首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Psychiatry Psychology and Law >The science behind Bayley v The Queen (2016)
【2h】

The science behind Bayley v The Queen (2016)

机译:Bayley v The Queen(2016)背后的科学

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Eyewitness identification was the principal evidence in (2015), wherein Adrian Bayley was convicted of raping and assaulting a woman in 2000. Twelve years after the attack, the victim identified Bayley from a photograph on Facebook and later in a formal police identification procedure. At the time of the initial Facebook identification, the victim knew about Bayley’s involvement in Gillian Meagher’s case. Bayley successfully appealed his conviction in 2016. The court of appeal held that the identification evidence had multiple weaknesses and should not have been permitted at the initial trial. In their decision, the court relied on legal precedents to support their judgement. This article reviews the empirical evidence regarding each of the issues raised by the court and how the stressfulness of an event can influence the reliability of an identification, and speculates about why the jury rendered a guilty verdict based on weak identification evidence.
机译:目击者识别是(2015年)的主要证据,其中阿德里安·贝利(Adrian Bayley)在2000年因强奸和殴打一名妇女而被定罪。袭击发生十二年后,受害人从Facebook上的照片中识别了贝利,随后通过正式的警察身份识别程序将其识别出来。在最初识别Facebook时,受害人知道Bayley参与了Gillian Meagher案。 Bayley在2016年成功对他的定罪提起上诉。上诉法院裁定,身份证明文件存在多个弱点,在初审时不应该允许这样做。法院在判决中依据法律判例来支持其判决。本文回顾了有关法院提出的每个问题的经验证据,以及事件的压力如何影响鉴定的可靠性,并推测陪审团为何基于薄弱的鉴定证据做出有罪判决。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号