Disclosure of child sexual abuse: expressed emotions and credibility judgments of a child mock victim

Both lay persons and professionals believe that the emotions displayed by a child witness during disclosure of sexual abuse are a factor of importance when judging the child's credibility. Unfortunately, not all children display emotions according to expectations, leading to misjudgments, and possible miscarriage of justice. In the present study, we examined how lay people's credibility judgments were influenced by a child's displayed emotions during the disclosure of sexual abuse. Participants (n?=?119), viewed video recordings of a mock police interview of an 11-year-old child actor disclosing sexual abuse, displaying one of four emotional expressions (angry, sad, neutral, and positive). Results showed that participants were strongly influenced by the emotions displayed; in particular, the display of strong negative emotions (anger) or positive emotions during disclosure significantly reduced judged credibility. The credibility ratings predicted the participant? judgments of the defendant's guilt and the willingness to pass a guilty vote in a hypothetical trial.     

Credibility of the emotional witness: A study of ratings by police investigators

Abstract

Credibility judgments by police investigators were examined. Sixty-nine investigators viewed one of three video-recorded versions of a rape victim's statement where the role was played by a professional actress. The statements were given in a free recall manner with identical wording, but differing in the emotions displayed, termed congruent, neutral and incongruent emotional expressions. Results showed that emotions displayed by the rape victim affected police officers’ judgments of credibility. The victim was judged as most credible when crying and showing despair, and less credible when being neutral or expressing more positive emotions. This result indicates stereotypic beliefs about rape victim behavior among police officers, similar to those found for lay persons. Results are discussed in terms of professional expertise.     

言词辩论的全部意旨研究——德国、日本的判例、学说之考察及其启示

在民事诉讼中,依自由心证主义之本旨,受诉法院必须在斟酌证据调查的结果以及言词辩论的全部意旨的基础上认定案件事实。作为适法地呈现于言词辩论中的证据调查的结果以外的诉讼资料,言词辩论的全部意旨不仅能补充证据调查,而且能单独作为受诉法院认定案件事实的根据。这不仅合乎民事诉讼中法官心证形成的实际,也契合民事诉讼中法官认定案件事实之规律。为防止法官恣意地进行事实认定并担保事实认定之客观性,言词辩论的全部意旨单独作为事实认定的根据应以辅助事实及不重要的间接事实为限。受诉法院依言词辩论的全部意旨认定案件事实时,虽无须在裁判理由中对此予以具体的说示,但至少应能从诉讼记录中明了言词辩论的全部意在本案中乃何所指。     

I Spy with My Little Eye: Jurors’ Detection of Internal Validity Threats in Expert Evidence

This experiment examined whether jury-eligible community members (N = 223) were able to detect internally invalid psychological science presented at trial. Participants read a simulated child sexual abuse case in which the defense expert described a study he had conducted on witness memory and suggestibility. We varied the study’s internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and publication status (published, unpublished). Expert evidence quality ratings were higher for the valid versus missing control group version only. Publication increased ratings of defendant guilt when the study was missing a control group. Variations in internal validity did not influence perceptions of child victim credibility or police interview quality. Participants’ limited detection of internal validity threats underscores the need to examine the effectiveness of traditional legal safeguards against junk science in court and improve the scientific reasoning ability of lay people and legal professionals.     

The effect of a judicial declaration of competence on the perceived credibility of children and defendants

Purpose. Three studies were conducted to determine the effect of a judicial declaration of competence on perceptions of credibility towards a child witness and an adult defendant. Methods. Undergraduates read vignettes about a 5‐ or a 13‐year‐old child witness or an adult involved in either a sexual assault case or a motor vehicle accident case. In the child conditions, the case was either preceded by a declaration of the child's competence to testify (either specific or general declaration) or there was no mention of the competence of the child. Participants then rated the perceived credibility of both the complainant/witness and the defendant. Results. A judicial declaration of competence that was targeted at the particular child sometimes increased the credibility ratings of the child and decreased those of the defendant, sometimes to levels beyond those observed in the adult conditions. These effects on credibility were not replicated when a general declaration of all children's competence was used. In fact, the general declaration sometimes resulted in more positive ratings of the defendant. Conclusions. These results are discussed in the context of recommendations for the use of competence evaluations and declarations of competence in court.     

Lawyers about Mixed Tribunals: Do Croatian Professional Judges, State Attorneys, and Private Attorneys Share the Same View?

In this paper, I examine opinions about mixed tribunals, a form of lay participation used widely in the criminal justice systems across Europe. The distinguishing feature of mixed tribunals is the fact that professional and lay judges decide the guilt and sentence jointly. I explore the differences of opinion among lawyers about mixed tribunals in general and about lay judges in particular. Using the theoretical underpinnings of status characteristics theory, I study the impact of the lawyers' role in the criminal justice system and the type of court/office at which they serve or practice law on their opinion about mixed tribunals. The dataset I analyze in this paper consists of questionnaires filled out by Croatian professional judges, state attorneys, and private attorneys.     

