ABSTRACT

Structured assessment of witness credibility in intimate partner violence (IPV) allegations has been well established for child custody purposes, although it is far from being systematically implemented, particularly when child custody is not at stake. Unstructured approaches may follow general, long-accepted guidelines in legal proceedings but ignore empirical knowledge about perpetrators and victims produced by years of cumulative research. Furthermore, judgments are at a high risk of being compromised by characteristics of the informant, the listener, and the situation. An accurate analysis of witness credibility is harder to accomplish and more essential when there is no conclusive evidence or when the alleged perpetrator denies the accusations and has no known history of interpersonal violence. To not believe real victims or wrongfully convict innocent individuals are miscarriages of justice that might be prevented to a certain extent if we improve credibility assessment accuracy. In this case report, I used a structured method that demonstrates how a conclusion about the credibility of an alleged victim of IPV can contrast with the conclusion produced by a trial judge. A structured credibility assessment of the alleged victim could have produced a different judgment. Implications for individuals, their families, and the justice system are discussed.

摘要

对亲密伴侣暴力 (IPV) 指控中证人可信度的结构化评估已经为儿童监护目的确立了良好的基础，尽管它远未系统实施，尤其是在儿童监护权没有受到威胁的情况下。非结构化方法可能遵循法律诉讼中普遍的、长期接受的指导方针，但忽略了多年累积研究产生的关于肇事者和受害者的经验知识。此外，判断很容易受到线人、听众和情况的特征的影响。当没有确凿的证据或被指控的肇事者否认指控并且没有已知的人际暴力历史时，对证人可信度的准确分析更难完成，也更重要。不相信真正的受害者或错误地定罪无辜的人是误判，如果我们提高可信度评估的准确性，可以在一定程度上防止。在本案例报告中，我使用了一种结构化的方法来展示关于所谓的 IPV 受害者的可信度的结论如何与初审法官得出的结论形成对比。对据称受害者的结构化可信度评估可能会产生不同的判断。讨论了对个人、他们的家庭和司法系统的影响。我使用了一种结构化的方法来展示关于所谓的 IPV 受害者的可信度的结论如何与初审法官得出的结论形成对比。对据称受害者的结构化可信度评估可能会产生不同的判断。讨论了对个人、他们的家庭和司法系统的影响。我使用了一种结构化的方法来展示关于所谓的 IPV 受害者的可信度的结论如何与初审法官得出的结论形成对比。对据称受害者的结构化可信度评估可能会产生不同的判断。讨论了对个人、他们的家庭和司法系统的影响。