Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

No. 5 (2023)

Artykuły

The overestimated and underestimated role of expert psychologist in criminal trial

  • Jan Widacki
Published: 2024-02-05

Abstract

As a rule, an expert psychologist can participate in a criminal case in one of two roles. The first one is participation in interviewing a witness if “there is any doubt as to the witness’ mental condition, his/her intellectual development, or ability to perceive or recollect the things perceived”. In this case, the legal grounds for appointment of an expert for this task are found in Art. 192 § 2 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure (CPC).

The other role is making statements on the responsibility of the accused (defendant). As set in Art. 202 § 2 of the CPC, the two psychiatrists delivering an opinion on the mental state of the accused may additionally require the appointment of an additional expert or experts of other specialities. This in most cases is an expert psychologist, and at times an expert sexologist. An expert psychologist appointed in this manner delivers an opinion which is an autonomous part of the whole psychiatric opinion.

As much as the opinions of expert psychologists issued after participation in witness interviews are as a rule overrated in practice, and the experts themselves, often acting at the behest of the court, prepare opinions on the credibility of witness’s statements that exceed the scope of their remit set forth in Art. 192 § 2 of the CPC, and furthermore beyond the limits of their psychological competences, the psychological opinions complementing those of the psychiatrists are as a rule undervalued. In these opinions, expert psychologists describe the personality of the accused (defendant), in particular his/her disorders, levels of mental and emotional development, etc.

Even if confirmation of personality disorders were to have no bearing on the assessment of responsibility (sanity), or significantly diminished responsibility (within the meaning of Art. 31 § 1 and § 2 of the Criminal Code), it can be significant for recognising responsibility diminished in a degree lesser than significant, which may at times influence the penalty. According to Art.53 of the Criminal Code, the severity of sentence must not exceed the degree of guilt. Because sanity is an important part of guilt, diminished sanity always means diminished guilt.

References

  1. Andrejew Igor, Świda Witold, Wolter Władysław, Kodeks karny z komentarzem, Warszawa 1973 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bafia Jerzy, Mioduski Kryspin, Siewierski Mieczysław, Kodeks karny. Komentarz, Warszawa 1977 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boratyńska Katarzyna T., Górski Adam, Sakowicz Andrzej, Ważny Andrzej, Kodeks postępowania karnego. Komentarz, Warszawa 2012 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cieślak Marian, Spett Karol, Szymusik Adam, Wolter Władysław, Psychiatria w procesie karnym, Warszawa 1991 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dreszer Ryszard, Zarys psychiatrii dla medyków i prawników, Warszawa 1962 [Google Scholar]
  6. Kryminalistyka, red. J. Widacki, Warszawa 2018 [Google Scholar]
  7. Leszczyński Juliusz, Z problematyki karania psychopatów, „Palestra” 1975/11 (215) [Google Scholar]
  8. Łuniewski Witold, Zarys psychiatrii sądowej. Część ogólna, Warszawa 1950 [Google Scholar]
  9. Pużyński Stanisław, Wciórka Jacek, Klasyfikacja zaburzeń psychicznych i zaburzeń zachowania ICD-10. Badawcze kryteria diagnostyczne, Kraków–Warszawa 1999 [Google Scholar]
  10. Tarnawski Maciej, Odpowiedzialność karna sprawców dotkniętych zaburzeniami psychopatycznymi, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny” 1978/2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Uszkiewiczowa Lidia, Zarys psychiatrii sądowej, Warszawa 1972 [Google Scholar]
  12. Vrij Aldert, Wykrywanie kłamstw i oszukiwania. Psychologia kłamania i konsekwencje dla praktyki zawodowej, tł. pol., Kraków 2009 [Google Scholar]
  13. Wąsek Andrzej, Kodeks karny. Komentarz, Gdańsk 1999, t. 1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Widacki Jan, Próby oceny prawdomówności w procesie karnym, „Palestra” 2012/3–4 [Google Scholar]
  15. Wolter Władysław, Zarys systemu prawa karnego, Kraków 1933 [Google Scholar]
  16. Zoll Andrzej, Niepoczytalność (w:) K. Buchała, A. Zoll, Kodeks karny. Część ogólna. Komentarz, Kraków 1998, t. 1 [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)