High-profile cases and sentences of recent months have attracted our attention to forensic psychological examination. Psychologist Farit Safuanov tells about who conducts it and how, about the professional qualities of experts and their role in the trial.
“Expertise is largely a technology. An expert who does not know it or does not observe it is insolvent, no matter how good a psychologist he may be. A psychological and psychiatric examination is carried out by a commission: several experts get acquainted with the materials of the case, communicate with the expert and agree on conclusions. If the court has doubts about these conclusions, then the experts may be called in for questioning to prove their point of view, or the court may order a second examination with a different composition of experts.
The investigator and the court have the right to appoint an examination (in civil proceedings — only the court). The defense and prosecution parties can only solicit this. In criminal cases, an examination is most often needed to determine sanity and establish the state of passion at the time of the crime. It is forcibly passed by the accused, who are being held in custody. All other participants in the process — both witnesses and victims — may refuse the examination.
Not a single expert can «plant» a person. Judgment is made by the court, and the conclusions of the examination are only one of the many factors that can be taken into account by him. The law provides for lists of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. So, the list of aggravating — closed. No circumstance other than those mentioned in it (for example, as part of a group of persons, by prior agreement) can aggravate guilt. All these circumstances have nothing to do with psychology, so that the results of the examination cannot aggravate the position of the accused. But the list of extenuating circumstances is open. The most typical ones are named there: a combination of difficult life circumstances, the unlawful behavior of the victim … But the judge may consider other circumstances extenuating. And in more than half of the cases, these are psychological characteristics of the individual. Therefore, the opinion of experts is very significant here: our conclusion often mitigates guilt or forces us to reclassify the crime to more “softer” articles.
The expert must understand what he can do and what not. For example, we work only with the materials of the case, and in criminal trials — also within the framework of the investigation’s version. We have no right to build our versions or collect evidence. For example, if, when considering the issue of guardianship, psychologists write that “they talked with the child’s nanny and recommend the following…” — by this they cross out their expertise: the expert has no right to communicate with someone on his own or give recommendations on his own initiative.
In our work, we are very dependent on the quality of the investigation. Sometimes there is simply nothing to work with. In this case, the expert has the right to refuse to conduct an examination — until enough materials are collected. He can reformulate the question or refuse to answer it. For example, you cannot ask an expert about the credibility of the testimony or whether the actions of the accused contain signs of a crime: motives for religious hatred, calls for ethnic hatred, overthrow of the constitutional order … A psychologist has the right not to know at all what it is.
In civil proceedings, experts are most often involved when it is necessary to decide with whom the child will remain after a divorce. At first, it seemed to me that, in comparison with criminal cases, it would not be difficult to conduct an examination in civil cases. I was wrong. With my experience, I am more or less able to understand the psychological mechanisms leading to crime. But when people who loved each other lived side by side for years, share children or contest a will… The negative sides of human nature were revealed to me here even more than in criminal cases.
Experts in the processes that determine the fate of children analyze the personality and parenting style of parents to determine whether they can negatively affect the development of the child. We do not give advice on who the child will be better with, our task is to protect from the worst. And the joy when we conduct an examination, and from the court they report: it is no longer necessary, the parties have reconciled.
The main thing that my profession teaches is to understand other people, even those who have committed the most monstrous deeds. Not to divide the world into black and white, but to understand it in all depth. The expert has likes and dislikes, and this is the difficulty of our role: as a professional, I have to overcome them. At the beginning of my work, I had to work on a case of violence against children of two or three years old. And my own child is two years old … I was able to reflect my emotions then. And the examination saved the accused from prison: he had schizophrenia.
For me, there are three ethical principles of expert work. He is independent of the court and the investigation. It is independent of the sub-expert. Finally, he is independent of himself — from his emotions and beliefs. This is the hardest part. Although this is also a question for those who appoint an examination. If, for example, a Spartak fan is being judged, and an expert is a fan of Zenit, then you should think about whether to trust him with the expertise. Although a good expert knows how to remain objective.
There are cases when the expert opinion is not accepted or ignored by the court. Infrequently, but they do happen. For example, after our examination, another one is suddenly appointed. It confirms our findings. Then the third — with the same result. And the fourth one finds some “necessary” clues. Most often, this means that the results of the process are interested somewhere at the top. This is rare and it is such cases that usually become the property of the media. Thousands of cases have passed through me, and I have never, I repeat, never seen even one of them reflected in the press completely and impartially.
Most of the cases are of no interest to either the authorities, or the press, or the oligarchs, and, as a rule, they are dealt with competently by the courts. But sporadic trials create the false impression that our judiciary is completely corrupt or just doesn’t work. This is not true. Although there are situations when the court is mistaken. For example, I am convinced that a person acted in a state of passion, and he is given a term for murder with special cruelty. What can an expert do? Nothing. The lawyer can, of course, try to appeal the verdict. But the participation of the expert in the process is over. What do I feel at such moments? Disappointment, of course. I feel that our world is not the most ideal place, that not everything and not always happens in it in fairness. The main thing is that this does not make me a cynic and tomorrow I can again do my job honestly and objectively.