Thesis (D. Min.)--Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1992. / Includes Participant workbook in Indonesian translation and English. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 211-214).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Ashland Theological Seminary, 2006. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 196-202).

Thesis (M.A.)--Lancaster Bible College, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 171-175).

Thesis (M.A.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 2005. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 25).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Ashland Theological Seminary, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 115-118).

This thesis deals with interrogation of minors in course of criminal proceedings. In particular, the aim of the thesis is to basically describe differences between interrogations of minors and interrogation of adults categorised by individual procedural positions. The text focuses on interrogation of youngsters less than 18 years old in the position of witnesses. The thesis also discourses upon interrogation of minor perpetrators of criminal activity under the Juvenile Justice Act (in Czech zákon o soudnictví ve věcech mládeže) and takes into account provisions of the Criminal Victims Act (in Czech zákon o obětech trestných činů) focusing on right of interrogated victims on protection from secondary victimisation. The first chapter introduces point of view of individual branches of science in respect of the described topic of the thesis. The chapter determines fundamental terms used in the thesis, in particular the following terms: minor, interrogation and testimony. The characteristics of the possible procedural positions of minors follows, as the procedural position of the interrogated person strongly influences the choice of interrogation tactics. The second chapter summarises psychological findings about peculiarities of psyche of minors, its development and specific psychological factors which...

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing “junk” science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts’ CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts’ credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise. Legal professionals’ (N = 150) and undergraduate students’ (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants’ decision making processes. Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.

This thesis presents simulation method and simulation software Witness as a decision management instrument of a company, applied in STEKO spol. s r.o. The goal of this thesis is to create a model of real business process in the simulation program and following optimalization.

A collection of poems that explores notions of disability, family, and belief, with a preface that meditates on questions related to the ethical ramifications of various approaches to the making of poetry and art that takes up the suffering of others as subject matter.

The current study examined the impact of expert witness orientation (researcher or clinical practitioner) and type of testimony (testimony for the prosecution, for the defense, for both prosecution and defense, and no testimony) on mock jurors‟ decisions in a sexual abuse trial. Participants read a summary of a sexual abuse criminal trial based on recovered memory; the summary included expert witness testimony (varied across participants based on the conditions described above). Participants then completed a juror decision making task. Results showed that expert witness testimony provided by a researcher did not impact mock jurors‟ guilt ratings any differently than the expert witness testimony provided by a clinical practitioner. However, type of testimony had a significant effect on jurors‟ guilt ratings. The prosecution witness expert testimony influenced mock jurors‟ decision in favor of the prosecution and testimony by a defense expert influenced the jurors‟ decisions in favor of the defense.