专家证人——家庭法庭的心理学家和司法看门人

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES
Emily Schindeler
{"title":"专家证人——家庭法庭的心理学家和司法看门人","authors":"Emily Schindeler","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebad030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court\",\"authors\":\"Emily Schindeler\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/lawfam/ebad030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad030\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebad030","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自17世纪的女巫审判以来,专家证人一直是法律体系运作的一个内在组成部分。本文建立在先前对涉及儿童性虐待指控的澳大利亚家庭法案件的分析基础上,这些案件揭示了代表多个机构和学科观点的专家对同一案件提出了相互矛盾的风险评估。第二阶段的归纳研究审查了涉及心理学家作为儿童监护纠纷专家证人的家事法院上诉案件。它揭示了法官对这种证词赋予决定性权重的方式以及缺乏查明潜在的纪律或专业偏见的程序所产生的风险。这导致了一个核心发现,即需要对什么是专业知识达成更明确的协议,特别是在缺乏学科内部共识的问题上以及如何实现这一共识。同样,有必要强制遵守现有规则,这些规则要求明确在形成意见时所采用的方法或做法、相关事实、事项和假设,并承认可能相关的其他意见。这将支持与确定这种咨询意见的可靠性和重要性有关的司法实践。这里提出的许多问题与家事法院考虑的其他问题有关,并依赖于专家知识的主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court
Since the 17th-century witch trials, the expert witness has been an intrinsic part of the operation of the legal system. This article builds on a prior analysis of Australian family law cases involving allegations of child sex abuse, which revealed experts representing multiple agencies and disciplinary perspectives present conflicting risk assessments for the same case. This second stage of inductive research examined Family Court appeal cases involving psychologists as an expert witness in child custody disputes. It uncovered risks arising from the way in which determinative weight is ascribed by judges to such testimony and a lack of processes for identifying potential disciplinary or professional biases. This has led to a core finding that there is a need for more explicit agreement as to what counts as specialist knowledge, particularly in matters lacking intra-disciplinary consensus and how it is achieved. Equally, there is a need for enforcing compliance with existing Rules that require making clear the methods or practices, relevant facts, matters, and assumptions employed in forming opinions as well as acknowledging alternative opinions that may be relevant. This will support judicial practice associated with determining the reliability and weight ascribed to such advice. Many of the concerns raised here are relevant to other issues the family court considers and relies upon claims of expert knowledge.
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
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信