Psychological evidence in the courtroom: critical reflections on the general acceptance standard

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 psychologic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of community & applied social psychology 1998-01, Vol.8 (1), p.23-39
Main Authors: Zeedyk, M. Suzanne, Raitt, Fiona E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acceptability
Biological and medical sciences
Courts
Criminal justice
Daubert guidelines
expert evidence
expert witnesses
Experts
Forensic evidence
general acceptance standard
Health staff related problems. Vocational training
Medical sciences
Psychological assessment
Psychologists
Psychology
psychology and law
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
scientific knowledge
Social psychiatry. Ethnopsychiatry
Turner rule
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN:1052-9284
1099-1298
DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(199801/02)8:1<23::AID-CASP439>3.0.CO;2-I