Samenvatting
Summary Experts and their Biases Problem 1-7
- Instelling
- Maastricht University (UM)
Summary of course 'Experts and their Biases' for Legal Psychology and Forensic Psychology masters.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 41 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 41 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
2 beoordelingen
Door: aardbeien • 4 jaar geleden
Door: lorrainenijenhuis • 5 jaar geleden
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Experts and their BiasesProblem 1: Experts
Schweitzer (2018): What evidence matters to jurors?
Usually 90-95% of the cases end in a plea deal and only 5-10% goes to a jury trial.
Knowing what type of evidence is valued in court has empirical implications for
researchers, but also practical implications for attorneys.
There are three types of evidence
1. Eyewitness testimony, in which the confidence of the witness is the most
influential part
2. Expert testimony, for which the weight differs for every juror. It is a prevalent
type of evidence; 69-80% of the civil and criminal cases contain expert
testimony.
3. Visual evidence, in which photos influence the jury to give a more punitive
sentence.
Aim was to extend the current literature regarding the prevalence and importance of
trial evidence
Study 1
Aim was to assess what legal professionals report as being common evidence in
homicide trials
Method Attorneys and judges from 6 states completed an online survey in which they
had to rate how common a piece of evidence was and if they encountered this type of
evidence in their last trial. There were four domains of evidence: Biological/physical,
documentary, demonstrative and testimony.
Results
The most common types of evidence were as follows:
- Crime scene photos
- Witness to the crime
- Diagram injuries
- Police expert
- Forensic expert
- Weapon
- Fingerprints
- Maps
- Audio or video confession
1
,Study 2
Aim was to assess how important mock jurors find the types of evidence for their
verdicts
Method Mock jurors completed an online survey in which they rated the importance
of the type of evidence for their verdict without any context.
Results
- All evidence was assessed as ‘somewhat important’
- Most important were:
o DNA
o Fingerprints
o Weapon
o Video records
o Crime scene photos
o Gunshot residue
o Bodily secretions
o Video confession
o Forensic expert
o Eyewitness
Study 3
Aim was to examine whether or not the perceptions of mock jurors would be altered
if they were only presented with the top 10 most important types of evidence from
study 2
Method The researchers first conducted a pilot study that left them with 4 types of
evidence instead of 10. A process-tracing method was used to assess the order in
which the mock jurors viewed the evidence. The evidence that was viewed first was
deemed as most important. Again, mock jurors completed an online survey, which
presented DNA, eyewitness testimony, fingerprints and a video confession. All the
evidence was incriminating.
Results
- DNA was most likely to be viewed first; then video confession; then
eyewitness testimony and last fingerprints.
Limitations
- In the last study, people might have viewed DNA first, not because it was
deemed most important, but because they did not have prior knowledge about
this topic and wanted to learn more about this.
2
, - There was no inclusion of exculpatory evidence
- The types of evidence were only specific to homicide cases
- The researchers did not present the mock jurors with the types of evidence that
were used most often in court.
Thomas (2018): Assessment of expert performance compared across professional
domains
Aim was to explain variability in the performance of experts across different domains
Professional competence is expert performance across the domain level
Expertise is performance at the individual level
There are different techniques to identify professional competence. It is unnecessary
to assess professional competence when the correct answer or ground truth is known.
- Consensus is when domain experts agree with each other (inter-rater
reliability)
- Consistency is when domain experts agree with themselves when making
repeated judgements (intra-rater reliability)
These two constructs differ per domain. For example, stockbrokers and clinical
psychologists have low consistency, whereas weather forecasters and auditors have
high consistency.
Measure Description Limitation
Experience Amount of year on the job Not correlated with expertise
Accreditation Accreditation or Reflects more of job-relevant
certification of certain skill experience than expertise
Peer Being nominated as expert Popularity is not a proxy for
identification by peers expertise
3
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper evavanrosmalen. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €10,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 70055 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen