Expert Bias and Partisanship: A Comparison Between Australia and the Netherlands.

Abstract

Adversarial systems and court-centered systems approach the use of expert evidence very differently. This article focuses on the perspectives held by judges and other process participants on bias and partisanship in expert reporting in Australia and the Netherlands. It aims to provide insight into the origins of, and reasons for, bias and partisanship, focusing on psychological and psychiatric expertise. The first part of the article explains differences between adversarial and court-centered systems with respect to the involvement of experts. The second part examines judicial attitudes with respect to partisanship and bias and the way in which these issues are dealt with in the two systems. The article explores how these systems provide safeguards against partisanship by the experts.

Customer Relationship Management in a Public Cloud environment - Key influencing factors for European enterprises

“…For instance, the transfer of the Cloud CRM experts' opinions on to the managements' viewpoint can be rough hard. Furthermore, experts can be biased [59] by their involvement into the topic. However, the methodology is often used in IS research (e.g.…”

An initial evaluation of the Global Review Form as an approach to measuring individual change

“…Therefore it is essential to improve methods for quantifying, and correcting for biases in experts decision making process (Malsch & Freckelton, 2005).…”

Are Police Superior to Non-Police at Recognising Reliable Evidence? Are they More likely to Use Alternative Evidence?

“…Under the inquisitorial legal system adopted in many European countries, police have more power to investigate and review their findings and decide whether the suspect committed the crime he/she is accused of. Once police make criminal charges, it is the court who then audits and determines the reliability of evidence ultimately influencing the sentence passed -if required [7,8].…”

“…Moreover, successful outcomes rest largely on how police understand and interpret the validity and reliability of evidence collated and its res gestae (defined as "the acts, facts, circumstances, statements, or occurrences that form the environment of a main act or event and especially of a crime" [37] and are admitted to the court as evidence). It is interesting that under both inquisitorial and adversarial criminal law, police have great power in influencing the direction taken by the court and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) respectively [1,2,8]. One way that expert testimony and its impact on how jurors process evidence and arrive at a verdict, is through the use of mock jury studies [38].…”