Contraste de la efectividad en la detección de declaraciones fabricadas de los criterios de validez del sistema de evaluación global en casos de violencia contra la mujer

Resumo

Insufficient evidence is one of the main difficulties of the criminal proceedings in cases of domestic violence. This contingency is derived from the private and intimate nature of this type of crime that, on many occasions, forcing the judge to issue a decision based exclusively on the testimony of the parties. Reflecting this reality the archive data file confirm a probability of conviction in this series 70% (Ministry of Equality, 2008), while in other crimes is about 90% (Novo, 2000). Thus, forensic psychologist intervention may be an important mechanism for assistance to the judicial work as by analyzing the credibility of the witness can give evidence to the same value. In fact, in a study file, Arce, Vilariño and Alonso (2008) found that this test was practiced in about 20% of cases. In this line, the scientific literature contains evidence that the memories of the real and the imagined differ in a number of features (eg, Bensi, Gambetti, Nori and Giusberti, 2009; Godoy e Higueras, 2005, Lee, Clavert and Hart, 2008; Vrij, 2005). So, Arce and Fariña (2009) have developed and validated a methodical system that discriminates between real and invented declarations of gender violence. In this paper we proposed a study to compare the efficacy of the categories of validity of the Arc and Fariña (2009) model with samples of real and invented cases of gender violence. The results have shown that these categories discriminate between real and imagined testimonies.