Value of Vontent-Based Deception Detection Methods

"Literature abounds with examples of various methods serving detection of deception in testimonies. They can be divided both according to the methods used depending on the tactics of witness interrogation (Gruza, 2009) and the psychological model of analysing testimony veracity (Marten, 2012). Functioning currently is also a division of methods of detecting deception based on the channel of communication analysed (Vrij, 2008): methods based on the analysis of the so-called non-verbal and vocal detection of deception (DePaulo et al., 2003), methods based on psychophysiological analyses (polygraph, EEG, fMRI, and thermography examinations), and methods that analyse the contents of the testimony (e.g. Content Based Criteria Analysis – CBCA, Steller, Köhnken, 1989; Reality Monitoring – RM, Sporer, 2004; Aberdeen Report Judgement Scale – ARJS, Sporer, Breuer, 2009). The last set of tools seems to be most interesting for the potential of an extensive application in judiciary practice, and relative easiness and low cost of application, coupled with powerful theoretical grounds (Wojciechowski, 2012). "(...

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

You Can\u27t Handle the Truth! Trial Juries and Credibility

Every now and again, we get a look, usually no more than a glimpse, at how the justice system really works. What we see—before the sanitizing curtain is drawn abruptly down—is a process full of human fallibility and error, sometimes noble, more often unfair, rarely evil but frequently unequal. The central question, vital to our adjudicative model, is: How well can we expect a jury to determine credibility through the ordinary adversary processes of live testimony and vigorous impeachment? The answer, from all I have been able to see is: not very well

Honesty Without Truth: Lies, Accuracy, and the Criminal Justice Process

Focusing on “lying” is a natural response to uncertainty but too narrow of a concern. Honesty and truth are not the same thing and conflating them can actually inhibit accuracy. In several settings across investigations and trials, the criminal justice system elevates compliant statements, misguided beliefs, and confident opinions while excluding more complex evidence. Error often results. Some interrogation techniques, for example, privilege cooperation over information. Those interactions can yield incomplete or false statements, confessions, and even guilty pleas. Because of the impeachment rules that purportedly prevent perjury, the most knowledgeable witnesses may be precluded from taking the stand. The current construction of the Confrontation Clause right also excludes some reliable evidence—especially from victim witnesses—because it favors face-to-face conflict even though overrated demeanor cues can mislead. And courts permit testimony from forensic experts about pattern matches, such as bite-marks and ballistics, if those witnesses find their own methodologies persuasive despite recent studies discrediting their techniques. Exploring the points of disconnect between honesty and truth exposes some flaws in the criminal justice process and some opportunities to advance fact-finding, truth-seeking, and accuracy instead. At a time when “post-truth” challenges to shared baselines beyond the courtroom grow more pressing, scaffolding legal institutions, so they can provide needed structure and helpful models, seems particularly important. Assessing the legitimacy of legal outcomes and fostering the engagement necessary to reach just conclusions despite adversarial positions could also have an impact on declining facts and decaying trust in broader public life

Child Witness Policy: Law Interfacing with Social Science

The number of children testifying in court has posed serious practical and legal problems for the judicial system. One problem confronting the courts is how to protect children from experiencing the psychological trauma resulting from face-to-face confrontation with a defendant who may have physically harmed the child or threatened future harm to the child