the late nineteenth century (both by the general public, and
in court).
One intriguing point about the emergence of sexology was the
way that
many early discussions addressed the law in order to stake a claim
about a sexual perversion. I argue that it is not possible to look
at the emergence
of sexology as an internal issue within medical practice alone,
but
rather it should be thought of as a process of gaining credibility
to speak
about certain issues that were initially legal and moral; a process
of challenging commonly-held beliefs about sexual behaviours with
scientific knowledge of the same behaviours. I am not suggesting that
all sexology
was concerned with forging boundaries between psychiatry and the
law.
But in 'fringe' cases where the object of inquiry was partially
under the control of the law (sadistic and homosexual behaviour were
legal
objects before there was any psychiatric discussion of them), doctors
had to engage with the law in order to construct their object as
a psychiatric rather than legal object. From this point, I began
to address the specifics
of the interaction between law and psychiatry that led to my current
interest in the emergence of forensic psychiatry. Rather than locating
the roots of forensic psychiatry (which has been done in a detail
by Joel Eigen, Witnessing Insanity, Yale UP, 1995), I look at how
the discipline
developed after the crucial works of Forbes Winslow and Henry Maudsley
through to the trial of Ronald True (1922). My project addresses
countries other than England, as there was often a significant flow
of ideas between
America, England and the Continent. The main focus, however, will
be English trials.
There are several aspects that come into play when considering the
emergence of forensic psychiatry:
-
The courtroom behaviour of the
psychiatrist,
such as the presentation of expert evidence to the court and
establishing credibility for psychiatry. This aspect will be based
on trials
in which psychiatrists appeared, as well as court reports. It addresses
what psychiatrists
considered to be legitimate knowledge, and how they established
this
legitimacy over what they considered to be misled belief.
-
Constructing
boundaries between psychiatry and the law, both in terms of
the presentation of evidence to the court and in medical publications.
This
aspect
focuses on how psychiatrists conceived of their place in law
and in medicine.
It also plays up the differences (real and perceived) between
psychiatric knowledge and the beliefs held about criminal insanity
by the law.
-
Constructing boundaries between psychiatry and other medical disciplines,
such as criminology, sexology, and areas of medical jurisprudence.
This aspect utilizes ideas from the sociology of scientific knowledge
on boundary
working in order to examine different kinds of knowledge about
specific objects, and to investigate the different strategies employed
by
psychiatrists with a view to introducing their knowledge to the
courtroom.
-
The formation
of psychiatric objects in a legal context (such as the pervert,
the psychopath, the homicidal maniac). All of these areas broadly
rely on the central
idea that forensic psychiatry created a niche for itself
over which it had expertise and authority, based on its own-field-specific-notions
of relating to other disciplines, and its own objects of
inquiry.
The key to understanding the creation and maintenance of
boundaries is an
appreciation of the broad flow of ideas between medical disciplines
as well as between work done in different countries, and
an understanding of how forensic psychiatrists applied this knowledge
both in court
and
in their writings.
Central to this project is the way that psychiatry
developed specific knowledge about insanity and criminal responsibility
that could be used as the basis for strategies to challenge legal
belief about insanity within the court as well as in medical
publications. This
tension between psychiatric knowledge and legal belief is central
to understanding the motivations behind the field of psychiatry
in its endeavours
to enter the court.
 back
to top
If you cannot find the information you require on these pages, please
contact:
The Science Studies Unit Office
Email: carole.tansley@ed.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)131 650 4256
Fax: +44 (0)131 650 6886
back
to top
|
|
|
Fax:
+44 (0)131 650 6886