Commentary

1982 Was AAPL's year of living dangerously

Joseph Bloom, Daniel W. Dick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 1982, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) was a growing and ambitious professional organization. Its membership was a small but vigorous group united by the desire to develop the emerging psychiatric subspecialty of forensic psychiatry within the larger context of psychiatry. The organization was 13 years old. It was devoted to the goal of uplifting the practice of forensic psychiatry in the United States through continuing education and specialty training. AAPL was well positioned to achieve its goal. Its leaders were fairly single-minded and many were strategically placed within the hierarchy of the American Psychiatric Association. Subspecialty recognition within psychiatry and medicine appeared attainable. Then came the United States v. Hinckley case. Every aspect of the case was controversial: the facts of the case itself, the use of the insanity defense, the contradictory psychiatric testimony and, finally, the verdict. Forensic psychiatry was put on the defensive, and at the height of the controversy the former President of the American Psychiatric Association and the nation's most prominent Professor of Law and Psychiatry delivered a simple luncheon speech. As is evident from this article and from this edition of the Journal, now, some 25 years later, we are still talking about what he had to say.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)175-180
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Volume36
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2008

Fingerprint

psychiatry
Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Insanity Defense
academy
Law
Continuing Education
professional association
testimony
edition
Medicine
Organizations
president
university teacher
medicine
leader
organization
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Commentary : 1982 Was AAPL's year of living dangerously. / Bloom, Joseph; Dick, Daniel W.

In: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2008, p. 175-180.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bloom, Joseph ; Dick, Daniel W. / Commentary : 1982 Was AAPL's year of living dangerously. In: Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2008 ; Vol. 36, No. 2. pp. 175-180.
@article{958f031150704096984323678ff99468,
title = "Commentary: 1982 Was AAPL's year of living dangerously",
abstract = "In 1982, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) was a growing and ambitious professional organization. Its membership was a small but vigorous group united by the desire to develop the emerging psychiatric subspecialty of forensic psychiatry within the larger context of psychiatry. The organization was 13 years old. It was devoted to the goal of uplifting the practice of forensic psychiatry in the United States through continuing education and specialty training. AAPL was well positioned to achieve its goal. Its leaders were fairly single-minded and many were strategically placed within the hierarchy of the American Psychiatric Association. Subspecialty recognition within psychiatry and medicine appeared attainable. Then came the United States v. Hinckley case. Every aspect of the case was controversial: the facts of the case itself, the use of the insanity defense, the contradictory psychiatric testimony and, finally, the verdict. Forensic psychiatry was put on the defensive, and at the height of the controversy the former President of the American Psychiatric Association and the nation's most prominent Professor of Law and Psychiatry delivered a simple luncheon speech. As is evident from this article and from this edition of the Journal, now, some 25 years later, we are still talking about what he had to say.",
author = "Joseph Bloom and Dick, {Daniel W.}",
year = "2008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "175--180",
journal = "Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
issn = "1093-6793",
publisher = "American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Commentary

T2 - 1982 Was AAPL's year of living dangerously

AU - Bloom, Joseph

AU - Dick, Daniel W.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - In 1982, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) was a growing and ambitious professional organization. Its membership was a small but vigorous group united by the desire to develop the emerging psychiatric subspecialty of forensic psychiatry within the larger context of psychiatry. The organization was 13 years old. It was devoted to the goal of uplifting the practice of forensic psychiatry in the United States through continuing education and specialty training. AAPL was well positioned to achieve its goal. Its leaders were fairly single-minded and many were strategically placed within the hierarchy of the American Psychiatric Association. Subspecialty recognition within psychiatry and medicine appeared attainable. Then came the United States v. Hinckley case. Every aspect of the case was controversial: the facts of the case itself, the use of the insanity defense, the contradictory psychiatric testimony and, finally, the verdict. Forensic psychiatry was put on the defensive, and at the height of the controversy the former President of the American Psychiatric Association and the nation's most prominent Professor of Law and Psychiatry delivered a simple luncheon speech. As is evident from this article and from this edition of the Journal, now, some 25 years later, we are still talking about what he had to say.

AB - In 1982, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) was a growing and ambitious professional organization. Its membership was a small but vigorous group united by the desire to develop the emerging psychiatric subspecialty of forensic psychiatry within the larger context of psychiatry. The organization was 13 years old. It was devoted to the goal of uplifting the practice of forensic psychiatry in the United States through continuing education and specialty training. AAPL was well positioned to achieve its goal. Its leaders were fairly single-minded and many were strategically placed within the hierarchy of the American Psychiatric Association. Subspecialty recognition within psychiatry and medicine appeared attainable. Then came the United States v. Hinckley case. Every aspect of the case was controversial: the facts of the case itself, the use of the insanity defense, the contradictory psychiatric testimony and, finally, the verdict. Forensic psychiatry was put on the defensive, and at the height of the controversy the former President of the American Psychiatric Association and the nation's most prominent Professor of Law and Psychiatry delivered a simple luncheon speech. As is evident from this article and from this edition of the Journal, now, some 25 years later, we are still talking about what he had to say.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=47549117449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=47549117449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 175

EP - 180

JO - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

JF - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

SN - 1093-6793

IS - 2

ER -