首页> 外文期刊>Applied cognitive psychology >Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts
【24h】

Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts

机译:目击者记忆仍然不是常识:将陪审员,法官和执法人员与目击者专家进行比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy was examined in a sample of jurors, judges and law enforcement professionals. Participants completed a survey in which they were asked to agree or disagree with 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to a sample of eyewitness experts who completed the same survey. Participant responses differed significantly from responses of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with the experts on 87% of the issues, while judges and law enforcement disagreed with the experts on 60% of the issues. The findings show a large deficiency in knowledge of eyewitness memory amongst jurors, judges and law enforcement personnel, indicating that the legal system may benefit from expert assistance in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
机译:在陪审员,法官和执法专业人员的样本中检查了影响目击者准确性的因素的知识。参与者完成了一项调查,其中要求他们同意或不同意30项关于目击者问题的陈述,并将他们的回答与完成同一项调查的目击者专家的样本进行比较。参加者的反应与目击者专家的反应有显着差异。陪审员在87%的问题上与专家意见不一致,而法官和执法部门在60%的问题上与专家意见不一致。调查结果表明,陪审员,法官和执法人员在目击者记忆方面的知识严重不足,这表明法律制度可能得益于评估目击者证据的专家协助。版权所有(c)2005 John Wiley&Sons,Ltd.

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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