叶公好龙:刑事证人出庭的一个寓言

我国目前呼唤"证人出庭"是一个叶公好龙式的伪命题,无论是法官、控辩双方、被害人,还是警察等都没有做好证人出庭的准备。其中书面证言确认制度、"大司法机关"体制、证人全程伪证责任等因素促生法官不情愿证人出庭的心理,而警察出庭作证制度缺乏"怀疑权力"的文化传统和个人积极性。进而言之,目前关于证人出庭具体配套规则的对策也有难以克服的缺陷。而我们要认真对待实践而不至于做脱离实际的制度设计。     

Revising Images of Public Punitiveness: Sentencing by Lay and Professional English Magistrates

England grants unusually broad responsibility for sentencing of criminal offenders to voluntary part-time lay magistrates who, like their legally trained professional colleagues, sentence a wide range of offenders. Using simulated cases, archival analyses, and observational techniques, this article compares the sentencing decisions of the lay and professional magistrates in London. The study reveals no evidence of the lay preference for more severe sentencing that is typically shown in public opinion polls. The extent to which legal training, court experience, panel decisionmaking and role within the court system can explain the relative leniency of the lay magistrates are considered Consistent with results from other studies, these findings suggests that when laypersons assign sentences to particular offenders rather than express generalized satisfaction or dissatisfaction with current sentencing practices, laypersons are no more punitive than professional judges.     

An Inside View: Professional Judges' and Lay Judges' Support for Mixed Tribunals

This paper studies the level of specific and general support for mixed tribunals, a form of lay participation in the government. The analyses focus on the opinions provided by 229 Croatian lay judges and eighty professional judges – the insiders in mixed tribunals. The results indicate that the judge's lay or professional role in the criminal justice system and the type of court exhibit stronger influence on the general level of support than any of the variables measuring specific support. Nevertheless, the perceived frequency of lay judges' comments, the most direct measure of members' crucial activity during trials and deliberations among the specific variables included in the models, is significantly related to the respondents' general opinions about mixed tribunals.     

Too Little, Too Late: Prosecutors' Pre-court Preparation of Rape Survivors

Little research has been conducted on the behaviors of prosecuting attor-neys and their interactions with rape survivors between charging and court events. Yet this period, during which prosecutors prepare rape survivors for their witness roles, may be crucial for obtaining successful convictions. Using intensive interviews with 32 rape survivors and background interviews with prosecutors, victim witness advocates, and rape crisis workers, I evaluated the nature of directives and information given to rape survivors and the frequency with which directives were conveyed before preliminary hearings and court events. I concluded that prosecutors employ 20 modes of preparation to construct rape survivors as credible victims for judges and jurors. They orient the rape survivor to the scope of the witness role and her place in the interaction with legal actors, direct her to enhance the credibility of her story, and enhance the credibility of her self'presentation. Research showed that prosecutors prepared respondents more thoroughly for trials than for preliminary hearings, but little overall. A large minority of respondents, consequently, reported dissatisfaction with the preparation they received. On the basis of the findings, I call for an extension of Martin and Powell's "politics of victim's needs," attention to the importance of maintaining a perception of procedural justice among rape survivors, and further research into pre-court preparation.     

被害人陈述与证人证言区别论

被害人陈述与证人证言都属于人证,二者之间的关系极为密切,在我国刑事诉讼法中也有着诸多的共同制度安排,也存在着明显的制度差异.被害人具有当事人与实质证人的双重诉讼角色,虽然没有必须出庭的义务,但却有权全程参与刑事审判,而证人必须是当事人以外的人,在立法上被赋予应当出庭作证的义务,但无权全程参与刑事审判.在证明方向上,被害人陈述具有单向性、控诉性的特征,从而显著区别于证人证言.在主体适格性、庭审质证及作证保障等方面,较之证人证言的相对严密、规范的制度安排,被害人陈述的制度设计有进一步改良的需要.     

性侵儿童案中被害人陈述可信度判断研究

在性侵儿童案中,由于被害儿童身心特点,导致其作证能力和证言可信度常存在争议。但实际上年幼不是否认儿童作证能力的决定性因素。在性侵儿童案件中,要摒弃过度纠缠于对儿童作证能力的争议,将作证能力与证言可信度分开,肯定其作证能力,而着重判断证言可信度。通过对371份性侵儿童案件的裁判文书的分析可知,判断儿童被害人陈述可信度的因素与判断成年被害人陈述可信度的因素大致相同,同时实践中也结合儿童的特点提出了有针对性的考量因素。因此,对"童言"过于忌惮实无必要。在判断儿童被害人陈述可信度时,可以主要依靠判断被害人(证人)可信度的通常方法,同时更多地引入专家证人/辅助人帮助理解儿童行为和心理特点。这样将有助于解决儿童作证涉及的证明问题,更好地保护儿童权益。     

