评估证词的有效性:证据顺序的作用

Henry Otgaar , Tamara L.F. De Beuf , Melanie Sauerland , Alexa Schincariol
{"title":"评估证词的有效性:证据顺序的作用","authors":"Henry Otgaar ,&nbsp;Tamara L.F. De Beuf ,&nbsp;Melanie Sauerland ,&nbsp;Alexa Schincariol","doi":"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36925,"journal":{"name":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100562"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the validity of testimony: The role of the order of evidence\",\"authors\":\"Henry Otgaar ,&nbsp;Tamara L.F. De Beuf ,&nbsp;Melanie Sauerland ,&nbsp;Alexa Schincariol\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>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.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36925,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Forensic Science International: Synergy\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100562\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Forensic Science International: Synergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X24001098\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forensic Science International: Synergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589871X24001098","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法律从业人员有时会要求心理学家评估受害者、证人和嫌疑人陈述的有效性。为了进行评估,心理学家通常会接触到不同的证据(例如,面谈的录像、嫌疑人的陈述)。研究表明,审查证据的顺序会影响决策。为了研究专家证人对此的看法,我们对 52 名法律心理学家进行了调查,以了解他们在虚构的性虐待案件中进行陈述有效性评估时对证据的首选考虑顺序。该评估涉及据称是儿童受害者的陈述的有效性。案件卷宗包括以下文件:在警察局询问儿童的音像记录、该询问的逐字记录以及嫌疑人的书面陈述。法律心理学家指出了他们审查这些文件的首选顺序,并解释了他们选择的理由。法律心理学家并没有统一的方法。约 有 三 分 之 一 的 受 访 者 会 首 先 审 查 视 听 录 音 , 然 后 审 查 逐 字 记 录 本 , 最 后 才 审 查 受 疑 人 的 供 词 。相反,约三分之一的受访者会首先查看逐字记录稿,然后查看录音,最后查看嫌疑人的陈述。这些方法上的差异可能凸显了在决定最佳顺序时所面临的挑战和权衡,并强调了专家证人界对这些问题进行讨论的必要性。
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
Evaluating the validity of testimony: The role of the order of evidence
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.
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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
90 days
期刊最新文献
A transdisciplinary integrated approach to improve identification outcomes for decomposed decedents in medicolegal death investigations Manner of death prediction: A machine learning approach to classify suicide and non-suicide using blood metabolomics Digitalisation of forensic expert activity in Ukraine: Organisational and legal framework Impact of harassment and bullying of forensic scientists on work performance, absenteeism, and intention to leave the workplace in the United States Barriers to human remains identification using forensic odontology in resource-constrained settings
×
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