心理師作為證人之本土化探討：性侵害議題出庭作證之倫理

Indigenous Study of Psychologists as Witnesses: Ethical Considerations of Testifying in Court on Sexual Assault Issues

本研究旨在探討性侵受害當事人之心理師，受法院傳喚作證時，出庭過程中的倫理考量。研究方法採紮根理論取向，透過立意與滾雪球取樣徵得九位有出庭作證經驗之受訪者，透過個別訪談蒐集資料，並進行開放編碼、主軸編碼、選繹編碼與歷程編碼之質性分析步驟。研究結果發現心理師收到法院傳喚出庭作證時，會面臨是否出庭的意願考量，在決定出庭及準備過程中，則涉及專業知能、知情同意及保密等三個主要倫理判斷議題之考量，並經歷外在法律服從及內良心掙扎的過程，出庭作證時會為自己的專業辯護並發展因應的作為，同時會衡量保持中立的客觀角色，以及覺察個案的諮商動機。研究結論指出心理師會兼顧外在客觀的法律規範與內在主觀的良心考量以出庭作證，並把持中立客觀的專業角色，作真實的事實陳述，以期能同時符合法規的期待與良心的要求。最後，本研究依研究所得提出「心理師出庭之雙元倫理考量模型」與未來研究及實務之建議。

 

This study aimed to explore the ethical considerations of psychologists who counsel sexual assault victims and are summoned by the court to testify. Judicial proceedings for sexual assault victims often challenge conviction of perpetrators because of insufficient evidence. Therefore, the court regards the professional knowledge and testimonial information of psychologists as important reinforcing evidence. Thus, they involve ethical issues of whether to disclose and the degree of disclosure. Currently, there is no training in forensic psychology or legal risks in the Taiwanese school curricula. Because psychologists are unfamiliar with judicial rules and ethics, they may be at risk of making mistakes that could affect their future professional status. The ethical aspects addressed in this study included three major ethical judgment issues: professional knowledge, informed consent, and confidentiality. The research method adopted a grounded theory orientation. Nine interviewees with experience in court testifying were recruited through conceptualization and snowball sampling. Data were collected using individual interviews and qualitatively analyzed using open, axial, selective, and process coding.

The research results show that when psychologists are summoned by the court to testify, they are faced with whether to appear in court. The decision to appear in court and the preparation involve three major ethical judgment issues: professional knowledge, informed consent, and confidentiality. Court-summoned psychologists have to understand the implications of their role and consider the ethics of being summoned to appear. This decision is based on civic responsibility rather than personal will. It requires interprofessional competencies and the ability to respond to courts and professional assessments, including knowledge of the laws regarding sexual assault. They should consider the rights of minors’ guardians and inform individual victims as much as possible to enable them to fully understand and provide informed consent. Victims’ privileged communications should be properly used and victim information disclosed in court should be filtered. Psychologists must be loyal to the victims’ original intentions, consider their best interests, and exclude irrelevant personal privacy information. Psychologists are also reminded to seek professional assistance when facing the court, including consulting lawyers or receiving supervision and educational training, and being equipped with court knowledge related to sexual assault. Psychologists testifying in court face a process of external legal obedience and an internal conscience struggle. They defend their professionalism and develop appropriate actions. Simultaneously, psychologists measure the objective role of maintaining neutrality and being aware of clients’ motivation for counseling.

In conclusion, psychologists have to consider external objective legal norms and their internal subjective conscience when testifying in court and maintain a neutral and objective professional role. Finally, considering the research findings, this study proposes a “Dual-ethical Consideration Model for Psychologists Appearing in Court” and suggestions for future research and practice. Psychologists should accumulate different court experiences based on the number of court appearances. We recommend discussing whether the judicial role of psychologists has various stages of development based on the accumulation of court experience. Additionally, psychologists with different testifying roles will also have different ethical awareness and judgment processes, which can also be studied in depth. In practice, we recommended strengthening education and training on testifying in court, understanding that testifying in court is a citizen’s obligation, and carefully using victims’ privileged communication. Simultaneously, practical work manuals and workshops for court appearances should be developed to assist psychologists in conducting interviews through practical guidance and exercises. They should be prepared for the stress and circumstances of going to court.