Citation

Beahrs JO. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 1998; 26(2): 201-214.

Affiliation

Oregon Health Sciences University, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1998, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Publisher American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

9664256

Abstract

Quantifying psychological victimization presents a formidable conundrum for psychiatry and the law. On the one hand, the task is fundamentally uncertain, due to causal complexity that includes disparity between projected image and inner reality, context dependence, volition, and conflicting interests. On the other hand, the task is necessary for just determination in such areas of law as disability assessment, victim impact, compensation, and psychological crimes such as harassment. A multiaxial protocol is proposed to meet this problematic charge. The five dimensions of this protocol are (1) gross estimate of victimization, including severity of the stressor, the degree of resulting impairment, and variably, the degree of the victim's nonresponsibility; (2) reliability; (3) other conditions; (4) conflicts of interest; and (5) evaluator bias. Intuitive estimates are used widely here instead of operationalized criteria, to enhance flexibility and widen relevance. Evaluators are asked to determine and explain the weighting that should be given to different factors and to give a self-statement of their own biases.

Language: en