FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W179664516> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W179664516 startingPage "193" @default.
• W179664516 abstract "ABSTRACT In a criminal investigation a variety of people potentially involved in the crime are often expected to remember their actions and whereabouts at the time of the event, and then to corroborate their recollection so that they can be ruled out as suspects. In other words, people are often expected to have an to prove their innocence. Despite the often crucial role played by alibis, however, surprisingly little empirical research has been conducted on the issue from either a legal or a psychological perspective. This article reviews some of the legal issues regarding the evaluation of alibis in the justice system, and then goes on to discuss two relevant psychological aspects: (1) people's ability to accurately recall what they were doing at specific times in the past and (2) people's ability to adequately weigh evidence in light of the many other factors involved in a case (e.g., race and socioeconomic status of the suspect, time since the event occurred). The article concludes with an optimistic prognosis on the future of research. Investigating people's claims about their actions and whereabouts at the time an event took place is a common theme in crime dramas and standard operating procedure in real cases. In any given case, odds are that several innocent people and at least one guilty person will provide police with a story that may be subsequently corroborated, not corroborated, or proven to be an outright fabrication when the claim is investigated. Although it seems a simple matter that such alibis can contribute directly to determining the guilt or innocence of an individual, are many relevant legal and psychological issues that have not been addressed in any organized way until recently. In its strictest sense, an implies that an individual could not have committed the crime, as it would be physically impossible for him or her to have been in two places at the same time. But is some confusion over whether the term alibi should be used merely for a person's claim that they were somewhere else (e.g., his is that was in Winnipeg at the time of the murder in Moncton, but we'll see if it checks out), a defence strategy that forces the trier of fact to weigh the claim against other evidence (e.g., there is one witness who puts him near the scene at the time of the crime and another who puts him 20 kilometres away at the same time), or if the term should be reserved for a claim that has been corroborated so that the person is no longer a suspect in the case (e.g., he has an for the night in question, so must not be the offender). This article looks at all three uses of the term and addresses issues relating to each case. Legal Issues Regarding Alibis Although some courts and legal scholars have addressed the issue of alibis, they have not done so in any systematic way. Connelly (1983), for example, discusses the distinction between an that is judged to be false versus one which is proven to be so, as well as the acceptable inferences to be drawn about the guilt of the accused based on these false alibis. While jurors can use an as corroborating evidence, an individual is not to be convicted solely on the basis of no alibi, or even on the basis of a fabricated alibi. Eldridge (1978) argues that ideally alibis should be considered as just another piece of evidence, despite the possible subtleties involved in judges and/or jurors determining the quality of an (e.g., the credibility of those providing supporting testimony, their relationship to the accused, the ease with which supporting physical evidence could have been fabricated). In the United Kingdom, Devlin (1976) attempted to differentiate between different types of alibis, in response to the question of when eyewitness evidence should be relied upon. Based upon the Devlin classification, if an is deemed to be clearly false (fabricated), it could be considered supporting evidence to the identification. …" @default.
• W179664516 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W179664516 creator A5046914528 @default.
• W179664516 creator A5083270876 @default.
• W179664516 date "2003-09-01" @default.
• W179664516 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W179664516 title "Alibi Evidence in Criminal Investigations and Trials: Psychological and Legal Factors" @default.
• W179664516 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W179664516 type Work @default.
• W179664516 sameAs 179664516 @default.
• W179664516 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W179664516 countsByYear W1796645162013 @default.
• W179664516 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W179664516 hasAuthorship W179664516A5046914528 @default.
• W179664516 hasAuthorship W179664516A5083270876 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C100660578 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C102587632 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C2777359062 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C2777492778 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C2778223634 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C2779662365 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W179664516 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C100660578 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C102587632 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C121332964 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C12713177 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C136197465 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C154945302 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C15744967 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C17744445 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C180747234 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C199539241 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C2777359062 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C2777492778 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C2778223634 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C2779662365 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C41008148 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C62520636 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C73484699 @default.
• W179664516 hasConceptScore W179664516C77805123 @default.
• W179664516 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W179664516 hasLocation W1796645161 @default.
• W179664516 hasOpenAccess W179664516 @default.
• W179664516 hasPrimaryLocation W1796645161 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W1432758713 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W1567254419 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W1747511257 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W186584874 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W1964699300 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W1991749414 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2014045092 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2029410197 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2030830585 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2044919486 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2047071596 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2068696447 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2082239235 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2082868886 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2097227220 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2114331588 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2120482811 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2122185583 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2165883551 @default.
• W179664516 hasRelatedWork W2550372348 @default.
• W179664516 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W179664516 isParatext "false" @default.
• W179664516 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W179664516 magId "179664516" @default.
• W179664516 workType "article" @default.