OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS
|JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice||For AuthorsAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us|
Commenting the article by P.Y. Kantor: сounter-arguments 1116
Safuanov F.S., Doctor of Psychology, head of chair of clinical and forensic psychology, department of legal psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education, Moscow, Russia, email@example.com
Shishkov S.N., Associate Professor, Chief Research Associate , Federal Medical Research Centre of Psychiatry and Addiction of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation , Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
The article presents objections to the arguments set out in article «Revisiting an issue of mandatory assignment of complex forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of legal capability: pro arguments» by P.Yu. Kantor in favor of legislative recognition of mandatory complex forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of legal capability in the case of adjudge a citizen incapable due to mental disorder. From the point of view of the theory and methodology of complex forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, the authors inappropriately constrict competence limits of forensic psychiatrists and ignore the possibility and the need to integrate medical and psychological knowledge in forensics. P. Yu. Kantor’s theses about the total dominance of psychiatric examinations in civil proceedings and a painful and humiliating for subject forensic psychiatric examination in Russia are objectionable. The present paper shows negative organizational and legal consequences of this legal norm and proposes a wide interdisciplinary discussion on the problem.
Keywords: limited dispositive legal capacity, legal incapacitation, complex forensic psychological and psychiatric examination, forensic psychiatric examination in litigation proceedings, mandatory legal enquiry.
Column: Critics and Bibliography