This session is recorded on five audio reels. While advertised speakers for this session were to include Joseph Goldstein, Daniel W. Schwartz, and Thomas S. Szasz, only Schwartz appears in the recordings. New School Professor of Sociology Ernest Van Den Haag and psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs are speakers, although they were not advertised as participants.

The first reel contains the introduction to the psychiatry and law session, and the address of the first speaker, New School Professor of Sociology Ernest Van Den Haag. Attorney Joseph Lobenthal introduces the panelists, reviews the question of the proper role of psychiatrists in the courtroom, and introduces Van Den Haag, who speaks at 6:57. Van Den Haag argues that psychiatrists have no role in the courtroom and that their recommendations in the judgments and sentencing of defendants amount to disguised moral judgments. According to Van Den Haag, the primary purpose of criminal punishment is not rehabilitation, but deterrence, and the attribution of crime rates to levels of poverty has not shown a valid correlation, but rather relates to the rational social cost of committing a crime.

The second reel contains the statement of Kings County Hospital Center Forensic Psychiatry Director Daniel Schwartz for the session on the role of psychiatry in law. Attorney Joseph Lobenthal briefly introduces Dr. Schwartz at the beginning of the recording, who delivers his speech, which deals with the myths surrounding and the impracticality of the "insanity defense," the problem of "malingering" and the issue of inmates escaping from state mental hospitals, and the appropriateness of the use of forensic psychiatric evaluation in the sentencing phase of criminal cases.

The third reel contains a portion of the question and answer period and a statement by psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs in response to panelist Daniel Schwartz. The recording begins with a description of the McNaughton rule for determining the sanity of a criminal defendant. This is followed by a statement by Dr. Renatus Hartogs in defense of the use psychiatry for both the prevention of crime and the rehabilitation of criminals, and the use of psychiatric testimony in court proceedings for the understanding of criminal motivations and the causes of crime.

The fourth reel contains a portion of the question and answer period. Attorney Joseph Lobenthal summarizes the arguments made by the panelists, and recognizes New School Professor of Sociology Ernest Van Den Haag, who speaks at 0:46, arguing that the idea of committing individuals to psychiatric treatment on the basis of their propensity for violence without any crime having occurred is an infringement of civil liberties and that prison sentences for criminal offenses serve as a social deterrent. At 9:39, forensic psychiatrist Daniel Schwartz rebuts Van Den Haag's assertion that crime serves as a deterrent in the case of psycopathy, although he acknowledges the inadequacy of treatments for the condition. Dr. Schwartz also disagrees with the opinion of psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs that violence can be predicted with certainty in a given case. Dr. Hartogs responds at 14:56. Question topics raised by the audience include: punishment versus rehabilitation, and the objectivity of psychiatrists.

The fifth reel contains the last part of the question and answer period. Questions include: the accuracy of psychiatric tests in measuring violent tendencies, which forensic psychiatrist Daniel Schwartz argues are not accurate and psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs argues are becoming close to accurate, the potential use of pathological liars as witnesses in court cases, to which sociology professor Ernest Van Den Haag responds that it is up to the court to decide the veracity of a witness, and the societal causes of psychiatric illness, to which Dr. Hartogs states that each individual may react differently to the same social pressures.