Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

8 results

  • 7.4 - The psychologist as expert witness in criminal cases

  • from Part VII - Professional practice
  • Edited by Jennifer M. Brown, London School of Economics and Political Science, Elizabeth A. Campbell, University of Glasgow
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
  • Published online: 06 July 2010
  • Print publication: 29 April 2010, pp 773-782

  • Summary

    A psychologist in a criminal trial is concerned with establishing by sufficient and relevant evidence that a particular event occurred, and the behaviour involved is the subject of criminal responsibility. The psychologist must provide objective opinion on matters which could not be discerned other than by someone with the appropriate expertise, based on reliable observations and/or tests. This chapter discusses the potential traps into which psychologists might fall. These include: thinking that their expertise relates to matters which are discernible without the benefit of psychological evidence; going beyond their remit; and ignoring the factual aspects of the case. The process of giving evidence is that the witness is first questioned by the side which commissioned the report about the issues on which they assert their expertise; it is followed by further questioning by the other side in the dispute, and later by further questioning by the original questioner.

  • Adolescent precursors of cannabis dependence: findings from the Victorian Adolescent Health Cohort Study

  • Carolyn Coffey, John B. Carlin, Michael Lynskey, Ning Li, George C. Patton
  • Journal: The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 182 / Issue 4 / April 2003
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018, pp. 330-336
  • Print publication: April 2003
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Background

    Dependence increases the likelihood of adverse consequences of cannabis use, but its aetiology is poorly understood.

    Aims

    To examine adolescent precursors of young-adult cannabis dependence.

    Method

    Putative risk factors were measured in a representative sample (n=2032) of secondary students in the State of Victoria, Australia, six times between 1992 and 1995. Cannabis dependence was assessed in 1998, at age 20–21 years.

    Results

    Of 1601 young adults, 115 met criteria for cannabis dependence. Male gender (OR=2.6, P < 0.01), regular cannabis use (weekly: OR=4.9; daily: OR=4.6, P=0.02), persistent antisocial behaviour (linear effect P=0.03) and persistent cigarette smoking (linear effect P=0.02) independently predicted cannabis dependence. Neither smoking severity (P=0.83) nor persistent psychiatric morbidity (linear effect P=0.26) independently predicted dependence. Regular cannabis use increased risk only in the absence of persistent problematic alcohol use.

    Conclusions

    Weekly cannabis use marks a threshold for increased risk of later dependence, with selection of cannabis in preference to alcohol possibly indicating an early addiction process.