RT Article
T1 Therapeutic jurisprudence and adversarial injustice: questioning limits
JF Western criminology review
VO 4
IS 2
SP 124
OP 133
A1 Carson, David 1950-
LA English
YR 2003
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1639544038
AB Interviewing, and then examining in court, children who report that they have been abused is difficult. Various reforms have been introduced in different countries to ameliorate the problems. But should we be reforming a rotten system? Why do we accept traditional frameworks for analysing legal issues so readily? We focus on the child in court when it is rare that an accusation will get that far. We perceive of it as a problem with the witness rather than with lawyers, who insist on asking questions with as much to do with tactics as any search for truth. There is so much analysis of the tip, so little of the frozen mass of thinking beneath. In doing so, we demonstrate our adoption of a narrow concept of power; we do not spend enough time examining why we accept so much that we do and ways that we naturally think. And what is the role of reformist movements, such as therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice, within this? With an emphasis on the behavioural, rather than the social sciences, do they postpone the more structural changes needed? And is it wrong to write an article without a clear conclusion, just encouraging thoughts?
NO Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 132-133
K1 Strafverfahren
K1 Kinder
K1 Opferzeugen
K1 Zeugenvernehmung
K1 Opferschutz
K1 Hauptverhandlung
K1 direct examination
K1 directed questions
K1 Evidence
K1 Power
K1 Restorative Justice
K1 Therapeutic Jurisprudence
K1 trial process
K1 witness testimony