The fields of law, sociology and psychology have currently banded together to make for a more workable court system. This is relevant to many types of cases where professional people may be called upon to testify for or against a person in court. Their testimonies are often circumstantial but helps build the case for a lawyer by establishing just cause or culpability.
Psychologists, legal experts, and sociologists are wondering if the testimonies of experts might not be affecting legal cases in a negative way. They need to know if things like expert witness child abuse is able to deliver relevant and meaningful things to the judicial process. Mostly, they are concerned that lawyers will not use it just for winning a case.
Pros are often needed in court to help clarify the technical details for the civilian jury. Professionals will testify only what they know with regards to their work, and this part of the program can include MEs and forensic people, and the facts they provide all work for making justice that much more workable. It is a practice needed by courts, and now includes any kind of expert in any given field.
The law holds that these people are capable of delivering a kind of judgment that is needed when arguments and other kinds of testimonies are weak. The judge and jury are left to decide on the merits of the expert knowledge thus provided, but not after an attorney could spin the details his or her way. Thus, the testimony is no longer the objective one that is supposed to be given.
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.
Ethical concerns should have a solid base, something the law may require on specific points and the definitions thereof. If the current outcry for more ethical integrity for expert testimony in cases like these is heard and acted on, the definitions should have prejudicial values taken out. This will enable the experts to testify without any fear that they are being used as pawns for legal debate.
However the decision will go, the testimonies should be the objective things they were meant to be. As witnesses, psychologists, for instance should be allowed to explain all circumstances that pertain to a case, and not just the answer to specific questions provided by an attorney during cross examination. Also, the expert should not be called upon to answer leading questions or those laden with implications.
Nowadays, expert witnesses do not provide legal strength to the jury process, because counselors can simply go about destroying the relevance of their testimonies especially when they do not support client interests. Ethics thus is something that is being abused here and this issue is important for lawyers. Even as the debate rolls on, one other question is more important.
This question is about the status of children during the cases they are involved in. Psychologists know how delicate the mind of children are, and a court case can traumatize it. No matter what issues there are in court, it is not a place where children can be happy, and vicious cross examinations will simply make lawyers the ogres that permanently harm their minds.
Psychologists, legal experts, and sociologists are wondering if the testimonies of experts might not be affecting legal cases in a negative way. They need to know if things like expert witness child abuse is able to deliver relevant and meaningful things to the judicial process. Mostly, they are concerned that lawyers will not use it just for winning a case.
Pros are often needed in court to help clarify the technical details for the civilian jury. Professionals will testify only what they know with regards to their work, and this part of the program can include MEs and forensic people, and the facts they provide all work for making justice that much more workable. It is a practice needed by courts, and now includes any kind of expert in any given field.
The law holds that these people are capable of delivering a kind of judgment that is needed when arguments and other kinds of testimonies are weak. The judge and jury are left to decide on the merits of the expert knowledge thus provided, but not after an attorney could spin the details his or her way. Thus, the testimony is no longer the objective one that is supposed to be given.
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.
Ethical concerns should have a solid base, something the law may require on specific points and the definitions thereof. If the current outcry for more ethical integrity for expert testimony in cases like these is heard and acted on, the definitions should have prejudicial values taken out. This will enable the experts to testify without any fear that they are being used as pawns for legal debate.
However the decision will go, the testimonies should be the objective things they were meant to be. As witnesses, psychologists, for instance should be allowed to explain all circumstances that pertain to a case, and not just the answer to specific questions provided by an attorney during cross examination. Also, the expert should not be called upon to answer leading questions or those laden with implications.
Nowadays, expert witnesses do not provide legal strength to the jury process, because counselors can simply go about destroying the relevance of their testimonies especially when they do not support client interests. Ethics thus is something that is being abused here and this issue is important for lawyers. Even as the debate rolls on, one other question is more important.
This question is about the status of children during the cases they are involved in. Psychologists know how delicate the mind of children are, and a court case can traumatize it. No matter what issues there are in court, it is not a place where children can be happy, and vicious cross examinations will simply make lawyers the ogres that permanently harm their minds.
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.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment