Experts' opinions based on law

In the Jan. 10 editorial "This insanity verdict sane, humane," your assertion that the "so-called experts possess too much compassion and too little common sense" indicates a lack of understanding about how evaluations are done in Georgia.

Georgia is fortunate that the state provides expert forensic evaluators to the court. State evaluators are not paid by the defense or the prosecution. This ensures neutrality and allows them to offer evaluations based on their forensic expertise directly to the court.

State forensic examiners have no stake in the outcome of the trial and base their testimony solely on Georgia Law (see the O.C.G.A. §16-3-2 and §16-3-3) and the facts of the case. To do otherwise would be in violation of their duties as an evaluator and the ethical guidelines for forensic psychologists.

Both the prosecution and the defense can always pay for additional evaluations from psychiatrists or psychologists who may or may not have the same forensic experience as our state evaluators. There are many states that do not rely on state-employed forensic experts. Their entire system must rely on "experts" paid by the opposing sides.

It is rare for defendants to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. Of those who do, only about 1 percent are actually found not guilty by reason of insanity. Trained forensic experts' evaluations usually establish that the defendants are criminally responsible for their acts. It is only when there is a high-profile case, such as the Hawes case, that the public thinks that such verdicts are commonplace or nonsense.

If you talk with the judges, district attorneys and public defenders you will find that the state evaluators are viewed as real experts whose opinions are based on the law and the facts, and not the emotion of a particular criminal case.

Robert W Thomas, Ph.D., Evans