Are Verdicts Credible? Is it Time to Consider the Truth About Lies?
Tóm tắt
One of the greatest challenges to any Court is to determine the truth in the face of often conflicting evidence. In both the Civil and Criminal Courts, cases stand or fall on what the trier of fact determines is true. In civil cases, this is often a Judge sitting alone, whereas in criminal matters the tribunal of fact is usually a jury. The standard of proof required in criminal cases is “beyond reasonable doubt”. Juries are directed that they can only convict “if they are sure”. The jurors might be sure, but are they correct? There now exists a substantial body of scientific evidence, which indicates that humans are very poor lie detectors. In fact, in some experiments even experienced police officers perform only just above chance. Given this inherent flaw in the system, is it not time to re-evaluate how cases are put before the Courts, and what weight is put on oral testimony.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Green, M. 2011. Lies, damned lies and physiology. The Biologist 58(1): 29–32.
Hart, C.L., D.G. Fillmore, and J.D. Griffith. 2009. Indirect detection of deception: Looking for change. Current issues in Social Psychology 14: 134–142.
Landström, S., P.A. Granhag, and M. Hartwig. 2005. Witnesses appearing live versus on video: Effects on observers’ perception, veracity assessments and memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19: 913–933.
Schauer (2009) Can bad science be good evidence? Lie detection, neuroscience and the mistaken conflation of legal and scientific norms. Public law and legal theory research paper. Series Number 2009-14. Accessible at http://ssm.com/abstract=1448744.
The Global Deception Team. 2006. A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 37: 60–74.
Virj, A. 2008. Detecting lies and deceit: pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester: Wiley.
Virj, A., P.A. Granhag, and S. Porter. 2010. Pitfalls and opportunities in non verbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Sciences in the Public Interest 11(3): 89–121.