Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice

by Margaret A. Hagen

An expose+a7 of the faulty testimony of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers and its detrimental influence on jurors in criminal and child custody cases shows readers how to protect themselves against it. $20,000 ad/promo.

Genres: Psychology, Law

352 pages, Hardcover

First published February 1, 1997

Reviews

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm actually reading from one of my true crime paper baby piles with this one and I picked it because although I am not friends with Petra I think I must be following her because I see what she is reading all of the time and I can never comment. But this book relates to a review's comments she finished. One of the remarks was about lie detector tests-little secret-many people put a thumb tack or something similar into the toe of their shoe and when they answer truthfully they push the toe onto the tack so the true answers register similarly to the false responses. I would never take a polygraph and I've taught my daughter to lawyer up and do nothing if she's ever in a situation.
Anyway back to this book. It's extremely frustrating at times to read a true crime book and there is a battle of wits between prosecution psychiatrists and defense psychiatrists. Majority of trials they test until they get the results they need so they are paid extortion rates for their testimony. They will flip sides in a quarter toss. And that's all I have to say right now because Im not supposed to be reading.

Alright now that I’m just a bit in this author is a bitter, jaded human being. Her brother had an issue in court (no spoiler), so now the author is on the attack. She has ZERO RESPECT or in fact absolutely no time waste on what is obvious to her as junk science; therefore she must be right and the rest of the world is wrong. I can’t say too much about this because she’s actually hitting my anger button, and I need to read a bit more before passing judgement, but it seems to me that she will rip psychology and psychiatry to shreds. She must be the lone right minded human.

6/17 ok I finally found something in this book that I do not agree with-“Even the most severely depressed patients some 10% show no physical symptoms at all.” I am saving up to buy my own copy of the DSM because it baffles me how these people are depressed if they have the motivation to eat, sleep, or report fatigue. Or rather that all they want to do is sleep. Or rather they want to eat everything in the fridge. That honestly does not make sense to me. If anyone reads this review and you are ok to discuss your depression (not bipolar just depression) i would really be interested in your physical manifestations.

Bonus statement: "Freud gives a nice example of (clinical intuition) to develop his version of scientific truth when he explains how he discovered in a patient of his the connection between depression, sinus pain, constipation, and coitus interruptus. Ummm k?
6/27 so I honestly do not know how to judge this book. This author seems to hate all psychologists and is not a fan of……what is she again? What is it she does besides bitch the whole time? It’s like she’s the only one of whatever she is that can heal but then in her world no one has an illness because what the DSM deems to be an illness is just a bunch of nobody’s who don’t know what they are talking about. It’s really starting to grate my nerves and my brain.

6/28 ok I’ve finally reached the child as criminal chapter and I could physically feel my face cringe and the muscles in my body tense. I don’t think this woman whatever her title has ever spent long term time in a school or classroom to know what she is talking about. I say this d/t my ten years of having taught in low income neighborhoods and special needs children-some behaviorally severe. If I’m reading this chapter correctly this woman is basically stating that an evaluation for these children consists of an IQ test and……what? She thinks that’s all? Is this her idea of a joke? Because I feel like she is kidding me right now. Where and how does she get her information? I think this book is like that situation when a man or woman is dating someone for awhile then one starts accusing the other of cheating when the whole time the one accusing is the one cheating. Does that make sense? It’s like this scientist? Definitely not a clinician she says and not a psych of any proportion she says is attacking society why is everyone so stupid come on lemmings believe me .

Ok I just wrote a last paragraph and it disappeared but that GR for you
I might write it again tom
I’m just not reading this book by some pseudopsychologist anymore. She makes no sense.

*please excuse any typos

[Bad Penny · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh, where to begin in critiquing this purportedly “clarion wake-up call” about the “fraud of psychiatric testimony” and the “rape of American Justice.” To begin with, Ms. Hagen is quite clearly a staunch conservative with an agenda to discredit “liberal” social policy and the field of clinical psychology as a whole because she sees it as one and the same. She makes it clear that she does not believe in mental illness but personal responsibility, and that all offenders should be locked up (and that addicts, or as she calls them, “drunks” and “druggies” are just as bad as violent felons, and addiction is not a treatable disease). She makes only slightly veiled racist attacks on psychology and society as well, particularly in her claims that “for reasons I won’t discuss,” graduate classes on race and oppression are “always taught by African-Americans.” According to Ms. Hagen, psychology is all a liberal agenda, to create a government to “take care of” everyone, which psychologists profit from by being the caretakers. In this same vein, she asserts that all psychologists (especially feminists) see everyone as “victims” in need of saving, but purely for their own economic agenda – to make money off of these “victims” by “treating” them. Which of course, in her expert opinion, is a scam for money because there is no treatment – she claims that psychotherapy absolutely does not work. Period. (And apparently all liberals – er, psychologists – view the American family as inherently dysfunctional, and blame the parents – and society – for everything.) Perhaps the most offensive is her subtle way of hinting that rape and child abuse and other trauma are not really traumatizing.

