Family Violence and Judicial Empathy
Managing Personal Cross Examination in Australian Family Law Proceedings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1037Palabras clave:
violencia doméstica, derecho de familia, contrainterrogatorios, juicios, emociónResumen
Investigaciones revelan que muchas víctimas de violencia doméstica que, en el curso de procedimientos en tribunales de derecho de familia, son sometidas a contrainterrogatorios por parte del supuesto autor de esa violencia consideran ese proceso traumatizante e intimidatorio. Esos procesos no sólo pueden arrojar resultados inseguros e injustos, sino que también tienen pocas probabilidades de producir el material probatorio de calidad que requiere un tribunal. Por deferencia al bienestar emocional y a la vulnerabilidad de esas víctimas, los jueces de familia de Australia tienen a su disposición varias medidas para obtener esas pruebas; sin embargo, actualmente, son sólo poderes discrecionales, y pruebas circunstanciales sugieren que su uso es impredecible y dependiente de cada juez. En ausencia de pruebas empíricas, este artículo intenta abrir una dimensión emocional potencial de la toma de decisiones judiciales en este contexto, con miras a explorar esas ideas teóricas en trabajos empíricos posteriores.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 324
Citas
Abrams, K., 2010. Empathy and Experience in the Sotomayor hearings. Ohio Northern University Law Review [online], vol. 36, 263-286. Available from: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1858 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Australian Law Reform Commission, 2018. Review of the Family Law System. Discussion Paper Nº 86 [online]. Sydney, 2 October. Available from: https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/dp86_review_of_the_family_law_system_4.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bandes, S., 1996. Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. University of Chicago Law Review [online], 63, 361-412. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/1600234 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bandes, S., 2017. Compassion and the rule of law. International Journal of Law in Context [online], 13(2), 184-196. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000118 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bandes, S., and Salerno, J., 2014. Emotion, Proof and Prejudice: The Cognitive Science of Gruesome Photos and Victim Impact Statements. Arizona State Law Journal [online], 46, 1003-1056. Available from: http://arizonastatelawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bandes-Salerno_Final.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Barbalet, J.M., 1998. Emotion, Social Theory and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge University Press.
Bergman Blix, S., and Wettergren, Å., 2016. A Sociological Perspective on Emotions in the Judiciary. Emotion Review [online], 8(1), 32-37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601226 [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Bergman Blix, S., and Wettergren, Å., 2018. Professional Emotions in Court: A Sociological Perspective. London: Routledge.
Birnbaum, R., Bala, N., and Bertrand, L., 2012. The rise of self-representation in Canada’s family courts: The complex picture revealed in surveys of judges, lawyers and litigants. Canadian Bar Review [online], 91, 67-95. Available from: https://cbr.cba.org/index.php/cbr/article/view/4288/4281 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Booth, T., 2012. “Cooling out” victims of crime: Managing victim participation in the sentencing process in a superior sentencing court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology [online], 45, 214-230. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865812443680 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bowden, P., Henning, T., and Plater, D., 2014. Balancing Fairness to Victims, Society and defendants in the Cross-examination of Vulnerable witnesses: An Impossible Triangulation? Melbourne University Law Review [online], 37(3), 539–584. Available from: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1699012/37_3_1.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Bryant, D., 2017. Submission to the “Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2017”—Public Consultation on Cross-examination Amendment [online]. 25 August. Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ExposureDraftFamilyLawAmendment/The-Honourable-Diana-Bryant-AO-Submission.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Burton, M., Evans, R., and Sanders, A., 2007. Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses and the Adversarial process in England and Wales. International Journal of Evidence and Proof [online], 11(1), 1-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2006.11.1.1 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Carson, R., et al., 2018. Direct cross‑examination in family law matters [online]. Report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from: https://aifs.gov.au/publications/direct-cross-examination-family-law-matters/1-introduction [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Conway, H., and Stannard, J., eds, 2016. The Emotional Dynamics of Law and Legal Discourse. Oxford: Hart.
Cox, P.V., 2016. Violence against women in Australia: additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey, 2012 [online]. ANROWS Horizons Research Report. Sydney: ANROWS. Available from: https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/violence-against-women-in-australia-additional-analysis-of-the-australian-bureau-of-statistics-personal-safety-survey-2012/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Davies, M., 2008. Asking the Law Question. 3rd ed. Sydney: Thomson Lawbook.
