Leifer, R. (1965). "The psychiatrist and tests of criminal responsibility": Erratum. American Psychologist, 20(1), 92.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0020926
Reports an error in the original article by Ronald Leifer (American Psychologist. 19(11) 1964, 825-830). In the November 1964 issue, the fifth sentence following the quotation in the second column on page 828 should read: The determination of mental illness, therefore, amounts to a kind of deterioration similar to that with which the court is charged. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 1965-06329-001.) "The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that psychiatric testimony fails to meet certain scientific standards on 2 grounds: 1st in the case of the McNaughten Rule, it answers questions put in ordinary language by ordinary means; 2nd, in the case of the Durham Rule, it serves the same ethical function as the jury, namely, the ascription of responsibility." The problems of reconciling the capabilities of psychiatry and psychiatrist with the demands of the legal system are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)