专家证据:危险与加强推理

IF 1.7 Q3 PSYCHIATRY BJPsych Advances Pub Date : 2024-05-15 DOI:10.1192/bja.2024.18
Peter Charleton, Ivan Rakhmanin
{"title":"专家证据:危险与加强推理","authors":"Peter Charleton, Ivan Rakhmanin","doi":"10.1192/bja.2024.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article considers the role of experts and their interaction with the legal system to better understand the benefits and potential dangers of expert evidence to fact-finders in trials. Medical experts are indispensable to the administration of justice as litigation ranges beyond what judges or juries comfortably deal with as facts of everyday life. This would render courts, absent expert evidence, vastly under-equipped in making decisions of fact. However, the dangers of surrendering authority to experts or of misunderstanding their role must be considered to ensure that expert evidence is used to benefit the administration of justice.","PeriodicalId":9336,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expert evidence: dangers and the enhancement of reasoning\",\"authors\":\"Peter Charleton, Ivan Rakhmanin\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bja.2024.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article considers the role of experts and their interaction with the legal system to better understand the benefits and potential dangers of expert evidence to fact-finders in trials. Medical experts are indispensable to the administration of justice as litigation ranges beyond what judges or juries comfortably deal with as facts of everyday life. This would render courts, absent expert evidence, vastly under-equipped in making decisions of fact. However, the dangers of surrendering authority to experts or of misunderstanding their role must be considered to ensure that expert evidence is used to benefit the administration of justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Advances\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Advances\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2024.18\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2024.18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了专家的作用及其与法律系统的互动关系,以更好地理解专家证据对审判中事实认定者的益处和潜在危险。医学专家对司法是不可或缺的,因为诉讼的范围超出了法官或陪审团作为日常生活中的事实所能应付的范围。在没有专家证据的情况下,这将使法院在作出事实裁决时能力严重不足。然而,必须考虑将权力交给专家或误解专家作用的危险,以确保专家证据的使用有利于司法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Expert evidence: dangers and the enhancement of reasoning
This article considers the role of experts and their interaction with the legal system to better understand the benefits and potential dangers of expert evidence to fact-finders in trials. Medical experts are indispensable to the administration of justice as litigation ranges beyond what judges or juries comfortably deal with as facts of everyday life. This would render courts, absent expert evidence, vastly under-equipped in making decisions of fact. However, the dangers of surrendering authority to experts or of misunderstanding their role must be considered to ensure that expert evidence is used to benefit the administration of justice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Advances
BJPsych Advances PSYCHIATRY-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
75
期刊最新文献
Psychiatric evidence in UK immigration and asylum cases The role of neurocognitive testing in the assessment of fitness to stand trial Cognitive testing and the hazards of cut-offs The history of the Grange Annual Conference CR193: a framework of knowledge and support for expert witnesses
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1