Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Admissibility of Expert Opinions on Eyewitness Evidence: International Perspectives
2
Zitationen
1
Autoren
2014
Jahr
Abstract
The courts of the United Kingdom and Canada have largely been averse to the reception of expert evidence that commentates upon the risks and potential deficiencies of eyewitness identification. Australian courts have trodden a somewhat unclear middle path. However, United States courts have latterly been amenable to some degree to the reception of such evidence. The decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Walker, 92 A 3d 766 (2014) is the latest (albeit with a strong dissent) to join the majority position in the United States, allowing such evidence in certain circumstances. This article reviews the bases for the different approaches adopted in the various jurisdictions and identifies areas upon which further research will be constructive in bringing about a consistent position internationally on the issue.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI
2019 · 8.485 Zit.
Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead
2019 · 8.371 Zit.
High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence
2018 · 7.827 Zit.
Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
2005 · 5.781 Zit.
Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
2018 · 5.549 Zit.