Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2892284894> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 37 of
37
with 100 items per page.
- W2892284894 abstract "When it comes to crime against children the child is often the only witness and other evidence are not existing. In these cases, it’s not only the courts´ legal competence that is put to the test, but also their psychological ability of how to handle a case where a child is the only one with a statement. It is important that everyone in the legal system has this knowledge so that they can make a correct assessment in the individual case. This goes for everything from making an impeccably interrogation during the preliminary enquiry to being in court and evaluating the evidence that has been provided. A legal regulation and clarifying criteria for this purpose is available. When a child is a witness or the injured person there’s a whole bunch of factors that can affect the judgment of the statement. Especially children are sensitive to suggestibility. It is from these aggravating circumstances that there is a special need for an expert, because the judge in general does not have this kind of knowledge. Despite this, there is a hot debate regarding the legal experts participating in the legal process. Some say that the legal experts are required for the judges to be able to give a thorough basis to place their verdict from. Critics say that the administration of justice often blindly follows the judgments of the legal experts, which in some cases can lead to inaccurate verdicts. There are not only discussions about the legal experts, but also the criteria the supreme court must apply to children’s statements and its physiological legal anchoring. It is this clash which is the foundation for the analysis in this essay and it is leaving some unsatisfying results. Maybe the legal system most fundamental method for evaluation of evidence needs to be changed. The topic for this essay is about how a child’s credibility can meet the standards for evaluation of evidence in a case from a legal and physiological perspective. The layout and methods are based on carefully selected material and it is delimited for this essay." @default.
- W2892284894 created "2018-09-27" @default.
- W2892284894 creator A5091008879 @default.
- W2892284894 date "2018-01-01" @default.
- W2892284894 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
- W2892284894 title "Barnet inom rättsväsendet" @default.
- W2892284894 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
- W2892284894 type Work @default.
- W2892284894 sameAs 2892284894 @default.
- W2892284894 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2892284894 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2892284894 hasAuthorship W2892284894A5091008879 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C100521375 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C2776213154 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C2776900844 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C2778760326 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConcept C8614519 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C100521375 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C15744967 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C17744445 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C199539241 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C2776213154 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C2776900844 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C2778760326 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C77805123 @default.
- W2892284894 hasConceptScore W2892284894C8614519 @default.
- W2892284894 hasLocation W28922848941 @default.
- W2892284894 hasOpenAccess W2892284894 @default.
- W2892284894 hasPrimaryLocation W28922848941 @default.
- W2892284894 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2892284894 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2892284894 magId "2892284894" @default.
- W2892284894 workType "article" @default.