The increasing ties between psychology and law have familiarized psychologists with the standards by which law admits scientific evidence into the courtroom.
In the USA, these include the general acceptance standard and the Daubert guidelines and, in the UK, the Turner Rule.
However, the psychological literature has largely failed to make clear the degree of legal debate that exists concerning the clarity and effectiveness of such standards.
This paper will focus on the general acceptance standard, examining key problems of this standard and placing them in a specifically psychological context.
Such consideration is important precisely because the standard has become so well known within the psychological literature and because insufficient attention has been given to the way in which it operates implicitly within jurisdictions outside the USA.
The authors argue that it is the responsibility of psychologists to become more involved in the debate concerning admissibility standards, given the credibility and authority that law accords to psychology when admitting it into the courtroom.
In particular, psychologists need to become more self-reflective about their role in creating and maintaining such standards.
Mots-clés Pascal : Justice, Témoignage, Attitude, Expertise, Rôle professionnel, Psychologue, Personnel sanitaire, Santé mentale, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Justice, Testimony, Attitude, Expertise, Occupational role, Psychologist, Health staff, Mental health, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0175202
Code Inist : 002B18H04. Création : 11/09/1998.