...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The American psychologist >On the General Acceptance of Confessions Research: Opinions of the Scientific Community
【24h】

On the General Acceptance of Confessions Research: Opinions of the Scientific Community

机译：关于忏悔研究的一般接受：科学界的意见

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Eighty-seven experts on the psychology of confessions-many of whom were highly published, many with courtroom experience-were surveyed online about their opinions on 30 propositions of relevance to deception detection, police interrogations, confessions, and relevant general principles of psychology. As indicated by an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that several findings are sufficiently reliable to present in court. This list includes but is not limited to the proposition that the risk of false confessions is increased not only by explicit threats and promises but by 2 common interrogation tactics-namely, the false evidence ploy and minimization tactics that imply leniency by offering sympathy and moral justification. Experts also strongly agreed that the risk of undue influence is higher among adolescents, individuals with compliant or suggestible personalities, and those with intellectual impairments or diagnosed psychological disorders. Additional findings indicated that experts set a high standard before judging a proposition to be sufficiently reliable for court-and an even higher standard on the question "Would you testify?" Regarding their role as scientific experts, virtually all respondents stated that their primary objective was to educate the jury and that juries are more competent at evaluating confession evidence with assistance from an expert than without. These results should assist trial courts and expert witnesses in determining what aspects of the science are generally accepted and suitable for presentation in court.
机译：87名自白心理学专家——其中许多人发表了大量文章，许多人有法庭经验——在网上接受了调查，了解他们对与欺诈侦查、警方审讯、自白和相关心理学一般原则相关的30个命题的看法。正如至少80%的同意率所表明的那样，有一个强烈的共识是，一些调查结果足够可靠，可以在法庭上提出。这份清单包括但不限于这样一个命题，即虚假供词的风险不仅会因为明确的威胁和承诺而增加，还会因为两种常见的审讯策略而增加，即虚假证据策略和最小化策略，通过提供同情和道德理由暗示宽大处理。专家们还强烈同意，青少年、性格顺从或易受暗示的人、智力障碍或被诊断为心理障碍的人受到不当影响的风险更高。其他调查结果表明，专家们在判断一个命题是否足够可靠之前设定了一个高标准，并在“你愿意作证吗？”这个问题上设定了更高的标准关于他们作为科学专家的角色，几乎所有受访者都表示，他们的主要目标是教育陪审团，陪审团在专家协助下比没有专家协助时更能评估供词证据。这些结果应有助于审判法院和专家证人确定科学的哪些方面是普遍接受的，哪些方面适合在法庭上陈述。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号