From a legal point of view, an expert is a person who possesses a series of scientific, technical or artistic knowledge, and on the basis of this knowledge, informs and advises judges and courts in those matters that are within his competence and for which he has been called.
On the other hand, forensic comes from “forum”. Today this meaning is used colloquially to refer to everything related to the participation of experts in a judicial proceeding and thus contribute to the proper administration of justice (forensic doctor, forensic psychologist, forensic science, etc.).
Generically, an expert report is any written document of a medico-legal nature, issued by order of the authorities or also at the request of a party, on the significance of certain judicial or administrative facts and made by an expert in that field. The expert report is nowadays an irreplaceable auxiliary for a correct administration of justice, and although it is not binding, there are legal matters that, due to their great specificity or complexity, require supplementary information provided by this type of report.
Areas in which the psychiatric expert report is requested
The areas where psychiatric expertise is most frequently requested are the following:
- Criminal: To determine the imputability (if there is capacity to understand the wrongfulness of a conduct and capacity to act according to that knowledge). It can also be used to assess the criminal and social dangerousness of certain subjects. Finally, it can be used to know if there has been professional responsibility or malpractice in the care of patients.
- Civil: To determine the psychobiological basis of the capacity to act and therefore to be incapacitated. Also in the possible nullity of wills or marriages in which there are psychiatric disorders in providing it.
- Labor: To report on the existence of permanent incapacity either absolute or total.
The psychiatric expertise must be accompanied by complementary tests such as psychological studies, analysis of toxic substances, neuroradiological studies, electroencephalographic studies, which allow a more accurate diagnosis.
We must insist that the expert report is not binding, that is to say, the court that receives it is not obliged to take it into account in its sentence. However, it is mandatory that the judgments are motivated, so the court will be obliged to explain the reasons that have led him to appreciate it, or on the contrary, to reject it and not to take it into consideration.
In our extensive expert experience, if a report is scientifically sound, ideologically aseptic and technically rigorous, it is always valued by the court that hears the case. However, when it comes to psychiatric expertise, as psychiatry is a specialty in which the “objectification” of data is very difficult, if not impossible, the etiology of the disorders is not well known and the evolution and prognosis are highly variable, psychiatric expertise can be more easily questioned, especially when very contradictory opinions are expressed on the same subject depending on the different ideological or doctrinal currents of the experts involved.
What should the psychiatric expert report contain?
In addition to the above, it is necessary to insist on the need for the expert report to be scientific and rigorous, avoiding interpretations or personal opinions, being the most appropriate to always resort to the diagnostic criteria accepted by the international scientific community. In the case of the forensic psychiatric report will be those established in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD 10th) or in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM 5).
Every psychiatric expert report must, above all, give an answer to what it has been asked, and this recommendation, although it seems obvious, is one of the mistakes most frequently made by those professionals who do not have expert habit or experience.
The psychiatric expert is an auxiliary of justice, whose objective is to shed light and not shadows, clarifying the existing doubts. As Simonin, one of the classic authors in Forensic Medicine, says “many times the knowledge of the most famous and qualified expert cannot be used by the court”, this will happen especially when we forget the essence of our task and the people who are listening to us. What can be very interesting in a clinical session or in a lecture at a congress, can become foolishness in the courtroom of a courthouse. Therefore, in summary, clarity, conciseness and rigor in the presentation.
Finally, we must insist that the professional called upon to advise a court of law must always bear in mind that although his work is important, he is just another piece of the procedure. He should also remember that there may be aspects of the judicial procedure that he may be unaware of, and that at all times he should be concise, objective and respectful when making his assessments, in order to fulfill the task entrusted to him and avoid that his technical assessments may cause confusion, or even be misinterpreted by the parties.