IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
Paula Joan Caplan supports some things in the mental health system, but she has also raised questions about some problems in that system; as a result of the latter, some people have mistakenly concluded that she is a member or supporter of the Church of Scientology and/or its "Citizens Commission on Human Rights," but nothing could be further from the truth. She has made substantial efforts to persuade all groups that mischaracterize her work or that in various ways imply erroneously and misleadingly that she is one of their affiliates or supporters to cease and desist from doing so. Her work on mental health has been done as an independent practitioner and social and political activist.
Paula Joan Caplan supports some things in the mental health system, but she has also raised questions about some problems in that system; as a result of the latter, some people have mistakenly concluded that she is a member or supporter of the Church of Scientology and/or its "Citizens Commission on Human Rights," but nothing could be further from the truth. She has made substantial efforts to persuade all groups that mischaracterize her work or that in various ways imply erroneously and misleadingly that she is one of their affiliates or supporters to cease and desist from doing so. Her work on mental health has been done as an independent practitioner and social and political activist.
The following letter appeared in the American Psychological Association's Monitor on Psychology, January, 2007, page 4.
Questionable Grounds for Exclusion
In their "Judicial Notebook" column ("Expert testimony in insanity cases," November Monitor), Mercado and Bornstein, without naming me, referred to Justice David Souter's citation of my work in his troubling Clark v. Arizona decision. Souter based his opinion partly on a mischaracterization and misapplication, in an amicus brief, of my two decades of documentation of the inadequate use of science in the creation of diagnostic categories.
How did Justice Souter hear about my work? A Church of Scientology group, calling itself the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) and not mentioning Scientology, submitted that brief, using an argument irrelevant to the case but, surprisingly, used by Justice Souter. They cited my work and claimed that disagreement about the scientific basis of diagnoses causes confusion in criminal cases. What was actually at issue was whether therapists should be allowed to testify that Mr. Clark, who had killed a policeman, was delusional. He believed that aliens disguised as police had invaded Earth and were trying to kill him. Justice Souter ruled that psychiatrists' and psychologists' testimony about a criminal defendant's state of mind can be excluded because, as the CCHR said, diagnoses are unscientific. To exclude their testimony, however, is patently absurd. Furthermore, problems with validity of categories (symptom clusters) do not justify
excluding testimony about individual symptoms relevant to the crime, which are easier to document and have face and content validity for this case.
The way my work was misused raises two larger questions: (1. Do Supreme Court and other appellate judges regularly investigate the identity of authors of amicus briefs they don't recognize, like the CCHR? (2. Do they regularly investigate the validity of what is presented as "science" and whether the writer has represented and appliedit responsibly? The answer to both questions, as I learned researching the article at www.counterpunch.org/caplan10022006.html, is "no."
I hope no one will assume that anyone raising questions about the mental health system is allied with the Church of Scientology. For most of us questioners, nothing could be further from the truth.
Paula J. Caplan, PhD
APA Fellow
Questionable Grounds for Exclusion
In their "Judicial Notebook" column ("Expert testimony in insanity cases," November Monitor), Mercado and Bornstein, without naming me, referred to Justice David Souter's citation of my work in his troubling Clark v. Arizona decision. Souter based his opinion partly on a mischaracterization and misapplication, in an amicus brief, of my two decades of documentation of the inadequate use of science in the creation of diagnostic categories.
How did Justice Souter hear about my work? A Church of Scientology group, calling itself the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) and not mentioning Scientology, submitted that brief, using an argument irrelevant to the case but, surprisingly, used by Justice Souter. They cited my work and claimed that disagreement about the scientific basis of diagnoses causes confusion in criminal cases. What was actually at issue was whether therapists should be allowed to testify that Mr. Clark, who had killed a policeman, was delusional. He believed that aliens disguised as police had invaded Earth and were trying to kill him. Justice Souter ruled that psychiatrists' and psychologists' testimony about a criminal defendant's state of mind can be excluded because, as the CCHR said, diagnoses are unscientific. To exclude their testimony, however, is patently absurd. Furthermore, problems with validity of categories (symptom clusters) do not justify
excluding testimony about individual symptoms relevant to the crime, which are easier to document and have face and content validity for this case.
The way my work was misused raises two larger questions: (1. Do Supreme Court and other appellate judges regularly investigate the identity of authors of amicus briefs they don't recognize, like the CCHR? (2. Do they regularly investigate the validity of what is presented as "science" and whether the writer has represented and appliedit responsibly? The answer to both questions, as I learned researching the article at www.counterpunch.org/caplan10022006.html, is "no."
I hope no one will assume that anyone raising questions about the mental health system is allied with the Church of Scientology. For most of us questioners, nothing could be further from the truth.
Paula J. Caplan, PhD
APA Fellow