Exploration of implicit theories in the formation of expert opinion in portuguese criminal law

This dissertation examines different aspects involved in the formation of psychologists’ expert opinion in the Portuguese criminal justice system, more precisely, as this opinion is reflected in assessment reports. The present dissertation is comprised of three qualitative studies, the first sought to provide a general portrait of a sample of 106 forensic psychological reports as to their overall quality as measured in terms of relevance and coherence. Results show that the formal markers of quality are present in the sample analysed, a certain number of weaknesses have been observed, notably concerning the internal coherence of the reports as well as the relevance of the information reported on. The second study explored the opinions of 17 Portuguese judges and state prosecutors concerning the use they make of this type of forensic report. It appears that they consider these reports to be useful and very credible, specially so when they have been produced under the auspices of the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, which is the state forensic institution. Furthermore, it appears that judges and prosecutors were particularly interested in data that allowed for a personalised portrait of the assessee. The third study sought to better comprehend the conceptual bases on which psychologists construct their reports. To this end, an exploratory study was undertaken with a sample of key-actors; the analysis of their interviews shows that they define their judicial mandate as well as the basic concepts that are associated to this mandate in different ways. A theoretical framework provided by an implicit theories model was used to help understand these results.

The Federal Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community Program: Outcome on Labor Income.

Rapport de recherche

The effect of asymetric preferences on the federal funds rate.

Rapport de recherche

L'evaluation de la banque federal de developpement.

Rapport de recherche

Red State, Blue State: Examining Federal Transfers to the States, 1983-2004.

Rapport de recherche

Le fonctionnement du régime de preuve libre dans un système non-expert : le traitement symptomatique des preuves par la Section de la protection des réfugiés

Un résumé en anglais est également disponible.

Regulatory History Material as an Extrinsic Aid to Interpretation: An Empirical Study on the Use of RIAS by the Federal Court of Canada

Since 1986, the Canadian Public Administration is required to analyze the socio-economic impact of new regulatory requirements or regulatory changes. To report on its analysis, a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) is produced and published in the Canada Gazette with the proposed regulation to which it pertains for notice to, and comments by, interested parties. After the allocated time for comments has elapsed, the regulation is adopted with a final version of the RIAS. Both documents are again published in the Canada Gazette. As a result, the RIAS acquires the status of an official public document of the Government of Canada and its content can be argued in courts as an extrinsic aid to the interpretation of a regulation. In this paper, an analysis of empirical findings on the uses of this interpretative tool by the Federal Court of Canada is made. A sample of decisions classified as unorthodox show that judges are making determinations on the basis of two distinct sets of arguments built from the information found in a RIAS and which the author calls “technocratic” and “democratic”. The author argues that these uses raise the general question of “What makes law possible in our contemporary legal systems”? for they underline enduring legal problems pertaining to the knowledge and the acceptance of the law by the governed. She concludes that this new interpretive trend of making technocratic and democratic uses of a RIAS in case law should be monitored closely as it may signal a greater change than foreseen, and perhaps an unwanted one, regarding the relationship between the government and the judiciary.

Impoverishment of The Law by The Law: A Critique of The Attorney General's Vision of The Rule of Law and The Federal Principle

This brief article is devoted to a critique of the arguments put forward by the Attorney General of Canada in connection with the Reference concerning certain questions relating to the secession of Quebec (hereinafter, "the Reference"). This critique will not be presented from a plainly positivist standpoint. On the contrary, I will be examining in particular (1) how the approach taken by the Attorney General impoverished the legal concepts of the rule of law anf federalism, both of which were, however, central to her submission; and, in a more general way, (2) how the excessively detailed analysis of constitutional texts contributes to the impoverishment of the symbolic function of the law, however essential that dimension may be to its legitimacy. My criticism will take into account the reasons for judgement delivered recently by the Supreme Court in the Reference.

Federal Constitutionalism and Aboriginal Difference

The author outlines a new legal approach, which he labels federal constitutionalism, to the question of aboriginal difference in Canada. This approach has the potential to open up more fruitful avenues for the resolution of aboriginal law issues than either the “frozen rights” approach currently adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada or the treaty federalism approach, which posits that treaties should be used to resolve all differences between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. The author outlines the difficulties inherent in both the frozen rights and treaty federalism approaches. Federal constitutionalism, in contrast, draws its vitality from an organic understanding of Canada’s constitutional experience. It would allow aboriginal peoples to be seen as federal actors who have historically shaped the Canadian federation. Federal constitutionalism is a multi-faceted approach that would permit aboriginal questions to be addressed using the federal principle, thereby allowing the legal focus to move away from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Aboriginal peoples would be able to exercise the rights of sovereignty over their own internal affairs, while individual aboriginals could participate directly in federal and provincial governments without having to proceed through the intermediary of aboriginal representatives. Federal constitutionalism would allow aboriginal peoples a guaranteed sphere of autonomy, while permitting recognition of their historical interdependence with non-aboriginal peoples.

La relation complexe du juge et de l'expert-psychiatre

L'expertise psychiatrique est requise au tribunal dans plusieurs situations juridiques tant en matière criminelle que civile et elle est soumise aux mêmes règles de preuve que n'importe quelle expertise. Pourtant, la psychiatrie et son objet sont tout à fait particuliers. La relation que peuvent entretenir le juge et l'expert-psychiatre est teintée par plusieurs éléments de nature sociale et professionnelle, mais aussi simplement juridique et procédural. Alors que les juristes parlent de cette relation comme d'une usurpation du rôle du juge par l'expert-psychiatre, les psychiatres, au contraire, croient que leur expertise est totalement pervertie dans le processus judiciaire. Mais la réalité n'est pourtant pas univoque: si l'expertise psychiatrique est de façon générale une preuve parmi les autres, elle peut également occuper une place centrale dans le mécanisme décisionnel.