Ms. Hagen is out of touch with contemporary training and practice, even 13 years ago. To say all clinical psychologists are Freudian, that psychodynamic = Freudian, and that eclectic means Freudian plus something else is such an ignorant statement that anyone at all familiar with the field – or who had actually done some research – would have known better. And to claim that all graduate training in therapy technique is kept a “secret” is an outrageous lie – any book used in any such class is readily available for order on Amazon. Returning to her sweeping statements that all therapy is ineffective, she gives no mention of the success of CBT or other evidence based treatments, and even in the late 90’s there was psychotherapy research literature out there. Ms. Hagen believes that psychology, like Skinner and the other strict behaviorists, should only be the study of behaviors in the lab, or of perception and cognitive processes (which is what she studies, naturally).

Whether intentional or simply ignorant (and I really can’t decide which one is more likely), she also blurs and confuses psychologists with all other types of “therapists,” not only including LCSWs and MFTs, but all other “healers” found in the New Age newspapers doing hypnotic past life regressions and bodywork therapies. She presents fringe therapies and therapists as mainstream and accepted by the profession of psychology, which could not be further from the truth. She also confuses psychiatry and psychology a lot, particularly around the DSM and “medicalization” of psychology.

Although this book is supposedly about expert witnesses in the court, she is all over the map in her attacks on psychology. She is extremely out of touch with contemporary forensic practices (again, even 13 years ago). Regarding prediction of violence, there was not a single mention of instruments – at that time the Hare Psychopathy Checklist was out, and had she done any research, she would have found that the initial HCR-20 (a structured clinical judgment instrument) was also out. Ms. Hagen doesn’t even know what she’s talking about with forensic practice. She thinks the psychologists “decide” competency and insanity (not true; it is the judge/jury), and she does not get that being incompetent to stand trial does not equal “get out of criminal proceedings.” She also doesn’t seem to understand that diagnosis does not equal insanity or incompetency. And the claim that psychological factors used as mitigating/exculpatory in 50% of criminal cases? Where on earth does she get this number? (No evidence to back it up…she completely makes it up). Above all, she completely confuses expert witnesses/testimony with lay/fact witnesses, treating therapists.

The worst, and the most ironic, flaw of this book is that she is completely biased in her sources, which she doesn’t even cite or include half of the time – in fact, no “research” or “science” in making her claims. No basis. This is her core argument against psychology/psychiatry – that there is no evidence, no real science or research behind it – and yet she is more guilty of this charge than the profession she tries so hard to discredit. All of the “research” she cites, besides being completely self-serving, is completely outdated. She does not address or look at all the literature refuting or contradicting her claims.

Above all, this attack is all personal – she is angry, with a serious chip on her shoulder because of her brother. All throughout the book she relies on the transcript of his trial to somehow “prove” her argument.

In this long-winded emotional rant, she confuses clinical and forensic psychologists, assessment with treatment, and blurs all disciplines of mental health providers. Her point is continuously lost and derailed as she just spits venom, not really making a clear, coherent or logical case for anything.

This book is an excellent example of how not to make a case against psychology – or anything, for that matter.

[Corinne Hues · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title alone gives you a glimpse of the clever humor that the author uses throughout the book while she opens the readers eyes to the world of forensic psychology that many have not seen before. Though there is bound to be opinions of the author that you will disagree with, you are guaranteed to come away from the book questioning the validity of the testimony of those psychiatrists who's paycheck hangs in the balance.

[Corin · Rating 1 out of 5]

ugh. while the author has some valid points, it was difficult to find them while dodging the chip on her shoulder. unfortunately, it was a terrible read, poorly researched, and the author desperately needs therapy herself. hopefully there are other books out there that do a better job at exploring this interesting topic.

[blake · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this slowly not because it was difficult to absorb or uninteresting, nor because I was surprised by any of the contents. Mostly, I spread this out because I find it hard to look at how little things have changed, except perhaps for the worse, concerning the use of "psychological expert testimony".

I have some quibbles with some of Hagen's unqualified statements about the understanding of the human mind, but she is undoubtedly correct when pointing out that psychological "intuition", unfalsifiable and only combattable with yet more recourse to other psychologists, is being used to send people to jail—or to keep them out of jail. And also to decide who gets custody of what child. And any number of things with literally no scientific basis.

And I can't argue with her placing of the blame: We, the American public, have done this. We've bought a bill of goods from the APA because we want answers. The APA provides those answers, and cloaks what they do in a veil of sciencyness so that we can pretend we're doing something other than having an astrologer or a phrenologist testify on life-or-death matters. That way, it's not our fault.

She also predicts—though clearly 25+ years ago when she wrote this she was hopeful of a different future—that the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) would grow and grow and soon all ethically compromised (and some perfectly normal) behavior would be encompassed therein. She even lists some things that aren't protected "yet" under the ADA sardonically, and the list contains many items that have since been covered.

Big bibliography to support all her points. An eerie echoing of the use of "expertise" and the troubles it can bring. Worth reading if you thought all was well in the mental-health world, but also only if you're ready to confront how much worse it's gotten.

[Daniel Carter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant! Well worth the read no matter who you are or what you think you know. Well written and factual. Exposes the giant holes in psychiatry and shows it for what it is, an opportunistic parasite.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

My college professor bites the hand that feeds her by questioning the validity of repressed memory and therapy in general.

[Dayzha Jefferson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for class. Very interesting take. Loved the delivery and information.