The Language of Forensic Experts: A Commentary on the Sally Clark Case ]1999-2002

Q4 Social Sciences
Huda M. A. Benyounis
{"title":"The Language of Forensic Experts: A Commentary on the Sally Clark Case ]1999-2002","authors":"Huda M. A. Benyounis","doi":"10.26735/16586794.2019.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the judge, jury and the public in the UK, Sally Clark murdered her two sons. The prosecution forensic expert had submitted his evidence using complex medical and scientific language that misled the jury. The defence expert failed to challenge him. A few years later, Mrs. Clark was proven innocent, as there was undisclosed evidence and the language of the prosecution forensic expert misled the jury. This paper raises some issues according to the Sally Clark case. It includes some discussions about the expert’s role in the adversarial system and also compares it with the inquisitorial system. It is an approach towards understanding whether the expert should stand in the witness box or not. This paper answers whether the decision in the Sally Clark would have taken a different direction, if it was dealt under the inquisitorial justice system or other experts’ systems. Although this case has helped to re-open many other cases, it has not encouraged the English criminal justice system to make any changes with the expert system (especially in complex forensic cases). It also affected experts who now think that testifying in court is a risk. This paper presents a new approach that, if considered, can protect the justice system from any miscarriages, the experts themselves from being blamed and the public who look at both as killers.","PeriodicalId":31692,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences Forensic Medicine","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences Forensic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26735/16586794.2019.017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to the judge, jury and the public in the UK, Sally Clark murdered her two sons. The prosecution forensic expert had submitted his evidence using complex medical and scientific language that misled the jury. The defence expert failed to challenge him. A few years later, Mrs. Clark was proven innocent, as there was undisclosed evidence and the language of the prosecution forensic expert misled the jury. This paper raises some issues according to the Sally Clark case. It includes some discussions about the expert’s role in the adversarial system and also compares it with the inquisitorial system. It is an approach towards understanding whether the expert should stand in the witness box or not. This paper answers whether the decision in the Sally Clark would have taken a different direction, if it was dealt under the inquisitorial justice system or other experts’ systems. Although this case has helped to re-open many other cases, it has not encouraged the English criminal justice system to make any changes with the expert system (especially in complex forensic cases). It also affected experts who now think that testifying in court is a risk. This paper presents a new approach that, if considered, can protect the justice system from any miscarriages, the experts themselves from being blamed and the public who look at both as killers.
司法专家的语言:萨利·克拉克案述评[1999-2002]
根据英国法官、陪审团和公众的说法,萨利·克拉克谋杀了她的两个儿子。控方法医专家在提交证据时使用了复杂的医学和科学语言,误导了陪审团。辩护专家没能向他提出挑战。几年后,克拉克夫人被证明是无辜的,因为有未公开的证据,而且控方法医专家的语言误导了陪审团。本文根据Sally Clark的案例提出了一些问题。讨论了专家在对抗制度中的作用,并将其与讯问制度进行了比较。这是一种理解专家是否应该站在证人席上的方法。这篇论文回答了如果萨利·克拉克案是在讯问司法制度下或在其他专家制度下处理的,它是否会采取不同的方向。尽管这个案件帮助了许多其他案件的重新审理,但它并没有鼓励英国刑事司法系统对专家系统做出任何改变(特别是在复杂的法医案件中)。这也影响了现在认为在法庭上作证有风险的专家。这篇论文提出了一种新的方法,如果经过考虑,它可以保护司法系统免受任何流产,专家们自己也不会受到指责,公众也不会将他们视为杀手。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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