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.
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.
Experts take the stand as representatives of their profession to clarify certain issues related to their field. This part of the court process is also when people like forensics specialists and MEs are given their time to lay out precise details related to the case, the better for the jury to make a good and just judgment. This practice has come to encompass anyone with the relevant professional training.
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.
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.
Today, testimonies are not untouchable or sacrosanct because many trial attorneys rely on a method of argument that will destroy testimonial value when they see it as a block to winning the case. Thus ethics should come to the fore and solve one the thorniest issues for lawyering today. The debate goes on, but there should be one question that is always kept top of mind.
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.
Experts take the stand as representatives of their profession to clarify certain issues related to their field. This part of the court process is also when people like forensics specialists and MEs are given their time to lay out precise details related to the case, the better for the jury to make a good and just judgment. This practice has come to encompass anyone with the relevant professional training.
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.
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.
Today, testimonies are not untouchable or sacrosanct because many trial attorneys rely on a method of argument that will destroy testimonial value when they see it as a block to winning the case. Thus ethics should come to the fore and solve one the thorniest issues for lawyering today. The debate goes on, but there should be one question that is always kept top of mind.
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.