Moulin Valerie, Mouchet Caroline, Pillonel Tessa, Gkotsi G-M, Baertschi Bernard, Gasser Jacques, Testé Benoit
Maître de Conférences, Department of Psychiatry, Unit for Research in Legal Psychiatry and Psychology, Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Site de Cery, Bat. Les Cèdres, Lausanne 1008, Switzerland.
Unit for Research in Legal Psychiatry and Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, Institute of Forensic Psychiatry, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Site de Cery, Bat. Les Cèdres, Lausanne 1008, Switzerland.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2018 Nov-Dec;61:22-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.09.008. Epub 2018 Oct 12.
This article explores the impact of neuroscience evidence on how expert reports are perceived and their effects on the decisions made by trial judges. Experimental psychology has demonstrated a number of cognitive effects arising from exposure to neuroimaging data which may bias judgments and lead to (mis)interpretations that can affect decisions. We conducted a study on a sample of 62 Swiss and French judges in order to determine whether their perceptions of the credibility, quality and scientific basis of a psychiatric evaluation of a criminal defendant vary according to whether or not the evaluation includes neuroscientific data. Quantitative analyses were conducted in order to evaluate significant differences between the two conditions (one-way analyses of variance) and moderation and conditional analyses to examine whether the participants' sex and length of professional experience moderated the effect of the conditions. Terminological and thematic analyses were carried out on open questions. Quantitative and qualitative results suggest that the presence of neuroscience data in an expert report affects judges' perceptions of the quality, credibility, and scientificity (reliability, objectivity, scientific basis) of the report, and the persuasiveness of the evidence it provided. Moreover, this phenomenon was stronger in more experienced judges than in less experienced judges.
本文探讨了神经科学证据对专家报告的认知方式及其对初审法官决策的影响。实验心理学已经证明，接触神经影像数据会产生一些认知效应，这些效应可能会使判断产生偏差，并导致可能影响决策的（错误）解读。我们对62名瑞士和法国法官进行了一项研究，以确定他们对刑事被告精神病评估的可信度、质量和科学依据的认知是否会因评估是否包含神经科学数据而有所不同。进行了定量分析以评估两种情况之间的显著差异（单因素方差分析），并进行了调节分析和条件分析，以检验参与者的性别和专业经验长度是否调节了情况的影响。对开放性问题进行了术语和主题分析。定量和定性结果表明，专家报告中神经科学数据的存在会影响法官对报告的质量、可信度和科学性（可靠性、客观性、科学依据）以及报告所提供证据的说服力的认知。此外，这种现象在经验丰富的法官中比在经验较少的法官中更为明显。
