Ethics of Testimony: Conflicting Views on the Role of the Criminologist as Expert Witness (From Expert Witnesses, P 178-199, 1987, Patrick R Anderson and L Thomas Winfree, Jr, eds. -- See NCJ-112768)

• NCJ Number: 112777
• Author(s): B L Ingraham
• Date Published: 1987
• Length: 22 pages
• Sale Source: State University of New York Press
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper argues that criminologists are not ethically justified in testifying as experts in judicial proceedings because the process cannot, by reason of its structure and the people who operate it, lead to an objective understanding of scientific knowledge.

Abstract

Among the reasons given are that adversary procedures do not seek to communicate facts or determine truth, but rather to communicate position statements about reality. Furthermore, it is difficult for expert witnesses to avoid slanting testimony to strengthen or support the position of litigants whose causes they believe are just. Finally, modern rules of evidence place few legal constraints on experts testifying as to matters that are purely conjecture. The paper discusses the application of ethical principles endorsed by academic and research communities to legal proceedings, as well as differing mind sets of social scientists and lawyers. An alternative procedure using court-appointed and summoned expert witnesses is outlined. The conclusion notes that the public credibility of one scientific profession, psychiatry, has perhaps been irreparably damaged by conflicts between expert witnesses. 11 footnotes.