Forensic Psychology The Implications of the Daubert &amp

0 Comment

Frye RulingsThe Daubert and Frye Rulings and Their Implications for Forensic Psychology The aim of this work is to summarize of my own understanding of the Daubert and Frye rulings and their implications for forensic psychology. The information from the book The Neurobiology of Visual Saccadic Decision Making by P.W. Glimcher and from the website of . Lectric Law Library was added to this work. In the USA, there are basically two standard assumptions of scientific evidence, both standards got their names on the relevant proceedings. This is the Daubert standard and Frye standard. Criminal jurisprudence of the Frye standard allows only the scientific evidence, whose theories and methodologies have gained universal acceptance among members of the relevant scientific field. Daubert standard rejects this single criterion of universal acceptance and instead entrusts the responsibility of the judge to assess whether the proposed expert testimony is reliable and scientifically sound. In assessing the scientific validity of the courts should consider a number of factors, such as general acceptance, the criticism of the definite field, the reliability of the method, the number of errors, the ability to check out the fallacy. For a long time after the Frye standard was formulated, the jurisprudence on the admissibility of polygraph evidence remained miscellaneous. At the state level judicial authorities adopted a trade-off: a polygraph test was seen as a means of questioning during the police investigation. However, the readings of the appliance arent the evidence to the judicial inquiry.Keywords: evaluation of the reliability of reported information, polygraph (lie-detector), Daubert standard, Frye standard.The Daubert and Frye Rulings and Their Implications for Forensic Psychology The main task of the court hearing is to find the forensic evidence proving the guilt / innocence of the accused. There are many factors influencing the decision. According to the Frye standard the court determines whether the actions of the accused were intentional or involuntary. It is done by means of various instruments, traced to the brain, heart, etc., during the testimony. However, an understanding of voluntary action in the judicial practice differs from the understanding of a voluntary act in psychology and neuroscience. From the point of view of any psychologist and neuroscientist judicial arbitrary act committed by a reasonable person will seem rather vague and non-coincident with their (psychologist and neuroscientist) understanding. However, the division of the acts into punishable and non-punishable on the basis of them being arbitrary/ accidental, rational/irrational, emotional/non-emotional works well in judicial practice and is based on an intuitive universal consensus in society (Glimcher, 2008). If the punishable crime has only a single bond with, for example, low levels of certain neurotransmitters in the brain (and no other state is associated with this level), then the Frye standard for determining guilt will work. But if there is the same level of this neurotransmitter in the states, which, are and arent punishable, this method is not suitable. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Frye standard excludes the human factor influence on the judge decision, but this method is not universal. Daubert standard, in its turn, allows to take the nuances excluded by Frye standard into account. ReferencesGlimcher, P.W. (2003) The Neurobiology of Visual Saccadic Decision Making.Annual Review of Neuroscience. 26: 133-179.Federal Standard For Expert Testimony. Lectric Law Librarys Stacks.