Ugotavljanje lažnega pričanja z opazovanjem besedne in nebesedne komunikacije : diplomsko delo univerzitetnega študija - Barle, Tanja (T. Barle, 2013)
Laž je zavestno neresnična izjava, katere namen je nekoga spraviti v zmoto, pri čemer pa niti ni bistveno, ali je ta poskus uspešen ali ne. Laganje lahko ugotavljamo na več načinov, od katerih je metoda z opazovanjem najbolj praktična zato, ker jo lahko izvajamo na mestu samem, takoj, brez uporabe dodatnih analiz in naprav, pa tudi časovno in ekonomsko je najbolj ugodna. Pri opazovanju moramo biti pozorni tako na besedne kot na nebesedne znake oz. predvsem na njihovo medsebojno ujemanje. Med laganjem se lažnivec spopada z lastnimi čustvi, spremlja in nadzoruje svojo obrazno mimiko, kretnje, ton glasu in izbor besed ter hkrati opazuje reakcijo izpraševalca, vse zavedajoč se posledic odkritja njegove laži. Ob tem zaradi povečanega miselnega napora, čustvene vzburjenosti in poskusa nadzorovanja lastnega vedenja pride do t.i. uhajanja znakov laganja. Prepoznava lažnega pričanja (krive izpovedbe) je v sodnih postopkih posebej pomembna zato, ker lahko vpliva na odločitev sodnika v sodbi in posledično na udeležence v postopku. Kadar sta v sodnem postopku na voljo le pričanji obeh strank (tožeče in tožene) oz. priče in obdolženca, to pomeni, da mora sodnik po prosti presoji podati oceno o tem, kdo je podal bolj verodostojno izpovedbo (komu bolj verjame), pri čemer se sodniki zanašajo na svoje izkušnje. Kljub temu, da se večina anketiranih sodnikov nikoli ni posebej izobraževala za ugotavljanje laganja, pa sodniki začetniki le niso povsem brez izkušenj, tako življenjskih (minimalna starost je 30 let) kot tudi poklicnih (opravljeno usposabljanje na sodišču oz. pri delodajalcu), tako da je njihova ocena verodostojnosti pričanja bolj točna od ocene laikov. Sodniki se v obrazložitvi sodbe oprejo predvsem na besedne (vsebinske) znake zavajanja, saj lahko le z njimi argumentirajo svojo odločitev o (ne)verodostojnosti pričanja. Nebesedni znaki zavajanja, ki jih zaznajo, pa sodnikom služijo kot indic laganja in povod za t.i. kontrolna vprašanja, s katerimi nadalje preverjajo verodostojnost pričanja. Poleg že omenjenega dajejo sodniki poudarek tudi nekaterim drugim okoliščinam, ki so pokazatelj neresničnosti izjav: znaki naučenosti priče, povezanost priče s kaznivim dejanjem, razmerje z obdolžencem ali stranko, konsistentnost in skladnost z drugimi, že znanimi dejstvi. V zvezi z uvedbo zvočnega snemanja glavnih obravnav le redki anketirani sodniki menijo, da jim le-to omogoča tudi boljše opazovanje nebesednega vedenja priče. Soočenja so po izkušnjah anketiranih sodnikov neuspešna, saj priči praviloma vztrajata vsaka pri svojem in se tako nič ne razjasni, zato jih sami tudi redko odredijo. A lie is a consciously untrue statement the purpose of which is to deceit someone, whereas it is not essential whether such attempt is successful or not. The mendacity may be established in several ways of which the method of observation is the most practical since it can be made on the spot, immediately, without using analyses and devices, moreover it is the most feasible in terms of time and economy. In such observation we need to pay attention to verbal and non-verbal signs of deception as well as to their mutual co-relation. During lying the liar is tackling his own feelings, paying attention to his facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice and the selection of words, while simultaneously monitoring the reaction of the examiner, all this while being conscious of the consequences of his exposure. Due to the increased mental effort, emotional excitement and an attempt to control his behaviour, a so called leakage of the deceitful signs is revealed. Detection of false testimony (perjury) is especially important in the court proceedings because it can influence the judge’s decision in the verdict and subsequently affect all the interested parties. In case the only available depositions in the proceedings are the ones of both parties (defendant’s and plaintiffs) the judge has to decide at his free discretion who gave a more credible deposition, whereby the judges rely on their experience. Despite the fact that most of the respondent judges have never been specially trained for detecting deceit, judges beginners do have some experience, not only life one (minimum age is 30 years), but also professional one (internship at the court or with an employer) so that their assessment of credibility of witnessing is more accurate than that of non-professionals’. Because the judges have to justify their decision on the credibility of the testimony persuasively, they rely in particular on verbal (content) signs of deception. Whereas non-verbal signs of deception, as observed by the judges, serve to indicate deceit and induce so called control questions by means of which the judges can further test the credibility of a testimony. Next to the above mentioned, the judges also put emphasis on other circumstances indicating the mendacity of statements, namely: signs of instruction of the witness, the connection of witness with the criminal offence, the relation of witness with the accused or the party, consistency and compliance with other already known facts. Regarding the introduction of sound recording of main audiences only few of the respondent judges find that it also enables them a better observation of non-verbal behaviour of the witness. According to the judges’ experience the confrontations do not bring any success, since the witnesses as a rule insist on their individual positions and nothing is clarified, so the judges rarely request them.