On Ethics and Responsibilities

  • Harry Hollien
Part of the Applied Psycholinguistics and Communication Disorders book series (APCD)

Abstract

This chapter is being included for several reasons. First off, books such as this one (i.e., those that focus on content areas) rarely include descriptions of the various behaviors associated with, or required by, the practical application of the processes involved. Of course, when engaged to carry out an evaluative task, the professional forensic phonetician practically always will be asked for some sort of report and, in perhaps 20–30% of the cases, he or she will be requested or required to testify in a court of law. Hence, I feel some responsibility to review the dimensions of these activities—just as I touched on report writing on several occasions. Second, although the content of this book is but an introduction to the area of forensic phonetics and not designed to turn the reader into an operating professional, you may have some questions about the proper application of ethics as they relate to the forensic milieu, the process of testifying as an expert witness, and so on. The comments to follow and, especially, the references listed should either answer these questions or lead you to sources that do.

Keywords

Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Judicial System Expert Testimony Expert Witness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahearne, J. F. (1988) Addressing Public Concerns in Science, Physics Today 41:36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buckout, R. (1976) Nobody Likes a Smartass: Expert Testimony by Psychologists, Social Action and The Law 3:41–53.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Canton, B. J. (1986) Tips for Expert Witness, The Expert and the Law (M. J. Gorman, Ed.), Lawrenceville, NJ, 6:5-6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cederbaums, J. G. and Arnold, S. (1975) Scientific and Expert Evidence in Criminal Advocacy, New York, Practicing Law Institute.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dean, D. J. (1984) The Presentation of Recorded Evidence, Conf. Police Appl. Speech Tape Recording Analysis, London, Institute of Acoustics, 49–55.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fallis, S. M., Jr. (1981) Confronting the Expert Witness—The Prosecution Perspective, Scientific and Expert Evidence (E. J. Imwinkelried, Ed.), New York, Practicing Law Institute, 75–86.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gench, W. J. (1987) Trial Success Linked to Meeting Expert Witnesses’ Expectations, The Expert and The Law (J. J. Gorman, Ed.), Lawrenceville, NJ, 7:5-7 (reprinted from The National Law Journal).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins, K. M. and Selavka, C. M. (1988) Do Forensic Science Graduate Programs Fulfill the Needs of the Forensic Science Community, J. Forensic Sciences 33:1015–1021.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hollien, H. (1987) Consultant of Expert Witness? A Serious Problem for Scientists, paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, February.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hollien, H. (1988) Problems of Ethics. Symposium on the Use of the Language Scientist as Expert in the Legal Setting, New York, New York Academy of Sciences, April.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howard, L. B. (1986) The Diochotomy of the Expert Witness, J. Forensic Sciences 31:337–341.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Imwinkelried, E. J. (1986) Evidence Law and Tactics for the Proponents of Scientific Evidence, in Scientific and Expert Evidence, (E. J. Imwinkelried, Ed.), New York, Practicing Law Institute, 33–74.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Imwinkelried, E. J. (1986) Science Takes the Stand: The Growing Misuse of Expert Testimony, The Sciences, November/December, 20-24.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jenner, J. R. (1981) Meeting Expert Testimony—The Defense Perspective, Scientific and Expert Evidence (E. J. Imwinkelried, Ed.), New York, Practicing Law Institute, 87–97.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kates, J. H. and Guttenplan, H. L. (1983) Ethical Considerations in Forensic Science Services, J. Forensic Sciences 28:972–976.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liebenson, H. A. and Wepman, J. M. (1964) The Psychologist as a Witness, Mundelein, IL, Callaghan and Co.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller, T. H. (1983) Noverbal Communication in Expert Testimony, J. Forensic Sciences 28:523–527.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moenssens, A. A., Moses, R. E. and Inbau, F. E. (1973). Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases, New York, The Fountain Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peterson, J. L. (1988) Teaching Ethics in a Forensic Sciences Curriculum, J. Forensic Sciences 33:1081–1085.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Philips, K. A. (1977) The Nuts and Bolts of Testifying as a Forensic Scientist, J. Forensic Sciences 22:457–463.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Renshaw, B. and Kaplan, C. (1980) Computer Crime: Expert Witness Manual, Washington, DC, Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenthal, P. (1983) Nature of Jury Response to the Expert Witness, J. Forensic Sciences 28:528–531.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroeder, O. C. (1984) Ethical and Moral Dilemmas Confronting Forensic Scientists, J. Forensic Sciences 29:966–986.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sereno, K. K. (1983) Source Credibility, J. Forensic Sciences 28:532–536.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Siegel, J. A. (1988) The Appropriate Educational Background for Entry Level Forensic Sciences: A Survey of Practitioners, J. Forensic Sciences 33:1065–1068.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith, F. P., Lin, R. H. and Lindquist, C. A. (1988) Research Experience and Future Criminalists, J. Forensic Sciences 33:1074–1080.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tanton, R. L. (1979) Jury Preconceptions and Their Effect on Expert Scientific Testimony, J. Forensic Sciences 24:681–691.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Undeutch, U. (1982) Statement Reality Analysis, in Reconstructing the Past (A. Trankel, Ed.), Deventer, The Netherlands, Kluver, Law and Taxation Pub.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Virginia Tech Foundation vs. Family Group Limited (1987) US District Court, Western District of Virginia. Opinion, March 18, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry Hollien
    • 1
  1. 1.University of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations