Opinion ID: 1352735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Irrelevance of psychiatric testimony

Text: (5f) Defendants and their amici curiae argue at length that psychiatric testimony would show that child molesters are really sheep in wolves's clothing  that their abuse of children is an attempt at affection. We are reluctant to venture into uncertain territory still being explored by psychiatrists. We note, however, that testimony, psychiatric or otherwise, that no harm was intended flies `in the face of all reason, common sense, and experience.' ( CNA Ins. Co. v. McGinnis (1984) 282 Ark. 90 [666 S.W.2d 689, 691]; Fire Ins. Exchange v. Abbott, supra, 204 Cal. App.3d 1012, 1028 [characterizing such psychiatric testimony as being inherently incredible].) Such testimony is also irrelevant in light of the rule that a child molester's subjective intent is irrelevant to the question of insurance coverage. (204 Cal. App.3d at p. 1029; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Troelstrup, supra, 789 P.2d 415, 419.) Moreover, if psychiatry can satisfactorily corroborate defendants' view and demonstrate the need for a change in the law, the proper forum is in the Legislature, where broad-based, perhaps conflicting empirical evidence can be presented and considered.