The experimental psychologist in court

This special issue comprises articles by psychologists, legal scholars, and ethicists on the ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists. In it the major ethical questions facing the prospective expert witness are clarified, and alternative positions on these issues are defined and debated. Fundamentals of moral reasoning are discussed, and the realities of interaction with a judicial system that subjects the psychologist to a variety of pressures and limitations are made apparent. The aim is not to offer final answers to complex ethical questions, but rather to provide a framework within which the questions can be considered by the individual psychologist.The conference on ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists was supported by National Science Foundation grant No. ISP-8209940. We thank Rachelle Hollander of the Ethics and Values in Science and Technology Program, Joe Young of the Memory and Cognitive Processes Program, and Eric Juengst of the National Endowment for the Humanities for their help in bringing about the conference.     

论法院书记员管理制度

毋庸置疑,司法审判是法院的首要职责和第一要务,在国家机构体系中,法院的定位是国家的“审判机关”。法官无疑是法院系统最核心的职业角色,而书记员、执行员、司法警察、法医、行政管理人员以及后勤服务人员,都属于为法官的审判活动提供服务的辅助性角色。可以说,在所有上述司法辅助人员中书记员是与法官审判活动最接近的一种职业角色。法院的书记员是法院系统重要的具有独立地位的司法辅助人员,尽管从严格意义上讲,书记员和法院的司法警察、行政管理人员、后勤服务人员一样都不属于司法官的范畴,但书记员是保证法院审判工作顺利进行的不可或缺的重要角色,书记员的工作是专门为法官的审判活动提供服务,以保证诉讼活动顺利、明晰和高效进行。     

The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court.

The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.     

The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court

Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature. The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in “blind acceptance”. The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

The changing legal environment of the juvenile court

The American juvenile court is in a state of legal flux. From its informal beginning in English chancery law, to its formal inception in the United States in 1899, the court has been exposed to a number of diverse, competing pressures. Since the Supreme Court case of In re Gault in the mid-1960’s, the whole underpinnings of the juvenile court have been so shaken that one must now ask whether or not the last vestiges of parens patriae have been swept away. If this is indeed the case, America should now seek alternatives to the present system of juvenile adjudication —for the sake of the child and for the sake of justice.     

The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

The question of whether juvenile offenders should be handled in criminal court has been addressed by a number of studies. However, few have examined the effectiveness of the type of transfer mechanism and how it relates to protecting the public. Whether the mechanism used to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court has any effect on the likelihood of being convicted of a target offense criminal court is examined here. It was found that the juveniles sampled in this study had a greater chance of being convicted on their target offense in criminal court if they were sent there via judicial waiver than if they were excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction by statute.     

美国精神卫生法庭及对我国的借鉴

精神卫生法庭是一种专门处理涉及精神障碍案件的法庭模式,目的在于将卷入司法系统但是需要治疗的精神障碍者送往合适的医疗机构进行治疗,并由法庭对治疗的过程进行监督和协调,以减少精神障碍者的再次犯罪率,从而节约医疗和司法成本.本文介绍美国精神卫生法庭的定义、操作方法、效果及存在的问题,提出了美国精神卫生法庭制度对我国处理卷入司法系统的精神障碍者的借鉴意义.