The views of judges and prosecutors on the opinions of psychologist expert witnesses in cases concerning witness testimony Joanna Kabzińska

Q4 Medicine
Joanna Kabzińska
{"title":"The views of judges and prosecutors on the opinions of psychologist expert witnesses in cases concerning witness testimony\nJoanna Kabzińska","authors":"Joanna Kabzińska","doi":"10.4467/12307483pfs.20.005.14785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this qualitative research is to explore the perceptions of Polish judges and prosecutors regarding the role of psychologist expert witnesses in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. Two main research questions were formulated: What are the criteria for selecting psychologist expert witnesses to participate in interviews and then to formulate expert opinions? What do judges and prosecutors expect from psychologist expert witnesses and their evaluations of eyewitness testimony? In-depth interviews were conducted involving judges (N = 31) and prosecutors (N = 30), both male (N = 35) and female (N = 26). Though other factors, such as availability, were also frequently mentioned, the judges and prosecutors declared that their choices of psychologist expert witnesses were predominantly determined by their professional abilities. These criteria correspond with the characteristics that judges and prosecutors claim to value the most in psychologist expert witnesses: their specialist fields, their experience, and their reliability in carrying out their work. It is of particular importance to the evaluation of witness testimony that judges and prosecutors recognize that, for an opinion to be complete, there is a need for psychological testing and diagnosis in addition to being present at interviews. However, judges and prosecutors do not always recognise the difference between legal conceptions of witness credibility and the assessments of it formulated by psychologist expert witnesses. The research provides an unique insight into the expectations of Polish judges and prosecutors regarding the role of psychologist expert witnesses in evaluating, and reporting on, witness testimony. To identify the aspects of psychologists’ opinions that are particularly valued by judges and prosecutors can enable better cooperation and communication between psychologists and legal professionals.","PeriodicalId":52546,"journal":{"name":"Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/12307483pfs.20.005.14785","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative research is to explore the perceptions of Polish judges and prosecutors regarding the role of psychologist expert witnesses in the evaluation of eyewitness testimony. Two main research questions were formulated: What are the criteria for selecting psychologist expert witnesses to participate in interviews and then to formulate expert opinions? What do judges and prosecutors expect from psychologist expert witnesses and their evaluations of eyewitness testimony? In-depth interviews were conducted involving judges (N = 31) and prosecutors (N = 30), both male (N = 35) and female (N = 26). Though other factors, such as availability, were also frequently mentioned, the judges and prosecutors declared that their choices of psychologist expert witnesses were predominantly determined by their professional abilities. These criteria correspond with the characteristics that judges and prosecutors claim to value the most in psychologist expert witnesses: their specialist fields, their experience, and their reliability in carrying out their work. It is of particular importance to the evaluation of witness testimony that judges and prosecutors recognize that, for an opinion to be complete, there is a need for psychological testing and diagnosis in addition to being present at interviews. However, judges and prosecutors do not always recognise the difference between legal conceptions of witness credibility and the assessments of it formulated by psychologist expert witnesses. The research provides an unique insight into the expectations of Polish judges and prosecutors regarding the role of psychologist expert witnesses in evaluating, and reporting on, witness testimony. To identify the aspects of psychologists’ opinions that are particularly valued by judges and prosecutors can enable better cooperation and communication between psychologists and legal professionals.
法官和检察官对证人证言案件中心理专家证人意见的看法乔安娜Kabzińska
本定性研究的目的是探讨波兰法官和检察官对心理学家专家证人在评价目击者证词中的作用的看法。制定了两个主要的研究问题:选择心理学专家证人参加访谈并形成专家意见的标准是什么?法官和检察官对心理学家专家证人和他们对证人证词的评价有什么期望?对法官(N = 31)和检察官(N = 30)进行了深度访谈,其中男35人,女26人。虽然也经常提到其他因素,例如是否有空,但法官和检察官宣称,他们选择心理学专家证人主要是由他们的专业能力决定的。这些标准符合法官和检察官声称最看重心理学家专家证人的特点:他们的专业领域,他们的经验,以及他们在开展工作时的可靠性。对评价证人证词特别重要的是,法官和检察官认识到,为了使意见完整,除了出席面谈外,还需要进行心理测试和诊断。然而,法官和检察官并不总是认识到证人可信度的法律概念与心理学家专家证人对证人可信度的评估之间的差异。这项研究为波兰法官和检察官对心理学家专家证人在评估和报告证人证词方面的作用的期望提供了独特的见解。找出心理学家意见中法官和检察官特别重视的方面,可以使心理学家和法律专业人员更好地合作和沟通。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych
Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych Medicine-Pathology and Forensic Medicine
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书