Psychology, law and sociology experts are working to create a more effective way of testifying in court. These are disciplines that have got to do with professional and therefore acceptable accounts for the court and jury to work on. Testimony given by these experts will often be things that a counselor uses to prove innocence or guilt, or provide motivation and causality to a case.
Sociologists, psychologists and legal counselors are concerned whether the testimony of this kind might be negatively affecting the way justice is served. All want the kind that is useful and relevant for people like the expert witness child abuse. The concern is for professional testimonies that will not be abused by attorneys handling a case.
An expert witness is the relevant professional needed to provide clarification on court or related issues. This is one part of a hearing where medical examiners and forensics experts were called in to make people understand the specific technical details they need to know to hand down an informed and just verdict. The practice could include any kind or person with a professional degree.
The legal system considers people giving this testimony to be part of the judgment that must be handed down, especially when evidence and other testimony are doubtful. Jurors will be left to their own devices after the expert witnesses have given their testimony, but before this, a lawyer could twist the facts in favor of a client. The facts thus can become subjective and useless.
For cases involving child abuse, many available points can be put to good use by an attorney who is good at argument. He might choose to color them one way, perhaps imply things that can unmake reputations, and generally use whatever it takes to win, including the testimony of experts. Psychologists and others are crying foul because this happens too often.
Ethics is a thing with many interpretations, but not when the law mandates one applicable definition or set of definitions for one item. If the lobbying is effective, the use of expert testimony in child abuse cases should be defined in a way not prejudicial to anyone concerned. This helps alleviate the pressing issue of ethical concern for sociologists and psychologists called in to testify.
Whatever decisions are made in this regard, the fact remains that expert witnesses should not be used indiscriminately. Testifying limits the things a psychologist, say, can provide a case in terms of more objective views. In cross examinations, the attorney may ask any question that can sway jurors in one way, towards a conclusion not even supported by the professional witness, or even by proven evidence.
There is no way testimony remains untouched or unexamined, but the tendency for trial lawyers is to practically destroy the value of testimonies when they are prejudicial to his or her client. The ethics question remains one of the more thorny issues for the kinds of cases being discussed. So the debate continues, but one thing should remain top of mind for everyone concerned.
The question involves the welfare of children connected to cases of abuse. A psychological expert may have the right to exclude things that might traumatize children. Whatever its value is, the court case is a really bloodthirsty arena not fit for kids, and a lawyer, in the course of cross examination, can trample on the delicate mind of a child and injure it permanently.
Sociologists, psychologists and legal counselors are concerned whether the testimony of this kind might be negatively affecting the way justice is served. All want the kind that is useful and relevant for people like the expert witness child abuse. The concern is for professional testimonies that will not be abused by attorneys handling a case.
An expert witness is the relevant professional needed to provide clarification on court or related issues. This is one part of a hearing where medical examiners and forensics experts were called in to make people understand the specific technical details they need to know to hand down an informed and just verdict. The practice could include any kind or person with a professional degree.
The legal system considers people giving this testimony to be part of the judgment that must be handed down, especially when evidence and other testimony are doubtful. Jurors will be left to their own devices after the expert witnesses have given their testimony, but before this, a lawyer could twist the facts in favor of a client. The facts thus can become subjective and useless.
For cases involving child abuse, many available points can be put to good use by an attorney who is good at argument. He might choose to color them one way, perhaps imply things that can unmake reputations, and generally use whatever it takes to win, including the testimony of experts. Psychologists and others are crying foul because this happens too often.
Ethics is a thing with many interpretations, but not when the law mandates one applicable definition or set of definitions for one item. If the lobbying is effective, the use of expert testimony in child abuse cases should be defined in a way not prejudicial to anyone concerned. This helps alleviate the pressing issue of ethical concern for sociologists and psychologists called in to testify.
Whatever decisions are made in this regard, the fact remains that expert witnesses should not be used indiscriminately. Testifying limits the things a psychologist, say, can provide a case in terms of more objective views. In cross examinations, the attorney may ask any question that can sway jurors in one way, towards a conclusion not even supported by the professional witness, or even by proven evidence.
There is no way testimony remains untouched or unexamined, but the tendency for trial lawyers is to practically destroy the value of testimonies when they are prejudicial to his or her client. The ethics question remains one of the more thorny issues for the kinds of cases being discussed. So the debate continues, but one thing should remain top of mind for everyone concerned.
The question involves the welfare of children connected to cases of abuse. A psychological expert may have the right to exclude things that might traumatize children. Whatever its value is, the court case is a really bloodthirsty arena not fit for kids, and a lawyer, in the course of cross examination, can trample on the delicate mind of a child and injure it permanently.
About the Author:
When you are in need of some advice from an expert witness child abuse case, the best thing you can do is to take a look at our website. Follow the link and view the page on http://safechild.org/sherryll-kraizer-phd/witness.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق