• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

"Courtroom whores"?--or why do attorneys call us?: findings from a survey on attorneys' use of mental health experts.

作者信息

Mossman D, Kapp M B

机构信息

Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Wright State University School of Medicine, Dayton, OH 45410-0927, USA.

出版信息

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;26(1):27-36.

PMID:9554707
Abstract

Mental health professionals who serve as expert witnesses are repeatedly characterized as (in the words of one recent author) "Whores of the Court." However, scholars have published little systematically gathered data about why attorneys seek mental health opinions and the criteria they use for selecting experts. We investigated these issues using a mailed survey of attorneys and judges. A slight majority of attorney respondents had requested mental health professionals' opinion in the previous year. The most important factors in selecting experts were their knowledge, ability to communicate, and local reputation; national reputation and scholarly writings were least important. Forty-nine percent of the responding attorneys said that receiving a favorable opinion was a "very important" or "essential" consideration, although this did not necessarily mean they wanted a dishonest opinion. Our findings suggest that most forensic work is performed by mental health professionals who are chosen because of their knowledge, communication skills, and local reputations.

摘要

相似文献

1
"Courtroom whores"?--or why do attorneys call us?: findings from a survey on attorneys' use of mental health experts.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998;26(1):27-36.
2
[A nationwide questionnaire survey of medical experts in mental health evaluation].[一项针对心理健康评估领域医学专家的全国性问卷调查]
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi. 2009;111(1):10-23.
3
Attorneys' pressures on the expert witness: early warning signs of endangered honesty, objectivity, and fair compensation.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(4):546-53; discussion 554-62.
4
A pilot Rasch scaling of lawyers' perceptions of expert bias.一项关于律师对专家偏见认知的初步拉施量表分析。
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2006;34(4):482-91.
5
Promoting ethical and objective practice in the medicolegal arena of disability evaluation.在残疾评估的法医学领域促进道德和客观的实践。
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2001 Aug;12(3):571-85.
6
"Hired guns," "whores," and "prostitutes": case law references to clinicians of ill repute.“雇佣枪手”“妓女”和“娼妓”:判例法中对声名狼藉的临床医生的提及。
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1999;27(3):414-25.
7
"Telling tales out of court": a pilot study of experts' disclosures about opposing experts.“庭外泄密”:关于专家对对方专家披露情况的一项试点研究
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2000;28(4):449-53.
8
Psychiatric expert witnesses: proposals for change.
Am J Law Med. 1980 Fall;6(3):425-49.
9
Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility.律师对科学证据和专家证人可信度的看法。
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015 Jul-Aug;41:58-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.008. Epub 2015 Apr 11.
10
Issues in statutory rape law enforcement: the views of district attorneys in Kansas.法定强奸罪执法中的问题:堪萨斯州地方检察官的观点
Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Jul-Aug;30(4):177-81.

引用本文的文献

1
To find fault is easy, to find no-fault is fair.挑剔易,公正难。
Future Healthc J. 2023 Mar;10(1):85-89. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2022-0049.