Family Violence and Judicial Empathy: Managing Personal Cross Examination in Australian Family Law Proceedings

Author:

Booth Tracey1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Technology Sydney

Abstract

Enquiries and research reveal that many victims of family violence who are personally cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator of that violence in family law proceedings find the process traumatising and intimidating. Not only can such processes generate unsafe and unfair outcomes but also they are unlikely to produce the high quality evidence required by the court. In deference to the emotional wellbeing and vulnerability of these victims, a number of measures for receiving such evidence are available to Australian Family Court judges. However, currently these are all discretionary powers and anecdotal evidence suggests that the use of these tools is unpredictable and dependent on the individual judge. In the absence of empirical evidence, this paper aims to open up potential emotional dimensions of judicial decision-making in this context with a view to exploring these theoretical ideas in later empirical work. Investigaciones revelan que muchas víctimas de violencia doméstica que, en el curso de procedimientos en tribunales de derecho de familia, son sometidas a contrainterrogatorios por parte del supuesto autor de esa violencia consideran ese proceso traumatizante e intimidatorio. Esos procesos no sólo pueden arrojar resultados inseguros e injustos, sino que también tienen pocas probabilidades de producir el material probatorio de calidad que requiere un tribunal. Por deferencia al bienestar emocional y a la vulnerabilidad de esas víctimas, los jueces de familia de Australia tienen a su disposición varias medidas para obtener esas pruebas; sin embargo, actualmente, son sólo poderes discrecionales, y pruebas circunstanciales sugieren que su uso es impredecible y dependiente de cada juez. En ausencia de pruebas empíricas, este artículo intenta abrir una dimensión emocional potencial de la toma de decisiones judiciales en este contexto, con miras a explorar esas ideas teóricas en trabajos empíricos posteriores.

Publisher

Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law

Subject

Law,Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Reference79 articles.

1. Abrams, K., 2010. Empathy and Experience in the Sotomayor hearings. Ohio Northern University Law Review [online], vol. 36, 263-286. Available from: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1858 [Accessed 15 April 2019].

2. Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018. Review of the Family Law System. Discussion Paper No. 86 [online]. Sydney, 2 October. Available from: https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/dp86_review_of_the_family_law_system_4.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].

3. Bandes, S., 1996. Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. University of Chicago Law Review [online], 63, 361-412. Available from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4911 [Accessed 15 April 2019].

4. Bandes, S., 2017. Compassion and the rule of law. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 13(2), 184-196. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000118 [Accessed 15 April 2019].

5. Bandes, S., and Salerno, J., 2014. Emotion, Proof and Prejudice: The Cognitive Science of Gruesome Photos and Victim Impact Statements. Arizona State Law Journal [online], 46, 1003-1056. Available from: http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bandes-Salerno_Final.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3