Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 1998. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 179-186). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis advisor: Richard Atkins / The topic of this thesis is testimonial epistemic injustice in the courtroom context. Testimonial epistemic injustice occurs when someone’s testimony is unduly downgraded (credibility deficit) or unduly upgraded (credibility excess) due to a structural social prejudice held by the listener. Examples of structural social prejudices are prejudices concerning race, gender, class, and degree of education obtained by the testifier. Credibility assessments are influenced by listeners’ biases, the social context of the interaction, and the perceived disposition of the testifier. In this paper, I intend to examine (1) what testimonial epistemic injustice is and (2) what can be done to address testimonial epistemic injustice in courtrooms. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2022. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Scholar of the College. / Discipline: Philosophy.

<p>Due to the increasing use of technology in everyday life, electronic evidence has become a vital part of nearly every criminal and civil trial. Such evidence can carry so much weight that it has been the “smoking gun” in a wide variety of cases, from traffic accidents to intellectual property disputes to murder. A computer forensics examiner is required to thoroughly analyze and interpret the data gathered from various sources; they can be an important ally in court by helping jurors understand the significance of the evidence. It is critical that expert witnesses aim to be highly qualified to testify in court. However, currently there are only minimal qualifications to testify as a digital forensics expert witness. Without proper standards, the wrong verdict could be determined. This research aimed to determine if there is a gap between the preference for qualifications for digital forensics experts and what qualifications such experts have actually attained. A group of attorneys and officers were asked to participate in an online survey study for which they were presented with questions on desired and attained qualifications. While this study showed that expert witnesses mostly met lawyer expectations, it also demonstrated that there is  need for standardized qualifications for expert testimony.</p>

Initially a central topic for psychology, suggestibility has been forgotten, rediscovered, evaded definition, sabotaged experimentation and persistently triggers epistemological short-circuits when interconnecting psychological questions of memory, childhood and scientificity, with concrete legal issues of child witnesses' credibility, the disclosure of sexual abuse and psychological expertise in courts of law. The aim of this study is to trace suggestibility through history, theory, research and practice, and to explore its efficacy at the intersection of psychology and law, by examining and comparing the. concrete case of child witness practice in England and Germany. Taking a transdisciplinary approach the study draws on two interrelated sources of 'data' combining historical, theoretical and research literature with the analysis of empirical data. A genealogy if theory and research is combined with the results of reflexive interviews, conducted in England and Germany with practitioners from all those professions involved in creating, applying or dealing with knowledge about child witnesses and suggestibility: judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police officers, psychologists (researchers, experts) and social workers. Drawing on the work of G. Deleuze and 1. Stengers this study shows how practical tensions around reliable witnesses, evidence and expertise merge pragmatically with theoretical movements employed to adjust the discipline, thereby causing frictions and voids. In this sense suggestibility provides a liminal resource: It transgresses disciplinary boundaries and pervades pragmatic and theoretical, global and personal, historical and actual considerations, creating voids that allow us to reconsider the pragmatics of change and to redefine the issue of critical impact, as well as to reformulate the problem of child witness practice and children's suggestibility. The study hopes to make a concrete contribution to facilitating the just prosecution of sexual abuse by adding transparency to the complex and at times unhelpfully polarised field of child witness practice. By exploring the 'pragmatics of change' the study furthermore hopes to give an unsettling and productive impetus to theoretical debates within critical approaches to psychology.