Publication: Admisibilidad en contextos forenses de indicadores clínicos para la detección del abuso sexual infantil
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2014
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
El presente trabajo trata de poner de manifiesto el riesgo, para jueces y tribunales, de valorar de forma acrí-tica los informes periciales psicológicos referidos a la valoración del daño psíquico en supuestos de abuso sexual infantil (ASI). Desde la revisión bibliográfica realizada se han detectado serias limitaciones para detectar ASI en la utilización de indicadores clínicos que han surgido del contexto sanitario y asistencial. Se cuestiona el m delo teórico subyacente y la rigurosidad de los estudios sobre las consecuencias psicológicas asociadas al ASI. Igualmente, son debatidos algunos métodos de exploración clínica, extrapolados al contexto forense, y desaconsejados debido a su baja fiabilidad y validez. Se concluye señalando lo inadecuado de trasladar modelos y procedimientos del contexto clínico-asistencial al pericial, y la necesidad de exigir requisitos técnicos a los informes forenses.
This paper tries to highlight the risk to judges and courts, to assess uncritically psychological expert reports relating to the assessment of psychological injury in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA). From the literature review have been identified serious limitations in the use of clinical indicators to detect CSA, that have emerged in the context of health care. The underlying theoretical model, and thoroughness of the studies on the psychological consequences associated with CSA are questioned. Also, some methods of clinical examination, extrapolated to forensic context, and advised against because of their poor reliability and validity, are discussed. It concludes by pointing out the inadequacy of moving models and procedures of the expert clinical-care context to forensic, and the need of demanding technical requirements to forensic reports. © 2014.
This paper tries to highlight the risk to judges and courts, to assess uncritically psychological expert reports relating to the assessment of psychological injury in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA). From the literature review have been identified serious limitations in the use of clinical indicators to detect CSA, that have emerged in the context of health care. The underlying theoretical model, and thoroughness of the studies on the psychological consequences associated with CSA are questioned. Also, some methods of clinical examination, extrapolated to forensic context, and advised against because of their poor reliability and validity, are discussed. It concludes by pointing out the inadequacy of moving models and procedures of the expert clinical-care context to forensic, and the need of demanding technical requirements to forensic reports. © 2014.
Description
UCM subjects
Unesco subjects
Keywords
Citation
Alonso-Quecuty, M. L (1999). Evaluación de la credibilidad de las declaraciones de menores víctimas de delitos contra la libertad sexual. Papeles del Psicólogo, 73, 36-40.
American Psychological Association (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655-665.
American Psychological Association (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. The American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19.
Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., DaCosta, G. A., Akman, D., & Cassavia, E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(1), 101-118.
Bommert, C. (1993). Körperorientierte Psychotherapie nach sexueller Gewalt. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 66-77.
Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Francouer, E., & Renick, A. (1995). Anatomically detailed dolls do not facilitate preschoolers' reports of a pediatric examination involving genital touching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(2), 95-109.
Conte, J. R., Sorenson, E., Fogarty, L., & Rosa, J. D. (1991). Evaluating children's reports of sexual abuse: Results from a survey of professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(3), 428-437.
Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 113 S. Ct. 2786.
Duce, M. (2005). La prueba pericial y su admisibilidad en juicio oral en el nuevo proceso penal. Revista Procesal Penal, 37, 8-19.
Ecker, D., Graf, B., Mepel, S., Scheidt, B., & Tempel-Griebe, H. (1991). Ausgewählte problembereiche in der behandlung sexuell missbrauchter und vergewaltigter. Frauen im rahmen eines stationaren settings: diagnostische aspekte, gruppentherapeutische erfahrungen und probleme der behandlerinnen. Praxis der Klinischen Verhaltensmedizin und Rehabilitatíon, 4, 116-124.
Echeburúa, E., Muñoz, J. M., & Loinaz, I. (2011). La evaluación psicológica forense frente a la evaluación clínica: propuestas y retos de futuro. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(1), 141-159.
Endres, J. (1997). Sexueller Kindesmissbrauch. Kriminalistik, 7, 490-499.
Erdmann, K., Volbert, R., & Böhm, C. (2004). Children report suggested events even when interviewed in a non-suggestive manner: what are its implications for credibility assessment?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(5), 589-611.
Finkelhor, D. (1979). Sexually victimized children. New York: The Free Press.
Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55(4), 530-541.
Frye vs. United States (1923). 293 F.1013
Gold, A. (2003). Expert Evidence in criminal law: the scientific approach, Canada Irving Law: Canada.
Greuel, L. (1994). Anatomische puppen-diagnostische hilfsmittel im brennpunkt der kritik. Report Psychologie, 19, 16-27.
Heaps, C., & Nash, M. (1999). Individual differences in imagination inflation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(2), 313-318.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on children: a review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 164-180.
Köhnken, G (2006): Anomalías de la conducta como indicares de abuso sexual. In T. Fabian, C. Böhm, & J. Romero (Eds.), Nuevos caminos y conceptos en la psicología jurídica (pp. 199-211). Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Lamb, M. E. (1994). The investigation of child sexual abuse: An interdisciplinary consensus statement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18(12), 1021-1028.
Lamb, S., & Coakley, M. (1993). “Normal” childhood sexual play and games: Differentiating play from abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(4), 515-526.
Loftus, E. F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48(5), 518-537.
Loftus, E. F., & Davis, D. (2006). Recovered memories. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 469-498.
Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Manzanero, A. L (2010). Memoria de testigos Obtención y valor de la prueba testifical. Madrid: Pirámide.
Manzanero, A. L, & Muñoz, J. M. (2011). La prueba pericial psicológica sobre la credibilidad del testimonio: Reflexiones psico-legales. Madrid: SEPIN.
Mazzoni, G., & Memon, A. (2003). Imagination can create false autobiographical memories. Psychological Science, 14(2), 186-188.
Myers, J. E. (2010). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse litigation: Consensus and confusion. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, 14, 1–57.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Raskin, D. C., & Esplin, P. W. (1991). Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13(3), 265-291.
Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 22-53.
Schulz-Hardt, S., & Köhnken, G. (2000). Wie ein verdacht sich selbst bestätigen kann: konfirmatorisches hypothesentesten als ursache von falschbeschuldigungen wegen sexuellen kindesmißbrauchs. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 10(1), 60-88.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526-575.
Smith, D., & Dumont, F. (1995). A cautionary study: Unwarranted interpretations of the Draw-A-Person Test. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(3), 298-303.
Steller, M., & Böhm, C. (2006). Cincuenta años de jurisprudencia del Tribunal Federal Supremo alemán sobre la psicología del testimonio. Balance y perspectiva. In T. Fabian, C. Böhm, & J. Romero (Eds.), Nuevos caminos y conceptos en la psicología jurídica (pp. 53-67). Berlin: Lit Verlag.
Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based Content Analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accomodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(2), 177-193.
Summit, R. C. (1993). Abuse of the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(4), 153-164.
Tribunal Federal Supremo de Alemania, Sala Penal, Art 5, Párrafo 164.
Volbert, R. (1997). Sexuelles verhalten von kindern: Normale entwicklung oder indikator für sexuellen mißbrauch? In G. Amman & R. Wipplinger (Eds.), Sexueller Mißbrauch. Überblick zu Forschung, Beratung und Therapie (pp. 385-398). Tübingen: dgvt.
Wetzels, P. (1994). Anatomisch ausgebildete Puppen: Ein diagnostisches Mittel für die forensische Praxis. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 3, 88-107