目击证人研究

目击证人的证词对维持司法系统公正的重要性使得对目击证人的研究成为当今法律心理学和司法领域的热点之一。目击证人的错误证词是导致锗判案件的最常见原因。警方在询问、队列辨认与照片识别中的特定程序和行为,目击证人的记忆、年龄、性别、种族、自信程度等．都将影响证词的准确性。     

心理学关于目击证人证言可靠性实证研究

目击证人的证词在刑事诉讼中有着极为重要的作用,但是由于证人对案件的记忆往往会受到其自身和外界各种因素的干扰,因此,对于目击证人证词可靠性的研究引起了心理学界的关注,西方心理学界自上个世纪七十年代以来,从证人的年龄性别、心理状态、对证人的询问方式以及辨认的情景等方面进行了大量的实证研究,为司法实践提供了重要的启示。本文从以上四个方面全面总结了西方心理学界关于证人证词可靠性的实证研究,并作了分析与展望。     

关于目击者证词可靠性的研究

法学界关于目击者证词有两种观点：目击者能提供更可靠的证据；目击者的证词不可靠，其准确性受到国内外多因素的影响。应用认知心理学的研究证明：目击者回忆、再认的准确性以及对其证词准确性的自信水平随信息、内容、及反应性质的不同而变化。总的来说，现在目击者词可靠性的评价有失偏颇，主要认为目击者证词不可靠，我们应该对此有比较客观的评价，以正确利用它提高悚地工作质量。     

道德证词及其问题探析

证词是我们了解世界的一个重要途径,但关于道德证词能否作为我们道德知识的来源或根据,哲学家们却有争议。一些哲学家认为,我们可以依赖非道德证词,但不能依赖道德证词,虽然道德证词能够传递道德知识或正确的道德信念,因为存在一个规范使得依赖道德证词是有问题的,这个规范就是:道德主体应该根据道德理解行动。另一些哲学家则认为,关于道德证词和非道德证词的"非对称性"观点是错误的,道德证词与非道德证词一样,完全没有问题。事实上,某些情况下依赖道德证词是有问题的--道德理解问题,但道德证词不比非道德证词更有问题,或者说,非道德证词与道德证词有同样的问题。     

目击证人暗示感受性的研究及进展

暗示感受性指一个人对误导信息的易感性或抵抗力.在目击证人记忆研究领域,有两种暗示感受性:延迟的提取错误和立即的误导信息接受.研究者用不同方法对这两种类型的暗示感受性及影响因素进行研究,并进行整合.这对司法实践中证人证词真实性鉴别有重要理论和实践意义.     

法律心理学研究的新热点--儿童目击证人研究

为满足获取儿童目击证人准确证词的司法需求,大量西方法律心理学家涉足这一领域,使儿童目击证人研究成为近十多年来法律心理学研究的新热点。鉴于我国法律还没有对儿童作为目击证人作明文规定,西方心理学家的研究成果值得我国法律心理学界关注。     

证据顺序和证词自信度对学前末期儿童因果推理的影响

开展两个实验探究证据顺序和证词自信水平对5岁儿童因果推理的影响机制。132名和127名5岁儿童分别参与实验1和实验2。实验1发现证据顺序对儿童因果推理的影响表现为近因效应,但证词的自信水平差异不影响儿童的因果推理;实验2发现如果儿童注意到证词的自信水平信息,他们更倾向于在自信证词条件依据证词推断因果关系,证据顺序的影响力被削弱。研究结果说明证据顺序变化导致易受影响的近因效应。     

从纠问式诉讼及当事人主义论——审判模式对证言可靠性的影响

在审理案件中,自古以来都需要使用证人。在刑事案件的审理中,证人证词的可信度的甄别与确定是审理案件的关键。实践告诉我们,证人证言的错误率是很高的。影响证言的可靠性因素包括精神因素及心理品质等。我国司法心理学的奠基人,著名的犯罪心理学家林秉贤教授曾在其著作《犯罪心理学纲要》一书中,从以下九个方面进行了详尽的论述：即感知因素对证言的影响、注意因素对证言的影响、遗忘与暗示因素对证言的影响、情绪状态对证言的影响、主体态度对证言的影响、证人作证动机对证言的影响、主体陈述背景对证言的影响、执法过程中交往的层次对证言的影响等。这里换个角度,尝试从纠问式诉讼及当事人主义研究——审判模式对证言可靠性的影响。谓之独辟蹊径也好,一派谬论也罢,但愿能自圆其说。     

儿童目击证人取证过程的玩偶辅助研究

儿童目击证人取证是司法实践的难题之一,警方的取证策略和方式被批评对儿童有一定的暗示作用,从而影响儿童证词的准确性。本项研究考察了玩偶辅助的取证模式对学龄前儿童目击证人的影响。实验显示在目击成人与儿童冲突的事件中使用玩偶辅助取证模式显著优于传统的警方提问取证模式,并且不会给学龄前儿童造成严重的误导。     

证据顺序和证词可信度对学前末期儿童因果推理的影响

开展两个实验探究证据顺序和证词可信度对学前末期(65～70月龄)儿童因果推理的影响。132名和127名儿童分别参与实验1和实验2。实验1发现证据顺序对儿童因果推理的影响表现为近因效应,证词可信度不影响儿童的推理结果;实验2发现如果强制要求儿童注意证词可信度信息,他们更相信可信证词而非不可信证词,证据顺序对推理结果无影响。研究结果说明学前末期儿童的因果推理受证据顺序和证词可信度的共同影响:在未被要求注意证词可信度时,受制于有限的工作记忆容量,大多数儿童依据最近接收到的证据推断因果关系;如果注意到证词可信度信息,更多儿童依据证词(可信证词条件)或观察结果(不可信证词条件)推断因果关系。     