Dewar, J., Smith, B., and Banks, C., 2000. Litigants in Person in the Family Court of Australia. Family Court of Australia Research Report [online], nº. 20. Family Court of Australia. Available from: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/f987e373-90f0-4ebe-a886-db7c7174080f/report20.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Doak, J. and Taylor, L., 2013. Hearing the Voices of victims and offenders: The role of emotions in criminal sentencing. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly [online], 64(1), 25-46. Available from: http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofLaw/Research/NorthernIrelandLegalQuarterly/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Douglas, H., 2018. Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology and Criminal Justice [online], 18(1), 84-99. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728380 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Ellsworth, P., and Dougherty, A., 2016. Appraisals and reappraisals in the courtroom. Emotion Review [online], 8(1), 20-25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601227 [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Epstein, D., and Goodman, L., 2018. Discounting Credibility: Doubting the testimony and Dismissing the Experiences of Domestic Violence Survivors and Other Women. University of Pennsylvania Law Review [online], 167. Available from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2037 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Family Law Council, 2016. Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems: Final Report – June 2016 (Terms 3, 4 & 5) [online]. Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/FamilyLawCouncil/Documents/Family-with-Complex-Needs-Intersection-of-Family-Law-and-Child-Protection-Systems-Final-Report-Terms-3-4-5.PDF [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Feigenson, N., and Park, J, 2006. Emotions and attributions of legal responsibility and blame: A research review. Law and Human Behavior [online], 30(2), 143-161. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10979-006-9026-z [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Graycar, R., and Morgan, J., 2002. The Hidden Gender of Law. 2nd ed. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Harman, J., 2017. The prevalence of allegations of family violence in proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Family Law Review, 7(1), 3-19.
Henderson, E., 2016. Taking control of cross-examination: Judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss judicial management of the cross-examination of vulnerable people. Criminal Law Review, 3, 181-205.
Henschen, B., 2018. Judging in a mismatch: The ethical challenges of pro se litigation. Public Integrity [online], 20(1), 34-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2016.1272438 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Police and Legal Affairs of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2017. A Better Family Law System to Support and Protect those Affected by Family Violence: Recommendations for an accessible, equitable and responsive family law system which better prioritises safety of those affected by family violence [online]. Canberra, December. Available from: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/reportrep/024109/toc_pdf/Abetterfamilylawsystemtosupportandprotectthoseaffectedbyfamilyviolence.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Hunter, R. (with A. Genovese, A. Melville and A. Chrzanowski), 2000. Legal Services in Family Law [online]. Sydney: Justice Research Centre. Available from: http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/site/templates/reports/$file/lsfl_rep.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Huntington, C., 2007. Repairing Family Law. Duke Law Journal [online], 57(5), 1245-1319. Available from: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol57/iss5/1 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Huntington, C., 2016. Affective family Law. In: H. Conway and J. Stannard, eds., The Emotional Dynamics of Law and Legal Discourse. Oxford: Hart, 9-33.
Karstedt, S., 2002. Emotions and criminal justice. Theoretical Criminology [online], 6(3), 299-317. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/136248060200600304 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Karstedt, S., 2011. Handle with Care: Emotions, Crime and Justice. In: S. Karstedt, I. Loader and H. Strang, eds., Emotions, Crime and Justice. Oxford: Hart.
Kaspiew, R., et al., 2015. Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Kaspiew, R., et al., 2017. Domestic and family violence and parenting: Mixed method insights into impact and support needs: Final report. ANROWS Horizons, April. Sydney: ANROWS.
Kaye, M., Wangmann, J., and Booth, T., 2017. Preventing personal cross-examination of parties in Family Law proceedings involving family violence. Australian Journal of Family Law [online], 31(2), 94-117. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10453/121595 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Knowlton, N.A., et al., 2016. Cases without Counsel: Research on Experiences of Self-Representation in U.S. Family Court [online]. Report. Denver, CO: Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System. Available from: https://iaals.du.edu/publications/cases-without-counsel-research-experiences-self-representation-us-family-court [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Laster, K., and O'Malley, P., 1996. Sensitive new-age Laws: The reassertion of emotionality in law. International Journal of the Sociology of Law [online], 24(1), 21-40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1006/ijsl.1996.0002 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Law Council of Australia, 2017. Submission to the “Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2017”—Public Consultation on Cross-examination Amendment [online]. Available from: https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/docs/92d486a9-af6a-e811-93fb-005056be13b5/3337%20-%20Family%20Law%20Amendment%20(Family%20Violence%20and%20Cross-Examination%20of%20Parties)%20Bill%202017.pdf [Accessed 16 April 2019].
Lerner, J.S., et al., 2015. Emotion and Decision-Making. Annual Review of Psychology [online], vol. 66, 799-823. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Loughman, J., 2016. Protecting vulnerable witnesses in family law. Law Society of New South Wales Journal [online], 19, 26-27. Available from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/233512226 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Lynch, A., Loughman, J., and Eleanor, 2016. Intimate partner sexual violence and family law. In: L. McOrmond-Plummer, J.Y. Levy-Peck and P. Easteal, eds., Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Prevention, Recognition, and Intervention. Abingdon: Routledge, 153-165.
