NCJ Number
101653
Journal
Law and Hman Behavior Volume: 10 Issue: 1-2 Dated: (June 1986) Pages: 29-45
Date Published
1986
Length
17 pages
Annotation
Cognitive psychologists should decide for themselves whether and how to testify as expert witnesses rather than letting judges and lawyers settle these issues for them.
Abstract
A central problem for professional ethics is whether those acting as agents in professional roles should act on their own moral perceptions or defer to those with the special authority to make decisions within particular institutional contexts. The psychologist's role as an expert witness is one example of this issue. Psychologists should make decisions for themselves and should try to control the nature of their testimony. In addition, direct moral arguments support a general presumption in favor of psychologists' testimony on the accuracy of eyewitnesses. Such testimony fits the legal criterion of reasonable doubt, if the psychologists' information is more accurate than that of the average juror and lawyer. Finally, psychologists who testify as expert witnesses must resist intense adversarial pressures and must present their testimony as impartially and objectively as possible. 8 references. (Author abstract modified)