论法官的裁判良心

近年来司法界已意识到司法裁决并非全由法律所决定,如果司法裁决并非全部客观,法官的职业行为就变得相关,法官审理具体案件时不仅仅依据的是事实与法律,还要结合自己的良心,要求法官在裁判中要尽量保持良心的客观性。因此,关注法官良心与法的关联性、法官良心的自由与中立及法官良心的社会尊重和养成,直接影响着法官裁判的公正及法院的社会公信力。     

Lay Participation in Danish Crime Trials: On the Interaction between Lay and Professional Judges during Deliberation

While there is abundant research on common law jury systems, we know less about lay participation in civil law crime trials, often called ‘mixed courts’ or alternately ‘mixed tribunals'. Here, a professional judge and a number of lay judges deliberate together on the issues of guilt and sentencing. This joint deliberation has naturally led both public opinion and research to focus on power relations such as lay judges’ dependence on the professional judges. Based on an ethnographic study of deliberation processes, the present article offers a different perspective on lay judges’ contribution and argues that their decision making rests on a hybrid construction of knowledge in the continuous interaction between the professional judge and lay participants during deliberation. The analysis of this decision‐making process contributes to our understanding of how ordinary people selected for this civic duty create knowledge about justice.     

证人出庭制度研究——从完善刑事诉讼的视角谈起

证人证言作为证据中的一种,对于查清案件事实十分的重要.但是在目前的诉讼中尤其是刑事诉讼中,证人证言认定案件事实中起着巨大的作用.但是证人出庭率却十分低,从各地的统计数字来看,证人出庭率普遍不足5%.甚至在一些案件中,证言起着关键性作用,但是作为陈述证言的证人却拒不出庭,其实就意味着证据没有经过质证.所以,在运用这种证据的时候,应该十分谨慎.要求证人出庭接受审查等问题已经迫在眉睫.试从刑事诉讼人手,分析解决证人在诉讼中出庭的问题.     

“<Emphasis Type="Italic">Peer effects</Emphasis>” or “<Emphasis Type="Italic">quasi</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">peer effects</Emphasis>” in Spanish labour court rulings

The current work seeks to ascertain whether rulings on dismissal cases issued by incumbent judges in Spanish labour courts are influenced by whether they are acting alone in their own court or sharing duties with other judges such as replacement judges, support judges or incumbent judges from other courts. We consider that a court is treated when more than one judge rules in it. Then, an analysis is conducted so as to determine the effect of such a treatment on the percentage of cases ruled in favour of the dismissed worker. The data used in the research are taken from the information recorded at court level provided by the statistics kept by the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary. A total of 2888 observations were available, corresponding to the period spanning 2004 to 2012. As regards the findings, it may be concluded that there is a significant positive impact on the number of dismissal cases ruled in favour of workers when incumbent judges are not acting alone in their court, particularly when the incumbent judge solves cases together with another professional judge.     

Professional disciplinary proceedings against expert medical witnesses

Witnesses in legal proceedings are protected from civil liability based on their evidence. This immunity is founded on public policy considerations, particularly the belief that witnesses would be less willing to provide full and frank evidence if they were at the risk of civil proceedings based on their evidence. But witness immunity now appears to be subject to an important qualification. The English Court of Appeal has confirmed that witness immunity does not prevent the commencement of professional disciplinary proceedings against an expert witness. In General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA 1390 the court upheld a disciplinary complaint made against an expert medical witness, even though the complaint was based on that doctor's witness evidence. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the underlying purpose of professional disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the public, could sit comfortably with witness immunity. The result seems to be that people unhappy with witness evidence cannot sue the witness but can make a professional disciplinary complaint. This apparent gap in witness immunity is important to all professionals who might give evidence.     

Rush-hour traffic: self-presentation of defendants in speedy traffic court cases

Much work examines self-presentation styles; however, little work explores how people present themselves in traffic court. Utilizing observatory research, we aim to better understand differences in physical presentation and demeanor in traffic court. Further, judges that work in traffic court were interviewed to see how they understood the importance of presentation of self. Data indicate that most of those who appear in traffic court aim to present themselves professionally and behave with respect while in court. This appears to be a wise decision because judges tended to think that presentation of self was an important variable in their courtroom and how they evaluated cases. Still, differences in presentation of self appeared in the courtroom especially with regard to dress – extremely casual to orange jumpsuits. Finally, we argue that while modern defendants aim to present professionally the overall ‘professional’ presentation of self, even in the courtroom, is casual dress.     

Double Whammy: Lay Assessors as Lackeys in Chinese Courts

Primarily drawing on in‐depth interviews with lay assessors and judges in Chinese courts, this study suggests that assessors are little more than lackeys. To determine the role of lay participation in decision making across different jurisdictions, this article proposes two variables. The first is whether lay assessors are separate from, or mixed with, professional judges; the second is whether the regime is democratic or authoritarian. Viewed according to these variables, China's lay‐assessor institution is subject to a double whammy: one, the superior legal knowledge of professional judges and their dominance in procedures, and two, the ultimate control of the regime over judges, who, for self‐protection, firmly control lay assessors. This article advances our understanding of the operation of the Chinese lay‐assessor institution, and more generally the relationship between lay participation and political regimes.