Gianvanni Elena, Sharman Stefanie J
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2016 Nov 24;24(2):223-232. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2016.1254589. eCollection 2017.
Legal representatives engage psychologists to provide expert witness opinions about a number of factors, including the psychological factors that may have contributed to the perpetrator's behaviour and the likelihood of reoffending. Although this evidence can affect the outcome of proceedings, little is known about how the experts who provide it are chosen or about the quality of their services. This paper explored legal representatives' reasons for engaging psychologists as expert witnesses, how they choose these experts, and their opinions about the expertise provided. Questions were also asked about the features of good and poor written and oral expert testimony. The results show that the majority of legal representatives engage psychologists who are usually chosen through referrals from colleagues and others. The legal representatives in the present sample had little awareness about the different backgrounds of experts (e.g. clinical vs forensic psychology). These results have implications for psychologists who provide expert evidence and the legal representatives who engage them.
法定代表人聘请心理学家就一些因素提供专家证人意见，这些因素包括可能导致犯罪者行为的心理因素以及再次犯罪的可能性。尽管这类证据会影响诉讼结果，但对于提供此类证据的专家是如何被挑选出来的以及他们服务的质量却知之甚少。本文探讨了法定代表人聘请心理学家作为专家证人的原因、他们如何挑选这些专家以及他们对所提供专业知识的看法。同时还询问了关于优劣书面及口头专家证词的特点。结果显示，大多数法定代表人聘请的心理学家通常是通过同事及其他人的推荐而选定的。本样本中的法定代表人对专家的不同背景（如临床心理学与法医心理学）了解甚少。这些结果对提供专家证据的心理学家以及聘请他们的法定代表人都有启示。
