Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Victims' Appellate Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Holtzman ◽  
Barbara S. Jones ◽  
Victor Stone ◽  
Thomas W. Taylor ◽  
Patricia A. Tracey

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ype H. Poortinga ◽  
Ingrid Lunt

In national codes of ethics the practice of psychology is presented as rooted in scientific knowledge, professional skills, and experience. However, it is not self-evident that the body of scientific knowledge in psychology provides an adequate basis for current professional practice. Professional training and experience are seen as necessary for the application of psychological knowledge, but they appear insufficient to defend the soundness of one's practices when challenged in judicial proceedings of a kind that may be faced by psychologists in the European Union in the not too distant future. In seeking to define the basis for the professional competence of psychologists, this article recommends taking a position of modesty concerning the scope and effectiveness of psychological interventions. In many circumstances, psychologists can only provide partial advice, narrowing down the range of possible courses of action more by eliminating unpromising ones than by pointing out the most correct or most favorable one. By emphasizing rigorous evaluation, the profession should gain in accountability and, in the long term, in respectability.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-154
Author(s):  
YURI FRANCIFOROV ◽  
◽  
MARINA BARANOVA

The purpose of the article is to consider the peculiarities of investigative and judicial actions that are caused by their postponement, the inability to attract a lawyer, as well as the suspension of the preliminary investigation during the period of emergency measures taken by the government of the Russian Federation in response to the outbreak of the coronavirus infection pandemic (COVID-19). The authorsanalyze the features of the courts activity in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, which is associated with minimizing the personal reception of citizens and submitting documents via electronic Internet reception offices of courts or by Russian Post, as well as the possibility of conducting online court sessions. The authors come to the conclusion that the judicial system was not sufficiently prepared for the pandemic, and therefore it is urgently necessary to adopt a special normative act that would regulate the implementation of judicial proceedings in emergency situations, allowing to continue to consider urgent cases, including materials on the election, extension, cancellation or change of a preventive measure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document