Advanced

Kan man avgöra om en person ljuger? - Utsageanalys i domstol och vittnespsykologi

Eriksson, Niklas LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract
Criminal courts often face the complexity that follows the analysis of verbal statements. In some cases a statement constitute the only evidence and it is vital to carry out a thorough valuation of the evidence. Despite the lack of written law and the principle of free trial of evidence there is still a demand for objectivity and the use of general knowledge.
The Supreme Court has written out that certain criterias should be considered as indicators of a true statement.
Eyewitness psychology is a discipline within psychology that carries out research concerning statement analysis and lie deception. In this research particular models for statement analysis has been worked out in aim to facilitate the separation of deceit statements.... (More)
Criminal courts often face the complexity that follows the analysis of verbal statements. In some cases a statement constitute the only evidence and it is vital to carry out a thorough valuation of the evidence. Despite the lack of written law and the principle of free trial of evidence there is still a demand for objectivity and the use of general knowledge.
The Supreme Court has written out that certain criterias should be considered as indicators of a true statement.
Eyewitness psychology is a discipline within psychology that carries out research concerning statement analysis and lie deception. In this research particular models for statement analysis has been worked out in aim to facilitate the separation of deceit statements. Throughout the eighties and beginning of the nineties the consulting of eyewitness psychologists were more frequent than it is today. The attitude in the courts towards eyewitness psychologists as expert witnesses changed due to a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1992.
One of the primary questions at issue in this paper aim to illustrate the criterias used by the Supreme Court and thereafter establish whether these criterias receive scientific support in recent research within the eyewitness psychology field. Mostly the comparison resulted in a general congruence and several of the criterias pointed out by the Supreme Court to be of importance when it comes to decide the truthfulness in a statement, also receive scientific support in psychological studies.
Further on, a written interview was carried out where a number of judges from criminal courts answered questions concerning verbal statements, statement validity analysis and in what respect they consider eyewitness psychologists may be a part of the practical legal application. When it comes to statement analysis, the judges had a fairly similar attitude as the methods carried out by the Supreme Court and recommendations from eyewitness psychologists. Regarding the use of eyewitness psychologists a dominating view was that they preferably should be used as educators.
To sum up the conclusion in this paper is that it is a positive thing if research results from the eyewitness psychology field is forwarded to legal practicians, such as judges, to increase their knowledge when analysing verbal statements. However there is no completely certain method to settle whether a person is lying. The element of general knowledge and common sense should still, in addition to objective criteria-based analyses, be part of the final analyse of verbal statements. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Domstolarna ställs ofta inför problematiken att värdera muntliga utsagor. Ibland är en utsaga den enda bevisningen i ett mål och det är ytterst viktigt att bevisvärderingen genomförs på ett grundligt sätt. Det finns inga lagregler som styr hur bevisvärderingen ska gå till. Trots principen om fri bevisprövning finns det dock krav på objektivitet och att värderingen sker utifrån allmänna erfarenhetssatser.

Högsta domstolen har i praxis slagit fast att vissa kriterier bör betraktas som indikatorer på att en berättelse är sanningsenlig.

Vittnespsykologin är ett delområde inom psykologin där forskning bedrivs bland annat gällande analys av muntliga utsagor och vad som utgör lögnsignaler. Särskilda vittnespsykologiska modeller för... (More)
Domstolarna ställs ofta inför problematiken att värdera muntliga utsagor. Ibland är en utsaga den enda bevisningen i ett mål och det är ytterst viktigt att bevisvärderingen genomförs på ett grundligt sätt. Det finns inga lagregler som styr hur bevisvärderingen ska gå till. Trots principen om fri bevisprövning finns det dock krav på objektivitet och att värderingen sker utifrån allmänna erfarenhetssatser.

Högsta domstolen har i praxis slagit fast att vissa kriterier bör betraktas som indikatorer på att en berättelse är sanningsenlig.

Vittnespsykologin är ett delområde inom psykologin där forskning bedrivs bland annat gällande analys av muntliga utsagor och vad som utgör lögnsignaler. Särskilda vittnespsykologiska modeller för utsageanalys har utarbetats för att underlätta urskiljandet av lögnaktiga utsagor. Under 80-talet och början av 90-talet konsulterades vittnespsykologer mer frekvent vid huvudförhandling i domstol än idag. Domstolarnas inställning till vittnespsykologernas roll vid utsageanalys ändrades i samband med att Högsta domstolen slog fast ett antal ståndpunkter härom i NJA 1992 s. 446.

