Where to Draw the Line? Is Efficiency Encroaching on a Fair Justice System?

The government is currently implementing an ambitious agenda of reforms to transform the justice system of England and Wales. The stated aim is to improve efficiency, primarily by utilising technology and bringing processes online where possible. The speed and ambition of the programme has led to concerns that the drive for efficiency is coming at the expense of ensuring a fair and effective justice system. This article suggests that the fundamental principles underpinning our justice system are at risk of being lost in the push for increased efficiency. It focuses on two specific proposals: increasing the use of video links, thus moving to virtual hearings as the default position for the majority of cases; and of automating the conviction process in certain criminal cases. It is argued that both proposals undermine the role of an independent judiciary in making fair and transparent decisions.     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

A Problem with Double-Blind Photospread Procedures: Photospread Administrators Use One Eyewitness's Confidence to Influence the Identification of Another Eyewitness

In Experiment 1, photospread administrators (PAs, N = 50) showed a target-absent photospread to a confederate eyewitness (CW), who was randomly assigned to identify one photo with either high or low confidence. PAs subsequently administered the same target-absent photospread to participant eyewitnesses (PWs, N = 50), all of whom had viewed a live staged crime 1 week earlier. CWs were rated by the PAs as significantly more confident in the high-confidence condition versus low-confidence condition. More importantly, the confidence of the CW affected the identification decision of the PW. In the low-confidence condition, the photo identified by the CW was identified by the PW significantly more than the other photos; there was no significant difference in photo choice in the high-confidence condition. In spite of the obvious influence exerted in the low-confidence condition, observers were not able to detect bias in the photospread procedures. A second experiment was conducted to test a post-hoc explanation for the results of Experiment 1: PAs exerted influence in the low-confidence condition because they perceived the task as more difficult for the eyewitness than in the high-confidence condition. Independent observers (N = 84) rated the difficulty of the confederate's task as higher in the low-confidence condition compared with the high-confidence condition, suggesting that expectations of task difficulty might be driving the effect observed in Experiment 1. Results support recommendations for double-blind photospreads and emphasize that the same investigator should not administer photo lineups to multiple eyewitnesses in an investigation.     

纳尔逊·格雷本的"旅游人类学"

近几十年来,随着旅游业的蓬勃发展,许多国家对旅游业的研究,从各个方面得到了深入的发展,并上升到一定的理论高度.在一些西方国家里,一些旅游业研究的学者提出了"旅游人类学"这一新的学说,使旅游业的研究又上了一个更高的台阶,拓宽了研究的领域,促进了旅游业的新发展.纳尔逊·格雷本(Nelson Graburn)是美国加州大学柏克利分校的人类学家,他的旅游人类学理论有独到的思想观点和模式,引起了人类学界的广泛关注.     

呈现方式与陪衬人数对目击者照片辨认准确性的影响

目击辨认是侦查工作中搜集线索与证据的重要方式,但其实际操作程序仍有着多方面欠缺。研究发现,呈现方式与陪衬人数对照片辨认范式下辨认的准确性有一定的影响。主要表现在以下几个方面:(1)同时呈现方式与序列呈现方式在击中率上没有发现差异;(2)序列呈现的情况下8个陪衬,同时呈现的情况下6个陪衬是最佳的陪衬数量;(3)被试辨认的准确性和自信度之间有一定的相关。     

目击辨认中对辨认反应时间的实验研究

本课题对目击辨认中辨认反应时间这一因素进行了研究,共征集被试60名(男、女各30人),采用模拟犯罪事件的实验研究方法,每一名被试分别对男、女犯罪嫌疑人各辨认一次,共发生120次辨认,结果发现:(1)目击辨认准确率较低;(2)正确辨认反应时间与错误辨认反应时间有明显差异,正确辨认反应时间显著小于错误辨认反应时间。     

网络学术打假与学术共同体建设

方舟子遇袭与肖传国的被捕将学术界反腐推到了一个新的高度，这是网络学术打假的功劳。网络克服了传统媒体与举报制度的诸多障碍，以“新闻事件”的形式将学术造假行为公之于众，并借助当事人及其支持者的积极互动，进行“虚拟审判”，形成强大的网上舆论，直接或间接地影响了对学术造假者的处理。在此过程中，作为对学术成果负有审查与评价责任的学术共同体，暴露出的腐败与失职行为，严重损害了其在公众心目中的形象。作为“社会的良心”，学术共同体如何加强自身建设，重塑自我，渡过信任危机？网络学术打假给我们的启示是：建立一个基于信息公开与公众广泛参与基础上的监督机制。     

Other people's memory

Abstract

How optimistic are people's evaluations of their own memory as compared to that of most others? To find out, we asked 563 Sa. to compere their own memory for events, faces and names to that of others. The results show that many, and especially young respondents, tend to be illusory optimistic about the power of their memory for events and faces, but not for names. The implications of this result for evaluating eyewitness reports by tries of fact in legal cases are discussed.