Criminal Profiling Then and Now: Prospect and Challenges in Malaysia

The purpose of this article was to ascertain the concept of criminal profiling by taking into consideration the evolution of its definition, function, methodology and also the background of profiling officers from the beginning up to the present time. Using the critical and literature review approach, references from journals, books, statutes and international cases were analyzed to pinpoint the most recent developments to the criminal profiling method. While researches and literature reviews regarding criminal profiling were undoubtedly significant overseas, it was not the same case back in our homeland. Discussions were few and even then, not entirely focusing nor mentioning the procedures and practice of criminal profiling during investigation. It was also found that there seem to yet exist a clarity in regards to the definition and methodology of criminal profiling nor the background of profiler involved despite it being carried out during investigative process for a long period of time. This article also highlighted the challenges discovered in the practice of criminal profiling such as the vagueness of its method in our law, the existence of race-based profiling practice and the credibility of criminal profiling as an expert evidence in courts which was debatable due to the absence of any yardstick to determine the capability of a profiler. Received: 16 August 2021 / Accepted: 7 October 2021 / Published: 3 January 2022

Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

Expert Evidence, Hearsay and Victims of Trafficking

Case commentary of the Court of Appeal ruling in R v Brecani [2021] EWCA Crim 731.

Contracting Forensic DNA Experts by the Defense in Hungarian Criminal Procedure

Most of the studies published in Hungary on the judicial expert system and expert evidence in criminal proceedings do not deal with the question whether the availability of forensic DNA experts is adequate for the defense. This paper examines the current legal environment and focuses on this question. The study also gives a brief overview of the circumstances when DNA analysis plays an essential role in criminal cases. Finally, the article will show whether the defense can employ its own forensic DNA expert in criminal cases.

Growing Enlightenment: Sentencing Offenders with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Australia

The number of defendants raising an Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’) diagnosis in criminal proceedings is increasing. Australian courts treat this neurodevelopmental disorder as a mental impairment that they may take into account in sentencing. A few studies nonetheless exposed deficiencies in judicial officers’ understanding of ASD symptoms and their potential forensic relevance. Courts’ willingness to rely on expert evidence did not always lead to them sentencing offenders with ASD in a consistent or enlightened manner. Building on those investigations and drawing on research into ASD, this article examines sentencing decisions involving eight offenders with ASD in various Australian jurisdictions between 2014 and 2020. This analysis demonstrates that judicial officers’ knowledge about ASD and appreciation of its possible relevance to sentencing considerations are growing, but there remain gaps in both respects. The article speculates on possible reasons for this and proposes reforms to improve courts’ approaches to sentencing offenders with ASD.

Do Policy Makers Listen to Experts? Evidence from a National Survey of Local and State Policy Makers

Do elected officials update their policy positions in response to expert evidence? A large literature in political behavior demonstrates a range of biases that individuals may manifest in evaluating information. However, elected officials may be motivated to accurately incorporate information when it could affect the welfare of their constituents. I investigate these competing predictions through a national survey of local and state policy makers in which I present respondents with established expert findings concerning three subnational policy debates, debates that vary as to whether Republicans or Democrats are more likely to see the findings as confirmatory or challenging. Using both cross-subject and within-subject designs, I find policy makers update their beliefs and preferences in the direction of the evidence irrespective of the valence of the information. These findings have implications for the application of mass political behavior theories to politicians as well as the prospects for evidence-based policy making.

18. Experts and Expert Evidence

This chapter focuses on the role of experts in civil actions. It considers when expert support is needed—whether as part of the evidence submitted in the action or as part of the advice sought to prepare the client’s case or perhaps for both situations. It discusses the role that the expert will take in both of the situations identified; when permission of the court is needed to engage and submit expert evidence in the action; the need to provide a cost estimate of using an expert and the costs consequences for the client in engaging expert evidence; the management and suitable direction of steps taken in advising clients and proceeding with an action to meet the court’s overall discretion to control the evidence; and the important matters to consider in engaging an expert and in managing several experts in a case.

35. Experts

This chapter discusses the principles governing the use of expert evidence in civil claims. It covers the admissibility of expert evidence; control of evidence; choice of expert; privileged nature of experts’ reports; disclosure of experts’ reports; written questions to experts; examinations by experts; experts’ immunity from suit; and use of experts’ reports after trial.