DSpace Repository

die sielkundige as deskundige getuie in strafsake

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author wolmarans a en
dc.date.accessioned 2016-09-22T09:55:04Z
dc.date.available 2016-09-22T09:55:04Z
dc.date.created 1986 en
dc.date.submitted 1987 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11892/65108
dc.description.abstract A great deal of attention has been paid to the field of Forensic Psychology in the past few years. The collaboration between psychologists and the legal fraternity has not always been productive nor have the existing lines of communication been effectively employed on all occasions. Clinical psychologists who have been called in their professional capacity as experts to give evidence in court find themselves embroiled in the controversy regarding the role of the psychologists in the judicial system. A study of the available literature has shown that the role of the psychologist as expert witness is not governed by law in South Africa. Those psychologists who are called upon to give evidence have no guidelines in the writing of reports or in the presentation of evidence in court. The available literature indicates that there is a regrettable dearth of research in this field. Research performed in the USA indicates that psychological reports, particularly those used in criminal court cases, have frequently been criticized by the legal fraternity. It appeared, in consequence, necessary to investigate those aspects of a criminal case on which a psychologist may give evidence. The first hypothesis, therefore, postulated that there should be concurrence among various groups of experts regarding those aspects on which psychologists are allowed to give evidence in criminal cases. It also, however, became apparent that it was necessary to determine how forensic reports would be evaluated by these experts. The second hypothesis postulated that, should the experts reach unanimity with regard to those aspects on which psychologists may give evidence, they would, as a result, also be able to differentiate between more and less appropriate psychological reports. To test these hypotheses a spot check was performed on a representative sample of magistrates, state prosecutors, legal representatives and clinical psychologists. Two questionnaires were given to these groups for completion. The first questionnaire dealt with the importance and admissibility of certain aspects of psychological evidence. The second questionnaire consisted of an analysis of six forensic psychological reports on the basis of the criteria derived from the literature. The results of this research provided some support for the first hypothesis where it indicated concurrence among the various groups of experts on those aspects on which psychologists may give evidence. The second hypothesis was, however, not supported by the data. It was found that the various groups of experts judged the reports in very nearly the same way. The analysis of reports also did not differ meaningfully from each other with regard to the required essentials. On the grounds of the results of the investigation and the analysis of the available literature, certain guidelines could be given to psychologists who, as expert witnesses, give evidence in South African courts. It has become evident, however, that further research in this area is necessary. en
dc.language Afrikaans en
dc.subject Psychology en
dc.subject General en
dc.subject 022 Law en
dc.title die sielkundige as deskundige getuie in strafsake en
dc.type Masters degree en
dc.description.degree MA en

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record