Eyewitness testimony

The study of eyewitness testimony is thriving. Over the last three decades, psychologists have made important discoveries, and applied those discoveries to the legal system in myriad ways. Along the way, there were disagreements, which were typically healthy in nature. I discuss a few, for example, centering around the impact of misinformation on witnesses, the role of witness confidence and lineup procedures, and expert testimony. The “Memory Wars” were not so friendly, but hopefully the collective effort has helped to make the world a fairer place.     

Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony

The veracity of child witness testimony is central to the justice system where there are serious consequences for the child, the accused, and society. Thus, it is important to examine how children’s lie-telling abilities develop and the factors that can influence their truthfulness. The current review examines children’s lie-telling ability in relation to child witness testimony. Although research demonstrates that children develop the ability to lie at an early age, they also understand that lie-telling is morally unacceptable and do not condone most types of lies. Children’s ability to lie effectively develops with age and is related to their increasing cognitive sophistication. However, even children’s early lies can be difficult to detect. Greater lie elaboration requires greater skill and children’s ability to lie effectively improves with development and as a function of cognitive skill. Different methods of promoting children’s truthful reports as well as the social and motivational factors that affect children’s honesty will be discussed.     

Motivational Bias in Criminal Investigators' Judgments of Witness Reliability1

An experiment was conducted where experienced criminal investigators (N = 49) evaluated the testimony of a witness who either confirmed or disconfirmed the focal hypothesis in a homicide case. Participants' motivation to perpetuate the hypothesis was manipulated by varying the need for cognitive closure via time pressure. The hypothesis‐inconsistent witness was perceived as less reliable and credible, although its background and witnessing conditions were identical to those of the hypothesis‐consistent witness. While this asymmetrical skepticism was not moderated by time pressure, participants under high (vs. low) time pressure were less inclined to adjust their confidence in the hypothesis in line with the witness testimony. Discussion focuses on implications for criminal investigations and theoretical contributions to investigative psychology.     

Evaluating Corroborative Evidence

How should we evaluate an argument in which two witnesses independently testify to some claim? In fact what would happen is that the testimony of the second witness would be taken to corroborate that of the first to some extent, thereby boosting up the plausibility of the first argument from testimony. But does that commit the fallacy of double counting, because the second testimony is already taken as independent evidence supporting the claim? Perhaps the corroboration effect should be considered illogical, since each premise should be seen as representing a separate reason in a convergent argument for accepting the claim as plausible. In this paper, we tackle the problem using argumentation schemes and argument diagramming. We examine a number of examples, and come up with two hypotheses that offer methods of analyzing and evaluating this kind of evidence.     

When Eyewitnesses Talk

ABSTRACT— When two people witness an event, they often discuss it. Because memory is not perfect, sometimes this discussion includes errors. One person's errors can become part of another person's account, and this proliferation of error can lead to miscarriages of justice. In this article, we describe the social and cognitive processes involved. Research shows how people combine information about their own memory with other people's memories based on factors such as confidence, perceived expertise, and the social cost of disagreeing with other people. We describe the implications of this research for eyewitness testimony.     

Legal and Social Issues Surrounding Closed-Circuit Television Testimony of Child Victims and Witnesses

Summary

Prosecution of crimes involving child victims and witnesses is particularly difficult because of the age of the children involved. Facing the alleged offender in court and the experience itself of testifying in an open court with dozens of onlookers are acutely difficult. The effect on children may be traumatic, with the potential to produce substantial psychological and emotional harm. Various court procedures have been implemented in the United States in an effort to minimize these effects. Court procedures can include erecting screens to shield the child victim or witness, presenting videotaped testimony, or testifying via one-way or two-way closed-circuit television. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) testimony, which is especially controversial, involves both legal issues surrounding the constitutionality of such testimony and social issues regarding the effectiveness of closed-circuit television testimony. Substantial variation across states in provisions for closed-circuit television testimony for child witnesses is problematic. Consideration is given to how social science research directly influenced the Supreme Court's decision in Maryland v. Craig(1990), and the current state of research regarding use of CCTV and court outcomes. Some research suggests a pro-defense bias when CCTV is used.     

The psychology of confessions: A comparison of expert and lay opinions

Despite a body of confessions research that is generally accepted in the scientific community, courts often exclude experts on the ground that such testimony would not assist the jury, which can use its common sense. To examine whether laypeople know the contents of expert testimony on confessions, we asked 151 lay participants to indicate their beliefs about 30 confession‐related statements used in a recent survey of 87 confession experts (Kassin et al., American Psychologist, 2018, 73, 63–80). Participants agreed with experts on only 10 of the 30 propositions, suggesting that much of the psychology of confessions is not common knowledge and that expert testimony can assist the trier of fact.     

近20年来美国法律社会心理学研究新进展

20世纪80年代以来美国法律社会心理学在陪审团、证人证言、公民对犯罪的态度等方面的研究取得了一些新成果。从这些新成果可以看出,该领域的研究者们更注重将社会心理学与法学的观点和研究视角相结合,使自己的理论成果更符合实践要求。