James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.
Center for Forensic Psychiatry and Risk Assessment, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2020 Sep;64(12):1317-1340. doi: 10.1177/0306624X20909218. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
The article by Kocsis and Palermo, published in 2016, examined the findings of research which had assessed the validity of the investigative technique colloquially known as . These findings were subsequently considered within the framework of their relevance to the admissibility of the technique as a form of expert witness evidence. The overall conclusion was that a discrete facet of the profiling technique may satisfy some of the requisite legal criteria for admissibility in jurisdictions within the United States. However, this conclusion was based upon studies which used samples of senior forensic psychiatrists and psychologists as the tested profilers. In this regard, it was noted that this parameter may preclude the generalization of this conclusion to other professional groups who do not possess such qualifications. Accordingly, the present article explores the potential admissibility of law enforcement personnel who are not qualified forensic mental health practitioners tendering expert witness evidence in the nature of criminal profiling. The conclusion of this analysis is that law enforcement personnel who possess suitable expertise in the analytic task of criminal profiling arguably possess an analogous knowledge base akin to the aforementioned senior forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. On this basis, the conclusions in Kocsis and Palermo, published in 2016, may extend to such personnel and their potential to likewise provide expert witness evidence.
2016 年,科奇斯和巴勒莫发表的文章研究了评估俗称 的调查技术有效性的研究结果。随后,这些发现被纳入到该技术作为专家证人证据的可采性相关框架中进行审议。总体结论是,该分析技术的一个独特方面可能符合美国某些司法管辖区可采性的一些必要法律标准。然而,这一结论是基于使用资深法医精神病学家和心理学家作为受测分析人员的样本研究得出的。在这方面,有人指出,这一参数可能排除将该结论推广到不具备此类资格的其他专业群体的可能性。因此,本文探讨了没有法医心理健康从业资格的执法人员作为犯罪侧写的专家证人证据提供的潜在可采性。该分析的结论是,在犯罪侧写的分析任务中具有适当专业知识的执法人员可以说具有类似于上述资深法医精神病学家和心理学家的类似知识基础。在此基础上,2016 年科奇斯和巴勒莫发表的结论可能适用于此类人员及其提供专家证人证据的可能性。