法律诉讼程序中沟通部分存在的问题

Y. Komissarova
{"title":"法律诉讼程序中沟通部分存在的问题","authors":"Y. Komissarova","doi":"10.17803/2311-5998.2023.110.10.038-046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, the attention of lawyers is focused more on the issues of digitalization of legal proceedings in general and judicial communication based on the speech activity of participants in the process. The problems of legal proceedings as an independent type of social communication remain in the shadows. Since the testimony of participants in the proceedings is the most common evidence, law enforcement officers need up-to-date information about the specifics of their formation and receipt. Research conducted by psychological scientists in different countries of the world currently calls into question the possibility of using even bona fide participants in the process in evidence without additional verification of the testimony. Law enforcement officers are objectively unable to distinguish false memories from those related to events that actually took place. When checking the information provided by the participants in the proceedings, special knowledge from the field of linguistics, psychology, psychophysiology and related fields should be used. At the same time, the identification by expert means of signs of the participant’s awareness of a legally significant event or distortion of the information reported by him must be distinguished from the procedural evaluation of evidence.","PeriodicalId":238867,"journal":{"name":"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))","volume":"54 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Problematic Aspects of the Communicative Component of Legal Proceedings\",\"authors\":\"Y. Komissarova\",\"doi\":\"10.17803/2311-5998.2023.110.10.038-046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Today, the attention of lawyers is focused more on the issues of digitalization of legal proceedings in general and judicial communication based on the speech activity of participants in the process. The problems of legal proceedings as an independent type of social communication remain in the shadows. Since the testimony of participants in the proceedings is the most common evidence, law enforcement officers need up-to-date information about the specifics of their formation and receipt. Research conducted by psychological scientists in different countries of the world currently calls into question the possibility of using even bona fide participants in the process in evidence without additional verification of the testimony. Law enforcement officers are objectively unable to distinguish false memories from those related to events that actually took place. When checking the information provided by the participants in the proceedings, special knowledge from the field of linguistics, psychology, psychophysiology and related fields should be used. At the same time, the identification by expert means of signs of the participant’s awareness of a legally significant event or distortion of the information reported by him must be distinguished from the procedural evaluation of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":238867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))\",\"volume\":\"54 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.110.10.038-046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL))","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.110.10.038-046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如今,律师们的注意力更多地集中在一般法律程序的数字化和基于程序参与者言论活动的司法交流问题上。作为一种独立的社会交流类型,法律诉讼的问题仍处于暗处。由于诉讼程序参与者的证词是最常见的证据,执法人员需要了解有关其形成和接收的具体情况的最新信息。目前,世界上不同国家的心理学家所做的研究对在没有对证词进行额外核实的情况下,将程序的真正参与者作为证据使用的可能性提出了质疑。执法人员客观上无法区分虚假记忆和与实际发生的事件有关的记忆。在核对诉讼参与人提供的信息时,应使用语言学、心理学、心理生理学及相关领域的专业知识。同时,必须将通过专家手段识别诉讼参与人是否意识到某一具有法律意义的事件或其报告的信息是否失真等迹象与对证据的程序性评估区分开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Problematic Aspects of the Communicative Component of Legal Proceedings
Today, the attention of lawyers is focused more on the issues of digitalization of legal proceedings in general and judicial communication based on the speech activity of participants in the process. The problems of legal proceedings as an independent type of social communication remain in the shadows. Since the testimony of participants in the proceedings is the most common evidence, law enforcement officers need up-to-date information about the specifics of their formation and receipt. Research conducted by psychological scientists in different countries of the world currently calls into question the possibility of using even bona fide participants in the process in evidence without additional verification of the testimony. Law enforcement officers are objectively unable to distinguish false memories from those related to events that actually took place. When checking the information provided by the participants in the proceedings, special knowledge from the field of linguistics, psychology, psychophysiology and related fields should be used. At the same time, the identification by expert means of signs of the participant’s awareness of a legally significant event or distortion of the information reported by him must be distinguished from the procedural evaluation of evidence.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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