En av de inledande frågeställningarna i det här arbetet syftar till att belysa de kriterier som Högsta domstolen använt sig av och därefter kontrollera huruvida dessa erhållit vetenskapligt stöd i den vittnespsykologiska forskning som företagits under de två senaste decennierna. Överlag resulterade jämförelsen i en generell överensstämmelse och flera av de kriterier som Högsta domstolen framhåller som särskilt viktiga för att avgöra en utsagas sannolika verklighetsförankring har också fått vetenskapligt stöd i vittnespsykologiska studier.

Vidare genomfördes en skriftlig intervju med domare från olika domstolar. De fick svara på frågor dels angående bevisvärdering av muntliga utsagor och kriteriebaserad utsageanalys, och dels hur de ser på vittnespsykologin och vittnespsykologernas roll i den praktiska rättstillämpningen. Respondenternas inställning beträffande utsageanalysen synes i stort ligga i linje med Högsta domstolens metod och vittnespsykologiska rekommendationer. När det gäller användning av vittnespsykologer i rättstillämpningen framhölls att dessa företrädesvis bör ha en utbildande roll.

Sammanfattningsvis konstateras i uppsatsen att det är bra ifall resultaten från vittnespsykologisk forskning kring utsageanalys förs vidare till domare så att deras medvetenhet kring lögnsignaler och felkällor vid bedömning av muntliga utsagor ökar. Det finns emellertid ingen helt säker metod för att avgöra om en person ljuger. Inslaget av allmän livserfarenhet och sunt förnuft måste även fortsättningsvis, utöver objektiva kriterieprövningar, få vara en del av helhetsbedömningen vid analys av muntliga utsagor. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Eriksson, Niklas LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt
language
Swedish
id
1600053
date added to LUP
2010-05-06 17:18:09
date last changed
2010-05-06 17:18:09
@misc{1600053,
  abstract     = {Criminal courts often face the complexity that follows the analysis of verbal statements. In some cases a statement constitute the only evidence and it is vital to carry out a thorough valuation of the evidence. Despite the lack of written law and the principle of free trial of evidence there is still a demand for objectivity and the use of general knowledge.
The Supreme Court has written out that certain criterias should be considered as indicators of a true statement.
Eyewitness psychology is a discipline within psychology that carries out research concerning statement analysis and lie deception. In this research particular models for statement analysis has been worked out in aim to facilitate the separation of deceit statements. Throughout the eighties and beginning of the nineties the consulting of eyewitness psychologists were more frequent than it is today. The attitude in the courts towards eyewitness psychologists as expert witnesses changed due to a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1992.
One of the primary questions at issue in this paper aim to illustrate the criterias used by the Supreme Court and thereafter establish whether these criterias receive scientific support in recent research within the eyewitness psychology field. Mostly the comparison resulted in a general congruence and several of the criterias pointed out by the Supreme Court to be of importance when it comes to decide the truthfulness in a statement, also receive scientific support in psychological studies.
Further on, a written interview was carried out where a number of judges from criminal courts answered questions concerning verbal statements, statement validity analysis and in what respect they consider eyewitness psychologists may be a part of the practical legal application. When it comes to statement analysis, the judges had a fairly similar attitude as the methods carried out by the Supreme Court and recommendations from eyewitness psychologists. Regarding the use of eyewitness psychologists a dominating view was that they preferably should be used as educators.
To sum up the conclusion in this paper is that it is a positive thing if research results from the eyewitness psychology field is forwarded to legal practicians, such as judges, to increase their knowledge when analysing verbal statements. However there is no completely certain method to settle whether a person is lying. The element of general knowledge and common sense should still, in addition to objective criteria-based analyses, be part of the final analyse of verbal statements.},
  author       = {Eriksson, Niklas},
  keyword      = {Processrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Kan man avgöra om en person ljuger? - Utsageanalys i domstol och vittnespsykologi},
  year         = {2010},
}