Suppr超能文献

评估证词的有效性:证据顺序的作用。

Evaluating the validity of testimony: The role of the order of evidence.

作者信息

Otgaar Henry, De Beuf Tamara L F, Sauerland Melanie, Schincariol Alexa

机构信息

Faculty of Law and Criminology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

出版信息

Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2024 Nov 21;9:100562. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100562. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

Legal practitioners sometimes ask psychologists to evaluate the validity of statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects. For their assessment, psychologists often have access to different pieces of evidence (e.g., a video recording of the interview, the suspect's statements). Research has demonstrated that the order of reviewing the evidence can affect decision-making. To examine expert witnesses' views about this, we surveyed 52 legal psychologists about their preferred order for considering the evidence in a statement validity assessment in a fictional sexual abuse case. The assessment was about the validity of the statement of the alleged child victim. The case file included the following documents: an audiovisual recording of the child interview at the police station, a verbatim transcript of that same interview, and a written statement of the suspect. Legal psychologists indicated their preferred order for reviewing these documents and explained the rationale behind their choice. There was no uniform approach among legal psychologists. About one third of respondents would first examine the audiovisual recording, then the verbatim transcript and finally the suspect's statement. In contrast, about one third would first look at the verbatim transcript, then at the recording and last at the suspect's statement. These differences in approach likely highlight the challenges and trade-offs entailed in deciding on the optimal order and emphasize the need for a discussion in the expert witness community about these issues.

摘要

法律从业者有时会要求心理学家评估受害者、证人及嫌疑人陈述的有效性。在进行评估时,心理学家通常可以获取不同的证据(例如,访谈的视频记录、嫌疑人的陈述)。研究表明,审查证据的顺序会影响决策。为了探究专家证人对此的看法,我们调查了52位法律心理学家,询问他们在一个虚构的性虐待案件中进行陈述有效性评估时考虑证据的首选顺序。该评估是关于一名据称是儿童受害者的陈述的有效性。案件档案包括以下文件:在警察局对儿童进行访谈的视听记录、该访谈的逐字记录以及嫌疑人的书面陈述。法律心理学家表明了他们审查这些文件的首选顺序,并解释了其选择背后的理由。法律心理学家之间没有统一的方法。大约三分之一的受访者会首先查看视听记录,然后是逐字记录,最后是嫌疑人的陈述。相比之下,大约三分之一的人会首先查看逐字记录,然后是记录,最后是嫌疑人的陈述。这些方法上的差异可能凸显了在确定最佳顺序时所涉及的挑战和权衡,并强调了专家证人群体就这些问题进行讨论的必要性。

相似文献

1
Evaluating the validity of testimony: The role of the order of evidence.评估证词的有效性:证据顺序的作用。
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2024 Nov 21;9:100562. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100562. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

2
A court ruled case on therapy-induced false memories.法院对治疗性诱导的虚假记忆一案作出裁决。
J Forensic Sci. 2022 Sep;67(5):2122-2129. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15073. Epub 2022 Jun 2.
7
Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook.评估法医决策中的认知偏差:综述与展望
J Forensic Sci. 2020 Mar;65(2):354-360. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14220. Epub 2019 Nov 6.
8
What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?法医分析师认为哪些因素与他们的决策相关?
Sci Justice. 2019 Sep;59(5):516-523. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.005. Epub 2019 Apr 30.
10
A Scenario Approach to the Simonshaven Case.斯莫尔海文案件的场景方法。
Top Cogn Sci. 2020 Oct;12(4):1132-1151. doi: 10.1111/tops.12429. Epub 2019 Jun 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验