January 17, 2011
Measure of Madness
Non-fiction time again!
This one’s a chronicle of cases by a forensic psychologist. Each section explores a specific aspect of psychology in legal system: competencies to stand trial and to waive Miranda rights, and the often misunderstood insanity defense. In the last section, she also discusses the issue of defendants who fake psychological symptoms.
I generally enjoy books featuring the “supporting cast” of the legal system, particularly scientists in forensic specialties. And while many of the cases here were quite interesting, there were a number of drawbacks that disrupted the narrative. I get that the arrangement of cases into groups by common features is a good set-up in theory, as the reader does get to see the same issue from a number of angles unique to the various situations. Unfortunately, this also led to a serious repetitiveness problem. Not only for the reader, I suspect: the explanatory paragraphs for certain psych tests and legal concepts are phrased identically from one chapter to the next, in a way that whispers “copy-and-paste”.
The explanatory paragraphs are also part of my other major issue with the book: the frequent tone of condescension. The one that bothered me the most was one page 130, explaining the psychology term “neologism”. I suppose the idea that we poor non-psychologist readers might be familiar with the neo- prefix AND the loan word logos from Greek never occurred to the author. (Yes, I realize the amateur classicist in me got all puffed up and offended over that one, but in addition to classics dorks, anyone with an interest in linguistic history, or bible scholarship, or has simply studied for the SATs is either well aware of what ‘neologism’ means of can divine the basic idea from a prior knowledge of its parts.)
The only other problem is with psychology itself: there is a clear tone of authority throughout the text, but when psych’s “soft science” underbelly is showing, the unintentional irony can be too much. This is especially apparent when the author administers tests in which the patient is asked to draw and those drawings are interpreted by the psychologist. Things like a tree with its roots showing are viewed as proof of delusion. I would think that a botany nerd, or someone who’s worked in landscaping, or even someone who’s lived in a maple tree region (surface roots can be visible 10 and 20 feet from the larger trees) might draw what they know a whole tree looks like, rather than just the surface portion. Conversely, not including the groundline with a house or tree indicated the patient is not “grounded” in reality. That one really strikes me as a trick question: you ask them to draw “a house”, but what you really want to see is “a house placed in a yard or similar scenic marker”. See how that works? You have to draw the ground (even though you weren’t asked to, so literalists beware) but don’t draw anything that might be under the ground. Never mind simple variation in artistic ability. And yet this silly “test” is explained with the same gravity as the rest of the text, as if you could determine someone’s entire mental makeup by whether or not their little house drawing includes a doorknob.
Ultimately, interesting concept and middling fair execution.
Full details: The Measure of Madness: Inside the Disturbed and Disturbing Criminal Mind by Cheryl Paradis, Foreward by Katherine Ramsland. Published 2010 by Citadel Press.
