Disordered personalities at work

Current categorical classification systems of personality disorders (PDs) remain widely used amid growing evidence that argues against the conceptualisation of PDs as independent, discrete entities. Adopting the dimensional perspective of Morey et al. (Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245–251, 1985), this study compared PD traits across forensic, psychiatric and “normal” senior business manager samples. There was particular interest in the relative representations of elements of PD closely associated with psychopathic PD because of research suggesting that some “psychopaths” operate within mainstream society, and links that have been made between elements of these so-called “successful” psychopaths, and characteristics associated with success in senior business management roles. The dimensional Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scales for DSM III Personality Disorders (MMPI-PD) were shown to be internally consistent for the “normal” sample. Evidence for the qualitative equivalence of the four PD profiles emerged. The PD profile of the senior business manager sample was found to contain significant elements of PD, particularly those that have been referred to as the “emotional components” of psychopathic PD. The findings provide strong support for the continuous distribution of personality disordered traits.     

鉴定结论冲突的程序性规制

鉴定结论冲突是鉴定结论之间存在不一致性,相互对立排斥或者相互干扰。鉴定结论的冲突从某种程度上影响了诉讼的正常进行,但考察其机理,又存在着某种必然性,是一种多元因素的产物。在诉讼中运用鉴定结论,应针对其机理,实行程序性的必要的预防措施,避免其对诉讼的不良影响;此外,面对冲突的鉴定结论,亦可用程序性措施加以规制。     

测谎结论成为法定证据的必然性

我国于1984年引进和使用测谎仪,二十多年后的今天,测谎测试已经广泛地运用于刑事司法实践。然而测谎结论至今仍然不能作为法定证据使用,这与测谎测试适用的广泛性极不相适应,甚至限制测谎技术的发展和推广运用。测谎结论的得出有着科学的心理学和生理学基础;有着严格而规范的测谎测试程序规制;有着可靠的测试方法保障。测谎结论已经具备成为法定证据的条件,具有成为法定证据的充分合理性,测谎结论成为法定证据是一种必然趋势。     

医疗事故技术鉴定专家出庭质证问题阐释

医疗事故技术鉴定专家出庭接受质证是法院审查、认定鉴定结论以及克服医疗事故技术鉴定自身中立性不足和程序不完善等问题的必然要求。鉴定专家出庭接受质证程序要体现交叉询问原则,同时,要引入专家辅助人、专家陪审员制度以构建均衡合理的质证主体结构。质证的内容应该围绕鉴定专家资格,鉴定结论的相关性、科学性、事实材料充分性、证明过程符合逻辑性等来展开。