Titlebook: Handbook of Psychology and Law; Dorothy K. Kagehiro,William S. Laufer Book 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992 civil law.co

Jargon

Jonathan J. Koehlertoo many ar- ments using complicated notation. This is a problem with the entire subject, and it is important to understand the idea of the proof, which is often quite simple. Two particular places that are hea978-1-84800-939-4978-1-84800-940-0Series ISSN 0172-5939 Series E-ISSN 2191-6675

foppish

推遲

安定

The Law and Psychology of Precedentl, 1966; Monahan & Loftus, 1982; Tapp, 1976). Divergent methods, reasoning, and decision making underscore allegations of disciplinary incompatibility (cf. Melton, 1987; Monahan & Walker, 1988). A prime example of this incompatibility, it has been argued, may be found in psychology’s devotion to the

ALIBI

Jury Decision Makingty in the laboratory, in the real world, trial by jury is a statistically rare event. Historical analyses of the jury indicate that at one time the jury decided far more trials than the approximately 8% of criminal cases that it is estimated to hear today (Green, 1985; Hans & Vidmar, 1986). Social a

抑制

芳香一點(diǎn)

Alternative Dispute Resolution in Trial and Appellate Courtsion and arbitration programs have become common features of state and federal court procedure. Many of these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures have been the target of empirical program evaluation studies, and there is now a substantial body of research on the workings and consequences

轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)

Use of Psychologists and Psychological Research in Legislative Decision Making on Public Interest Ma impact on public policy (Ruback & Innes, 1988) but may not participate in the legislative process for a number of reasons. These include an overidealistic trust that legislative success can occur without active participation (Dorken, 1977), insufficient knowledge of the political process (Deleon, 1

不如屎殼郎

Eyewitness Evidence and Testimony perception, and social psychology, we summarize in this chapter the current knowledge of jurors’ beliefs about eyewitness testimony, factors that affect eyewitness accuracy, as well as aspects of the testimony and witness characteristics that influence juror belief. Finally, we discuss the issue of

strain

Normative and Empirical Issues About the Role of Expert Witnessesas to a situation or on facts which have been established by other witnesses, is anomalous in Anglo-Saxon law. It was to be expected that former generations of judges and lawyers, trained in older precedents and practices who recognized the appearance in the courts of an expert witness as an innovat