Observance of the Probative Value of the Psychiatric Forensic Expertise - Guarantee of Avoiding Judicial Errors in Criminal Proceedings

Authors

  • Simona Irina Damian Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, Iasi, Romania
  • Mădălina Maria Diac University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”, Iasi, Romania
  • Anton Knieling Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, Iasi, Romania
  • Tatiana Iov Institute of Legal Medicine, Iasi
  • Diana Bulgaru-Iliescu Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”, Iasi, Romania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenlaw/8.1/37

Keywords:

Forensic psychiatric expertise, probative force, hierarchy of evidence, scientificity of evidence, judicial errors

Abstract

Psychiatric forensic expertise is a type of evidence with a high degree of scientificity, objectivity and credibility, which places it at the top of the evidence hierarchy in criminal proceedings. The practice of the courts reveals a series of cases in which the conclusions of the psychiatric forensic examination were not taken into account at the time when the court issued a verdict, considering that the grounds on which the expertise was eliminated as relevant evidence in those cases is sometimes debatable. This article analyses the probative value of forensic psychiatric expertise from the perspective of the conflict that arises in judicial practice between the principle of scientificity of the evidence and the principle of sovereignty of the judge in assessing the evidence. It analyses the effects that scientificity has on the judge's actual possibility of assessing conclusiveness of the expertise by comparison with other evidence. The conclusions are that the psychiatric forensic expertise has the greatest probative force among all the evidence that could attest to the mental state of the victim or the accused; this evidence can be disregarded by the court at the time of ruling only if there is evidence with equal probative value to combat it; ordering new evidence by the court (supplements to expertise, new expertise, objections, requesting clarifications from the expert) to verify the credibility of the conclusions of the initial expertise should be done only after ensuring a framework that guarantees the compliance with the principle of scientific management of evidence.

Author Biographies

Simona Irina Damian, Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Assoc. Prof., MD, PhD, Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Mădălina Maria Diac, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Assist Prof, MD, PhD student, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Anton Knieling, Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Assoc. Prof., MD, PhD, Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T. Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Tatiana Iov, Institute of Legal Medicine, Iasi

MD, PhD, senior forensic pathologist Institute of Legal Medicine, Iasi

Diana Bulgaru-Iliescu, Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”, Iasi, Romania

Prof, MD, PhD, Institute of Legal Medicine/University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Grigore T Popa”, Iasi, Romania

References

Coman, A. Forţa probantă a raportului de expertiză în procesul penal, 2019. https://www.juridice.ro/649822/forta-probanta-a-raportului-de-expertiza-in-procesul-penal.html

Decizia nr. 787/15.12.2016 referitoare la excepţia de neconstituţionalitate a dispoziţiilor art. 172 alin. (4) şi (10) din Codul de procedură penală. Monitorul Oficial al României, 192,2017, Martie 17.

Decizia civilă nr. 1436/10.02.2009, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti. available from http://www.rolii.ro/hotarari/58ab23b3e490090c4c000958

Decizia penală nr. 200/R/02.02.2010, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti. available from https://www.avocatura.com/speta-9901-penal–vatamarea-corporala-din-culpa-art-184-cp.html

Sentinţa penală nr. 62/15.02.2013, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti. Available from https://legeaz.net/spete-penal-curtea-de-apel-bucuresti-2016/infractiuni-de-coruptie-legea-15-02-2013-y4d

Decizia penală nr. 158/29.01.2016, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti. https://legeaz.net/

spete-penal-curtea-de-apel-bucuresti-2016/evaziune-fiscala-legea-241-2005-29-01-2016-wmy

Decizia penală nr. 579/25.04.2019, Curtea de Apel Bucureşti. http://www.rolii.ro

/hotarari/5cf08807e490091c18000096

Decizia penală nr. 264/10.03.2008, Curtea de Apel Ploieşti. Available from, https://www.juridice.ro/98184/curtea-de-apel-ploiesti-sinteze-de-practica-judiciara-online-2009.htm

Dalby, J. T. and Clavner, E. L. (1997). Applications of psychology in the law practice: A Guide to relevant issues, practices, and theories. General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Section, American Bar Association.

