Publisher's Synopsis
Set against a background of increasing concern over miscarriages of justice, the authors of this critique of judicial decision-making contend that judges, lawyers and police believe so strongly in the narrative presented in criminal legal proceedings that they do not seek anchoring through evidence. Using research from cognitive psychology, they explore the nature and purpose of anchoring as a means of firmly establishing and identifying the "truth" and demonstrate that an alarming lack of consistency exists in current systems. Each chapter then considers the anchoring potential and reliability of the relationship between proof and investigation, confessions, identification and wrongful conviction, reliability of witnesses, the authority of experts, effective defence and the selection of evidence, drawing on actual cases and often exposing pitfalls and room for error.
