首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Psychiatry Psychology and Law >Legal Representatives’ Opinions regarding Psychologists Engaging in Expert Witness Services in Australian Courts and Tribunals
【2h】

Legal Representatives’ Opinions regarding Psychologists Engaging in Expert Witness Services in Australian Courts and Tribunals

机译:法人代表关于心理学家在澳大利亚法院和法庭从事专家证人服务的意见

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

Legal representatives engage psychologists to provide expert witness opinions about a number of factors, including the psychological factors that may have contributed to the perpetrator's behaviour and the likelihood of reoffending. Although this evidence can affect the outcome of proceedings, little is known about how the experts who provide it are chosen or about the quality of their services. This paper explored legal representatives’ reasons for engaging psychologists as expert witnesses, how they choose these experts, and their opinions about the expertise provided. Questions were also asked about the features of good and poor written and oral expert testimony. The results show that the majority of legal representatives engage psychologists who are usually chosen through referrals from colleagues and others. The legal representatives in the present sample had little awareness about the different backgrounds of experts (e.g. clinical vs forensic psychology). These results have implications for psychologists who provide expert evidence and the legal representatives who engage them.
机译:法律代表聘请心理学家就许多因素提供专家证人意见,包括可能助长肇事者行为和再犯的心理因素。尽管这些证据会影响诉讼程序的结果,但对于如何选择提供证据的专家或他们的服务质量知之甚少。本文探讨了法律代表聘用心理学家作为专家证人的原因,他们如何选择这些专家以及​​他们对所提供专业知识的看法。还询问了有关书面和口头专家证言的好坏的特征。结果表明,大多数法律代表都聘用了心理学家,这些心理学家通常是通过同事和其他人的推荐而选出的。本样本中的法律代表对专家的不同背景(例如临床与法医心理学)知之甚少。这些结果对提供专家证据的心理学家和聘请专家的法律代表具有重要意义。

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