This book investigates the ethical and procedural implications of utilizing psychiatric testimony to mitigate criminal responsibility in cases of extreme emotional disturbance. Willard Gaylin, a distinguished psychiatrist, utilizes the specific case of Richard Herrin to challenge the intersection of clinical diagnosis and legal culpability. He argues that the misuse of psychiatric expertise in courtrooms often undermines the pursuit of justice by prioritizing the psychological state of the offender over the gravity of the criminal act.

Experts and legal scholars frequently cite this work as a foundational critique of the intersection between mental health and criminal law. Readers often note the clinical precision of the prose and the author's ability to balance complex psychological concepts with accessible legal analysis.