Psychology, law and sociology experts are working to create a more effective way of testifying in court. These are disciplines that have got to do with professional and therefore acceptable accounts for the court and jury to work on. Testimony given by these experts will often be things that a counselor uses to prove innocence or guilt, or provide motivation and causality to a case.
Sociologists, psychologists and legal counselors are concerned whether the testimony of this kind might be negatively affecting the way justice is served. All want the kind that is useful and relevant for people like the expert witness child abuse. The concern is for professional testimonies that will not be abused by attorneys handling a case.
An expert witness is the relevant professional needed to provide clarification on court or related issues. This is one part of a hearing where medical examiners and forensics experts were called in to make people understand the specific technical details they need to know to hand down an informed and just verdict. The practice could include any kind or person with a professional degree.
The law holds that these people are capable of delivering a kind of judgment that is needed when arguments and other kinds of testimonies are weak. The judge and jury are left to decide on the merits of the expert knowledge thus provided, but not after an attorney could spin the details his or her way. Thus, the testimony is no longer the objective one that is supposed to be given.
In cases of child abuse, there might be so many points that a lawyer can use and exploit to his advantage. When determined to win a case, he might wreck reputations, use expert witnesses to make people see things his way, and other techniques which are legal enough in one sense. However, many psychologists are questioning the validity of their accounts.
Ethics issues are rife in cases like these, and the law needs to define and clarify things more clearly so that only one definition applies to specific items. If the lobby for a better witness process becomes successful, then definitions should only be allowed honest and unprejudiced interpretations. Experts then can testify free from worries about their testimonies being mere counters in a legal game.
However the decision will go, the testimonies should be the objective things they were meant to be. As witnesses, psychologists, for instance should be allowed to explain all circumstances that pertain to a case, and not just the answer to specific questions provided by an attorney during cross examination. Also, the expert should not be called upon to answer leading questions or those laden with implications.
Nowadays, expert witnesses do not provide legal strength to the jury process, because counselors can simply go about destroying the relevance of their testimonies especially when they do not support client interests. Ethics thus is something that is being abused here and this issue is important for lawyers. Even as the debate rolls on, one other question is more important.
The question involves the welfare of children connected to cases of abuse. A psychological expert may have the right to exclude things that might traumatize children. Whatever its value is, the court case is a really bloodthirsty arena not fit for kids, and a lawyer, in the course of cross examination, can trample on the delicate mind of a child and injure it permanently.
Sociologists, psychologists and legal counselors are concerned whether the testimony of this kind might be negatively affecting the way justice is served. All want the kind that is useful and relevant for people like the expert witness child abuse. The concern is for professional testimonies that will not be abused by attorneys handling a case.
An expert witness is the relevant professional needed to provide clarification on court or related issues. This is one part of a hearing where medical examiners and forensics experts were called in to make people understand the specific technical details they need to know to hand down an informed and just verdict. The practice could include any kind or person with a professional degree.
The law holds that these people are capable of delivering a kind of judgment that is needed when arguments and other kinds of testimonies are weak. The judge and jury are left to decide on the merits of the expert knowledge thus provided, but not after an attorney could spin the details his or her way. Thus, the testimony is no longer the objective one that is supposed to be given.
In cases of child abuse, there might be so many points that a lawyer can use and exploit to his advantage. When determined to win a case, he might wreck reputations, use expert witnesses to make people see things his way, and other techniques which are legal enough in one sense. However, many psychologists are questioning the validity of their accounts.
Ethics issues are rife in cases like these, and the law needs to define and clarify things more clearly so that only one definition applies to specific items. If the lobby for a better witness process becomes successful, then definitions should only be allowed honest and unprejudiced interpretations. Experts then can testify free from worries about their testimonies being mere counters in a legal game.
However the decision will go, the testimonies should be the objective things they were meant to be. As witnesses, psychologists, for instance should be allowed to explain all circumstances that pertain to a case, and not just the answer to specific questions provided by an attorney during cross examination. Also, the expert should not be called upon to answer leading questions or those laden with implications.
Nowadays, expert witnesses do not provide legal strength to the jury process, because counselors can simply go about destroying the relevance of their testimonies especially when they do not support client interests. Ethics thus is something that is being abused here and this issue is important for lawyers. Even as the debate rolls on, one other question is more important.
The question involves the welfare of children connected to cases of abuse. A psychological expert may have the right to exclude things that might traumatize children. Whatever its value is, the court case is a really bloodthirsty arena not fit for kids, and a lawyer, in the course of cross examination, can trample on the delicate mind of a child and injure it permanently.
About the Author:
When you are in need of some advice from an expert witness child abuse case, the best thing you can do is to take a look at our website. Follow the link and view the page on http://safechild.org/sherryll-kraizer-phd/witness.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire