Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison

Since the 1960s, there have been calls for forensic voice comparison to be empirically validated under casework conditions. Since around 2000, there have been an increasing number of researchers and practitioners who conduct forensic-voice-comparison research and casework within the likelihood-ratio framework. In recent years, this community of researchers and practitioners has made substantial progress toward validation under casework conditions becoming a standard part of practice: Procedures for conducting validation have been developed, along with graphics and metrics for representing the results, and an increasing number of papers are being published that include empirical validation of forensic-voice-comparison systems under conditions reflecting casework conditions. An outstanding question, however, is: In the context of a case, given the results of an empirical validation of a forensic-voice-comparison system, how can one decide whether the system is good enough for its output to be used in court? This paper provides a statement of consensus developed in response to this question. Contributors included individuals who had knowledge and experience of validating forensic-voice-comparison systems in research and/or casework contexts, and individuals who had actually presented validation results to courts. They also included individuals who could bring a legal perspective on these matters, and individuals with knowledge and experience of validation in forensic science more broadly. We provide recommendations on what practitioners should do when conducting evaluations and validations, and what they should present to the court. Although our focus is explicitly on forensic voice comparison, we hope that this contribution will be of interest to an audience concerned with validation in forensic science more broadly. Although not written specifically for a legal audience, we hope that this contribution will still be of interest to lawyers.     

De Clérambault's Syndrome (Erotomania) and claims of psychiatric malpractice

De Clérambault's Syndrome or Erotomania was originally described as a delusional disorder in which a woman believes that an older man of higher social status is passionately in love with her. The patient's relentless pursuit of the delusional love object, often with escalating intrusiveness, may eventually involve threats or overt acts of retaliation, in response to repeated rejection, unrequited love, or alleged betrayal. Cases from the literature are reviewed in which the delusional romantic attachment involves the patient's psychiatrist or another medical specialist. The authors present a case involving a patient suffering from erotomania who develops a delusional fixation on her psychiatrist and, after her advances are repeatedly rejected, sues him for malpractice, alleging she had a sexual relationship with him in the course of treatment. The implications of the litigious paranoid, who uses the legal system to act out delusional concerns and retaliatory fantasies, are discussed. This is the first known case of an erotomanic patient claiming malpractice on the grounds that her psychiatrist had a sexual relationship with her.     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

Educator of the court: the role of the expert witness in cases involving autism spectrum disorder

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert’s area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant-comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts’ personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.     

我国社会转型时期的"介入性"司法

我国社会转型是一场深刻的社会变革,由此引发法院制度的转型.在社会转型时期,人民法院不应恪遵司法权被动性原则,而应实行"介入性"司法,积极参与社会变革的进程,承担起司法的社会责任,影响和推动社会转型和法治建设的进程,在完成社会转型的同时,完成法院自身从传统法院向现代法院的转变.     

Legal,Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes

States have responded to the public's outrage at rising juvenile crime by revising their transfer statutes to make it easier to transfer juvenile offenders for trial and sentencing in criminal court and possible incarceration in adult prisons. These changing trends in juvenile justice raise three questions about what actually happens to juveniles once they are in the adult criminal justice system. To what extent does trial in adult court and/or incarceration in adult prisons promote or retard community protection, juvenile offenders' accountability, and the development of competencies in juvenile offenders? This article discusses state transfer laws and the legal consequences of criminal court prosecution, and analyzes current research on deterrence effects of transfer laws, conviction and sentencing in juvenile versus criminal court, recidivism rates in juvenile versus criminal court, and conditions and programming in juvenile versus adult correctional facilities. The research findings have two important implications for juvenile justice policy: the number of juvenile cases transferred to criminal court should be minimized, and imprisonment of juveniles in adult facilities should be avoided whenever possible. These implications are discussed, and directions for future research are identified.     

刑事自诉、公诉案件庭前审查程序比较

庭前审查是刑事案件正式庭审的必经程序,但我国公诉、自诉案件庭前审查程序的运作方式却存在明显的矛盾,与正当程序应具有的涵义相去甚远,这不仅可能使公众对法律的理性产生怀疑,并会将法律的运行置入尴尬。     

Role of voice in the legal process*

As communities face unrest and protest because of perceived racial bias and decreased trust and confidence in the criminal justice system, it is critical to explore mechanisms that foster institutional legitimacy. Voice is a central element in the procedural justice framework because it is anticipated to promote process control as well as a shared understanding between institutions and communities. As a concept, however, voice is undertheorized. Measures of voice used in legitimacy research may result in oversimplification of the concept, not fully capturing the struggles disadvantaged people face in trying to exercise influence in the court system. Through the use of rich data from qualitative interviews with youth and families involved in the juvenile justice system and in‐depth observations of juvenile court events, we explore what voice is, the mechanisms through which people try to assert voice, and how voice matters in the legal process. Respondents sought voice for many reasons, including to validate their experiences, to affirm their membership in a community, and to assert concerns about perceived police misconduct. Contrary to traditional conceptualizations of voice as a static event (e.g., having voice or not having voice), voice was a process of negotiating dialogue between court officials and court participants throughout the legal process.     

Socializing Distrust of the Justice System through the Family in Juvenile Delinquency Court

Juvenile delinquency courts in the United States generally require parents to attend all court hearings, but little is known about how parents' experiences in the court process affect their discussions of the justice system with their court‐involved children. Using multiperspectival and longitudinal data combining observations with interviews of parents and youth in two courts, this research finds that many parents discuss the legal process in negative terms with their children when parents are outside the presence of legal authorities. This research adds to the literature on legal socialization by examining how parents' perceptions of law and their experiences with the court become part of the socializing content provided by parents to their court‐involved children. Creating a more meaningful role for parents in the juvenile justice process may potentially lead to more positive discussions of the court process between parents and juvenile defendants.     

Knowledge on Tap: Police Science and Common Knowledge in the Legal Regulation of Drunkenness

Although scholars have devoted considerable attention to the formation, modification, and dissemination of knowledges in and around the legal complex, few systematic inquiries have been made into the sociology of legal knowledges. In this paper, we focus on two areas of law–liquor licensing and drunk driving–and contextualize their development from the perspective of police science. We document the ways in which contemporary police science authorizes a "common knowledge," which is not to be confused with lay knowledge, or even trade knowledge. Rather, the "common knowledge" that is authorized is what legal authorities believe everyone should know, despite any lay or trade knowledge individuals may have. This analysis demonstrates the need for further work on the ways in which knowledges are formed and authorized within law, with particular emphasis on documenting how a "responsibility to know" comes to be deployed beyond the state.     

司法经验整合及其抽象化问题——从私人背景步入公共领域的法官经验

司法经验本身强调的不是个体的独特性,而是与群体不可分割的整体性。在司法实践中,现有非正式的“内部请示报批”和“执行规范性文件”制度共同构成了我国独特的司法经验整体化机制。但其抽象化的过程和结果,难以释放经验整体化的功能。我们应充分利用司法裁判本身所具有的规则和经验价值,形成社会可资共用的法律智识资源,以一种迂回的方式实现司法经验的整体化。     

Mixed Court and Jury Court: Could the Continental Alternative Fill the American Need?

For cases of serious crime a number of European countries employ a variant of the jury called the mixed court, in which laymen and professional judges sit together in a single panel that deliberates and decides on all issues of verdict and sentence. Trials in the mixed court proceed quite rapidly, in large measure because the mixed court dispenses with most of the time-consuming practices of jury control that characterize Anglo-American trial procedure. Consequently, the legal system can process all cases of serious crime to full trial. The present article describes the German mixed-court system and contrasts it with the American jury, asking to what extent the mixed court serves the purposes of the jury. The conclusion is that the mixed court serves the jury policies well, though not fully; and that it is a superior alternative to the indigenous nontrial devices—plea bargaining and bench trial—that have displaced the jury from routine American practice.     

法律思维能力在法律高等教育中的核心定位及培养——一个比较视角的研究

在法学本科教育上历来存在大陆法系模式与英美法系模式之争,但这一争议多半是局限于表面现象的结果。如果从培养法律思维能力角度考察,就会发现两种模式高度同一,都是以法律思维能力培养为核心的。所谓模式差异非但不构成争议之源,恰恰都是为满足法律思维能力培养需要而基于不同法律传统所做的不同选择。中国法学教育同样应以此为核心,结合中国的法律特点与现实需求,改进现有培养方案。     

Legal aid for coroners' inquests

Inquests held into deaths perform important functions, not only in determining the facts relevant to the death, but also in investigating and making recommendations on matters of public safety. Coronial legislation allows a number of parties to appear at inquests but a right of appearance without the possibility of legal representation is an illusory right. There are persuasive arguments for allocating funding for grants of legal aid to persons appearing at inquests and particularly to families. However, the demands on public legal aid funds are overwhelming and there are many competing needs. Historically, legal aid has not been available at inquests. Justifications for this are considered and whether government legal aid funding for advice and representation should be available to individuals involved in coroners' inquests and in what circumstances. The nature of the inquest process, indications of need for legal assistance, the level of assistance currently provided, defining what is the "public interest" for legal aid purposes in an inquest and the detriment suffered by individuals or the community if assistance is not available, are examined.     

