Psychologists and Psychiatrists in Court: What Do They Know About Eyewitness Memory? A Comparison of Experts in Inquisitorial and Adversarial Legal Systems

被引:0
作者
Olivier Dodier
Annika Melinder
Henry Otgaar
Mélany Payoux
Svein Magnussen
机构
[1] Université Clermont Auvergne,CNRS, LAPSCO
[2] University of Oslo,Department of Psychology
[3] Maastricht University,Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Section Forensic Psychology
[4] Catholic University of Leuven,Faculty of Law
[5] Université de Nantes,Laboratoire de Psychologie des Pays de la Loire
来源
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology | 2019年 / 34卷
关键词
Expert witness; Memory; Eyewitness memory; Inquisitorial system; Adversarial system;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
In criminal cases involving eyewitness reports, psychologists or psychiatrists may be recruited as expert witnesses to help triers of facts to evaluate eyewitness statements, on the assumption that psychologists and psychiatrists are real experts, familiar with scientific progress about how memory works. But are they knowledgeable concerning the science of memory? We assessed the knowledge about eyewitness memory of experts from France and Norway, countries having different legal systems, that is inquisitorial and adversarial, respectively. We reanalysed the results of a Norwegian psychologists and psychiatrists survey and compared the results with survey data of a sample of French psychologists and psychiatrists serving as judicial experts. The French sample performed inferior relative to the Norwegian sample. More precisely, discrepancies in correct answers were found on seven critical items related to both experimental and clinical psychology. Such weaknesses in the knowledge about memory are briefly discussed with regard to psychological education and to legal systems.
引用
收藏
页码:254 / 262
页数:8
相关论文
共 151 条
[1]  
Alexander KW(2005)Traumatic impact predicts long-term memory for documented child sexual abuse Psychol Sci 16 33-40
[2]  
Quas JA(2017)Beyond indifference and aversion: the critical reception and belated acceptance of behavior therapy in France Hist Psychol 20 313-329
[3]  
Goodman GS(2006)Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts Appl Cogn Psychol 20 115-129
[4]  
Ghetti S(2015)The effect of e-simulation interview training on teachers’ use of open-ended questions Child Abuse Negl 49 95-103
[5]  
Edelstein RS(2016)Confidently wrong: police endorsement of psycho-legal misconceptions J Police Crim Psychol 31 208-216
[6]  
Redlich AD(1995)Applying the cognitive interview procedure to child and adult eyewitnesses of road accidents Appl Psychol Int Rev 44 283-294
[7]  
Cordon IM(2014)Forensic mental health assessment in France: recommendations for quality improvement Int J Law Psychiatry 37 628-634
[8]  
Jones DPH(2004)A meta-analytic review of the effect of high stress on eyewitness memory Law Hum Behav 28 687-706
[9]  
Amouroux R(2017)Connaissances et croyances des psychologues et psychiatres experts judiciaires concernant le fonctionnement de la mémoire Annee Psychol 117 139-171
[10]  
Benton TR(2019)Professional experience in investigative interviewing does not guarantee strong knowledge about memory [French psychologists and psychiatrists serving as court experts’ knowledge and beliefs about memory] Psychol Res Urban Soc 2 117-125