Englich, B., Mussweiler, T. and Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152

Ennis, B. J. and Litwack, T. R. (1974). Psychiatry and the presumption of expertise: Flipping coins in the courtroom. California Law Review, 62(3), 693. https://doi.org

/10.2307/3479746

Ghirdoveanu, I. A., and Hărăboiu, F. (2017). Probele, mijloacele de probă şi procedeele probatorii în procesul penal. https://www.juridice.ro/535174/

probele-mijloacele-de-proba-si-procedeele-probatorii-in-procesul-penal.html

Good, I. J. (1960). Weight of evidence, corroboration, explanatory power, information and the utility of experiments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 22(2), 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1960.

tb00378.x

Ionaşcu, C. O. (2020). Expertiza (examinarea) medico-legală psihiatrică asupra victimei minore şi evaluarea (examinarea) psihologică judiciară a victimei minore. Revista Pro Lege, 2, 76-89.

Iudici, A., Salvini, A., Faccio, E., and Castelnuovo, G. (2015). The clinical assessment in the legal field: an empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01831

Sentinţa penală nr. 368/21.09.2012, Judecătoria Moineşti. http://www.rolii.ro/

hotarari/58a00e96e49009f82100226d

Sentinţa civilă nr. 328/08.02.2010, Judecătoria Tecuci. https://www.jurisprudenta.

com/jurisprudenta/speta-og3frdp

Simona, Damian & Diac, Madalina & Iov, Tatiana & HUNEA, Iuliana & Bulgaru-Iliescu, Diana. (2019). Particularities of Medical Education in the Field of Forensic Toxicology. Studying Dangerous Chemical Agents in Forensic Research. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala. 337-344. 10.18662/rrem/194.

MacCoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 259-287.

Mareş, M. (2015). Mai există principiul nemijlocirii probelor în procesul penal? https://www.juridice.ro/369702/mai-exista-principiul-nemijlocirii-probelor-in-procesul-penal.html

McAuliff, B. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2012). Beliefs and expectancies in legal decision making. Psychology, Crime and Law, 18(1), 1-10.

Nicholson, R. A. and Norwood, S. (2000). The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports, and testimony: Acknowledging the gap between promise and practice. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 9–44.

Ostovari, P., and Bltaga, V. (2019). Specificul expertizei medico-legală psihiatrică. Vector European, 1, 19-22.

Ordonanţa Givernului nr. 1/2000 privind organizarea activităţii şi funcţionarea instituţiilor de medicină legală. Monitorul Oficial al României, nr. 996, 10.11.2005.

Legea br. 135/2010 privind Codul de procedură penală. Monitorul Oficial al României, nr. 486, 15.07.2010.

Raport asupra activităţii reţelei de medicină legală în anul 2018. https://www.legmed.ro/doc/dds2018.pdf

Scripcaru, G., Astărăstoae, V., Boişteanu, P., Chiriţă, V., and Scripcaru, C. (2002). Psihiatrie medico-legală. Iasi, Polirom.

Sandu, A. (2019). The Social Construction of the Profession of Probation Counsellor: An Analysis of the Instrumental and Institutional Framework. Journal of Social Service Research, 45(2), 220-240

Sandu, A. (2017). Assessing the Training Needs in Probation and Restorative Justice. Prezentat în cadrul 4th Central & Eastern European LUMEN International Scientific Conference on Education, Sport & Health

Slobogin, C. (1998). Psychiatric evidence in criminal trials: To junk or not to junk. William & Mary Law Review, 40(1), 1-56.

Stoel, R. D., Dror, I. E., and Miller, L. S. (2013). Bias among forensic document examiners: Still a need for procedural changes. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(1), 91-97.

Udrescu, D. (2018). Bonisch, independenţa experţilor…. https://www.juridice.ro/

/bonisch-independenta-expertilor-cu-ne-bis-in-idem-si-principiul-securitatii-juridice-sau-cat-de-departe-poate-merge-expertul-consilier-parte.html

Downloads

Published

2020-12-10

How to Cite

Damian, S. I. ., Diac, M. M. ., Knieling, A. ., Iov, T. ., & Bulgaru-Iliescu, D. . (2020). Observance of the Probative Value of the Psychiatric Forensic Expertise - Guarantee of Avoiding Judicial Errors in Criminal Proceedings. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Law, 8(1), 60-72. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenlaw/8.1/37

Publish your work at the Scientific Publishing House LUMEN

It easy with us: publish now your work, novel, research, proceeding at Lumen Scientific Publishing House

Send your manuscript right now