Macfarlane, J., 2013. The national self-represented litigants project: Identifying and meeting the needs of self-represented litigants [online]. Report. Available from: https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/legacy/pdf/s/self-represented_project.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Mack, K., and Roach Anleu, S., 2010. Performing impartiality: Judicial demeanor and legitimacy. Law & Social Inquiry [online], 35(1), 137-173. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01180.x [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2006. Law and Emotion: A Proposed Taxonomy of an Emerging Field. Law and Human Behavior [online], 30(2), 119-142. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9029-9 [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2011a. Emotional Regulation and Judicial Behavior. California Law Review [online], 99(6), 1485. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38XQ3J [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2011b. The Persistent Cultural Script of Judicial Dispassion. California Law Review [online], 99(2), 629-681. Available from: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38K98M [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., 2012. Angry Judges. Vanderbilt Law Review [online], 65(5), 1207-1296. Available from: https://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/2012/10/angry-judges/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Maroney, T.A., and Gross, J.J., 2014. The ideal of the dispassionate judge: An emotion regulation perspective. Emotion Review [online], 6(2), 142-151. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913491989 [Accessed 5 September 2018].
McLachlin, B., 2007. Justice in our Courts and the Challenges We Face. The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto, Canada) [online], 8 March, pp. 325-335. Available from: http://speeches.empireclub.org/62973/data [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Meier, J.S., and Dickson, S., 2017. Mapping gender: shedding empirical light on family courts’ treatment of cases involving abuse and alienation. Law & Inequality [online], 35(2), 311-334. Available from: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol35/iss2/10/ [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Moorhead, R., 2007. The passive arbiter: Litigants in person and the challenge to neutrality. Social & Legal Studies [online], 16(3), 405–424. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079766 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Parkinson, P., Cashmore, J., and Webster, A., 2010. The views of family lawyers on apprehended violence orders after parental separation. Australian Journal of Family Law [online], 24(3), 313-336. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1753404 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Pilsbury, S., 1999. Harlan, Holmes, and the Passions of Justice. In: S. Bandes, ed., The Passions of Law. New York University Press, 330-362.
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2005. Magistrates’ Everyday Work and Emotional Labour. Journal of Law and Society [online], 32(4), 590-614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2005.00339.x [Accessed 9 January 2019].
Roach Anleu, S., and Mack, K., 2017. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roach Anleu, S., Rottman, D., and Mack, K., 2016. The emotional dimension of judging: Issues, Evidence and Insights. Court Review [online], vol. 52, 60-71. Available from: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/courtrv/cr52-2/Anleu.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Schuster, M.L., and Propen, A., 2010. Degrees of Emotion: Judicial Responses to Victim Impact Statements. Law, Culture and the Humanities [online], 6(1), 75-104. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872109349104 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Shapland, J., 2010. Victims and Criminal Justice in Europe. In: S. Shoham, P. Knepper and M. Kett, eds., International Handbook of Victimology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 347-372.
Smyth, B.M., and Moloney, L.J., 2017. Entrenched postseparation parenting disputes: the role of interparental hatred. Family Court Review [online], 55(3) 404-416. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12294 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Stubbs, J., and Wangmann, J., 2015. Competing conceptions of Victims of domestic violence within legal processes. In: D. Wilson and S. Ross, eds., Crimes, Victims and Policy: International Contexts, Local Experiences. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107-132.
Tata, C., 2019. Humanising Punishment? Mitigation and “Case-Cleansing” Prior to Sentencing. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 9(5-this issue). Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1098 [Accessed 12 November 2019].
Trinder, L., et al., 2014. Litigants in person in private family law cases. Commissioned report. Ministry of Justice.
Victoria Legal Aid, 2017. Submission to “A Better Family Law System: Submission to Parliamentary Inquiry into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence” [online]. May. Available from: https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/sites/www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/files/vla-submission-a-better-family-law-system_-_for_web.docx [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Wettergren, Å., and Bergman Blix, S., 2016. Empathy and objectivity in the legal process: The case of Swedish prosecutors. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention [online], 17(1), 19-35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14043858.2015.1136501 [Accessed 2 April 2019].
Women’s Legal Services Australia, 2017. Submission to the “Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2017”—Public Consultation on Cross-examination Amendment [online]. Available from: https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/ExposureDraftFamilyLawAmendment/Womens-Legal-Services-Submission.DOCX [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Zaki, J., 2014. Empathy: a motivated account. Psychological Bulletin [online], 140(6), 1608-1647. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037679 [Accessed 15 April 2019].
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2019 Tracey Booth
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
