how forensic psychologists contribute.
Considering the implications for forensic expertise
The very brief outline of variations in legal systems in this section make clear that what forensic psychology expert witnesses can do in court is shaped by the nature of the particular legal system to which they’re contributing. Of particular importance is whether the evidence is presented in front of a jury, people who are assumed to be non-expert with no particular understanding of the issues at hand (as is usual under the adversarial system), or is presented to one or more magistrates (often the case in the inquisitorial system).
Judges and magistrates are assumed to be professionals who can make up their own mind and can accept or dismiss evidence in an objective way. (Whether they really can or not is, of course, a fascinating topic that some researchers have studied with rather less rosy results than the judiciary may like to hear, as I consider in Chapter 12.) This means that expert evidence that may be allowed when no jury is present may not be allowed if a case is being held in front of a jury. This precaution is to ensure that the jury makes the decision rather than the expert, an issue I discuss in more detail in the later section ‘Detailing the Dangers: Ensuring Trial by Jury and not Trial by Expert’.
Courts differ on what expert evidence they accept
In one case in England, a man was charged with the murder of his wife, even though a suicide note was found. The court didn’t allow any psychological evidence to be presented about the mental state of the deceased wife. As a result, no discussion was allowed in court about whether she may have been depressed and likely to take her own life, which weakened the case of the accused considerably. In a case in Northern Ireland, a man charged with the murder of his son, wife and daughter claimed that his son had gone berserk and killed his mother and sister (the defendant’s wife and daughter) before killing himself. In this case, psychological evidence was allowed that suggested the deaths were the result of a carefully planned execution by the father. In both cases, the men were convicted of the murders.
In inquisitorial systems, therefore, experts are often given more free rein than in the adversarial system in front of a jury, including civil and quasi-legal processes where judgements aren’t so much about guilt and sentencing but more aimed towards determining solutions in disputes. These variations between courts and legal systems also help to explain why expert forensic psychology evidence can play a significant role in one place but never get a look-in somewhere else, say in a different state or a different country. The matter is complicated further (as it so often seems to be with legal matters) by what any particular court regards as expertise, something I explore in the next section.
Using Your Experience and Knowledge: What Is an Expert Witness?
When experts (such as forensic psychologists) appear in court proceedings, in essence they’re witnesses like any others. They take an oath to tell the truth and are bound to honour the court and its procedures. One crucial exception, however, distinguishes experts from other witnesses. Experts are allowed to give opinions whereas other witnesses can only provide an account of the facts as they know them. Experts have to defend their opinions and explain the basis on which they reach them. They’re closely examined on whether they really do have the expertise to offer the opinions they present in court.
Experts, however, can’t offer an opinion on just anything they happen to know about. What they comment on has to be something that the judge or jury can’t know themselves.
This reality was brought home to me in a case concerning the likelihood that a victim committed suicide, the implication being, of course, that if she didn’t, she was murdered. The victim hadn’t given any
Considering the implications for forensic expertise
The very brief outline of variations in legal systems in this section make clear that what forensic psychology expert witnesses can do in court is shaped by the nature of the particular legal system to which they’re contributing. Of particular importance is whether the evidence is presented in front of a jury, people who are assumed to be non-expert with no particular understanding of the issues at hand (as is usual under the adversarial system), or is presented to one or more magistrates (often the case in the inquisitorial system).
Judges and magistrates are assumed to be professionals who can make up their own mind and can accept or dismiss evidence in an objective way. (Whether they really can or not is, of course, a fascinating topic that some researchers have studied with rather less rosy results than the judiciary may like to hear, as I consider in Chapter 12.) This means that expert evidence that may be allowed when no jury is present may not be allowed if a case is being held in front of a jury. This precaution is to ensure that the jury makes the decision rather than the expert, an issue I discuss in more detail in the later section ‘Detailing the Dangers: Ensuring Trial by Jury and not Trial by Expert’.
Courts differ on what expert evidence they accept
In one case in England, a man was charged with the murder of his wife, even though a suicide note was found. The court didn’t allow any psychological evidence to be presented about the mental state of the deceased wife. As a result, no discussion was allowed in court about whether she may have been depressed and likely to take her own life, which weakened the case of the accused considerably. In a case in Northern Ireland, a man charged with the murder of his son, wife and daughter claimed that his son had gone berserk and killed his mother and sister (the defendant’s wife and daughter) before killing himself. In this case, psychological evidence was allowed that suggested the deaths were the result of a carefully planned execution by the father. In both cases, the men were convicted of the murders.
In inquisitorial systems, therefore, experts are often given more free rein than in the adversarial system in front of a jury, including civil and quasi-legal processes where judgements aren’t so much about guilt and sentencing but more aimed towards determining solutions in disputes. These variations between courts and legal systems also help to explain why expert forensic psychology evidence can play a significant role in one place but never get a look-in somewhere else, say in a different state or a different country. The matter is complicated further (as it so often seems to be with legal matters) by what any particular court regards as expertise, something I explore in the next section.
Using Your Experience and Knowledge: What Is an Expert Witness?
When experts (such as forensic psychologists) appear in court proceedings, in essence they’re witnesses like any others. They take an oath to tell the truth and are bound to honour the court and its procedures. One crucial exception, however, distinguishes experts from other witnesses. Experts are allowed to give opinions whereas other witnesses can only provide an account of the facts as they know them. Experts have to defend their opinions and explain the basis on which they reach them. They’re closely examined on whether they really do have the expertise to offer the opinions they present in court.
Experts, however, can’t offer an opinion on just anything they happen to know about. What they comment on has to be something that the judge or jury can’t know themselves.
This reality was brought home to me in a case concerning the likelihood that a victim committed suicide, the implication being, of course, that if she didn’t, she was murdered. The victim hadn’t given any
Similar Books