论法律援助法律文书的结构

法律援助法律文书是法律援助机构、当事人及其代理人等依法制作的处理各类诉讼案件和非诉讼案件的、具有法律效力的文书的总称,它具有鲜明的群众性、法定的强制性、制作的合法性和时效性、形式的规范性等特征。为此,在制作法律援助法律文书时,要坚持尊重客观事实原则和严格依法制作原则,并准确把握法律援助法律文书的种类和结构等。     

"Wrongful life" a la francaise

A recent decision of the French supreme court has recognised what has been termed in the common law system, a "wrongful life" action. Intentionally provocative, the decision shows how the desire for equitable or "corrective" justice poses a threat not only to established legal principles on civil liability, but also to the ethical framework in which both the medical and legal professions must operate.     

CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

In presenting the evidence to court, a custody evaluator has to consider three distinct audiences: the judge, the legal representatives, and the family. Each will look for different things in the evaluation report, each may interpret what is written differently, and each may have different expectations. Consequently, the evaluator has a number of roles and has to adopt a variety of strategies that are sensitive to the needs of the court and the client. At the same time, the evaluator must be able to withstand the constraints and scrutiny that are part of the legal process. This article examines the difficulties this poses for the evaluator in preparing for and presenting evidence to court and looks at some of the ways problems can be avoided.     

判决书中的法律论证

在对法律公正的憧憬中,法律是值得信仰的,但在当下判决书中经常看到的多是武断与掩饰,八股式文体的判决书缺乏充分的论证,让人看不出判决或改判的理由。在走向依法治国的历史进程中,我们需要的是一份阳光下的判决书,一份有着严密论证、详尽说理的判决书,一份旁征博引、法理透彻的判决书。判决需要论证,据以形成判决的“法律”更需要论证,不经过论证的“法律”缺乏正确性和可接受性。裁判文书中对论证理论的运用,为裁判结论的达致提供技术性支持,为裁判结论形成过程中个体的价值判断提供规范性的规则与方法,在整个国家制度建构中有重要的意义。     

Knowledge of Legal Terminology and Court Proceedings in Adults with Developmental Disabilities

This research compared 40 adults with mild developmental disabilities (DD) and 40 nondelayed adults (ND) in terms of knowledge of legal terms and court proceedings. For all of the 34 terms studied, with the exception of police officer there were significant differences between the DD and ND groups with respect to degree of conceptual understanding of terms. Results indicate that all but 6 terms assessed (adjourn, allegation, crown attorney, defendant, prosecute, and court reporter) were well-defined by 85% or more of ND participants. In contrast, only 8 of the terms (police officer, lawyer, jail, court, lie, truth, judge, and witness) were reasonably conceptually understood by at least 75% of DD participants. Reported familiarity with terms in DD participants is not a reliable indicator of actual familiarity with terms. Results are discussed with respect to the need for education of DD individuals and legal professionals to support participation and fair treatment of DD individuals in legal situations.     

Training of legal professionals in DNA evidence

The South African Criminal Legal System is based on Roman Dutch law. Court proceedings are led by a single presiding officer of the court. Prosecutors and defence advocates present the court with evidence in an adversarial manner. This system has inherent advantages and disadvantages and therefore the training of legal professionals in handling DNA evidence in court is important. The prosecutors resort under the National Prosecuting Authority and the defence advocates act independently or e.g. under the auspices of Legal Aid South Africa.Education curricula of legal professional do not include forensic science evidence. Principles such as evidential value in the forensic context are not addressed. Training of legal professionals with our Essential DNA Evidence™ Course has been a multiplier of forensic science knowledge in the legal profession in South Africa. We present prosecution and defence perspectives in an unbiased manner, compensating for the possible subjective interpretations of evidence that may be presented in court. Forensic evidence is subsequently carefully evaluated prior to being court presentation thus improving court efficiency, and allowing for a more focussed approach to the presentation of evidence. Approaches to the customisation of course content that adds value has been identified via evaluation of training programmes.Experience has shown that legal professionals have the ability to incorporate relatively complex scientific concepts into their legal arguments if provided with the appropriate training opportunity. Appropriate training in DNA evidence has made the court process more effective, both in terms of time and costs, and ultimately serves justice.