Titlebook: Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice; Psychological Perspe Peter J. Koppen,Steven D. Penrod Book 2003 Springer Science+Business Media N

stressors

Expert Witnesses in Europe and the United States,The observations contained in this chapter suggest that, when it comes to coping with scientific and other expert evidence, neither the Anglo-American adversary system nor the Civil Law system is quite up to the task. But they tend to fail in different ways, and that may provide clues to improving both.

elucidate

Perspectives in Law & Psychologyhttp://image.papertrans.cn/a/image/150414.jpg

彎曲的人

Control and Modeling of Complex Systemsit merely a matter of appearances? To answer this question one could make a list of objectives that one wants a legal procedure to serve, and next do a series of experiments to decide empirically which objectives are best served by which system. As a matter of fact, at one time this was done by John

nitroglycerin

conceal

平息

Yutaka Yamamoto,Masaaki Nagaharang of the 21st century. . became one of the pivotal criteria for involuntary hospitalization of people with mental disorders in the 1960s. Tort liability was first imposed on clinicians who negligently failed to predict their patients’ violence in the 1970s. Statutes authorizing involuntary treatmen

金絲雀

令人不快

孤獨無助

細查

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64336-2. However, when the evidence is eyewitness testimony of a child, complex psycho-legal issues are raised: issues of children’s comprehension, competence, accuracy, and emotional resilience, and issues of the legal system’s ability to adapt itself to the needs of children so that truth can be ascertai