Chapter 1 Flashcards
(59 cards)
Forensic psychology
The professional practice** by psychologists in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, neuropsychology, and school psychology, when they are engaged regularly as experts in an activity **intended to provide professional expertise to the judicial system (American Board of Forensic Psychology, 1995)
Forensic psychology: A field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human behaviour as it relates to the law or legal system
broader definition of forensic psychology
A research endeavor and/or a professional practice that examines human behaviour in relation to the legal system (Bartol & Bartol, 2006)
Psychology and the law
In this relationship, “psychology is viewed as a separate
discipline [to the law], examining and analysing various components of the law
[and the legal system] from a psychological perspective” (Bartol & Bartol, 1994, p.
2). Frequently, research that falls under the category of psychology and the law
examines assumptions made by the law or our legal system, asking questions such
as “Are eyewitnesses accurate?” “Do certain interrogation techniques cause people
to falsely confess?” “Are judges fair in the way they hand down sentences?” and “Is
it possible to accurately predict whether an offender will be violent when released
from prison?” When working within the area of psychology and the law, forensic
psychologists attempt to answer these sorts of questions so that the answers can be
communicated to the legal community.
The use of psychology to study the operation of the legal system
“Are eyewitnesses accurate?” “Do certain interrogation techniques cause people to falsely confess?” “Are judges fair in the way they hand down sentences?” and “Is it possible to accurately predict whether an offender will be violent when released from prison?”
Psychology in the law
Psychology in the law: The use of psychology in the legal system as that system operates
a psychologist in court providing expert testimony concerning some
issue of relevance to a particular case. For example, the psychologist might testify,
based on his or her understanding of eyewitness research, how certain factors can
influence the accuracy of identifications from a police lineup. Alternatively, psychology
in the law might consist of a psychologist using his or her knowledge in a police
investigation to assist the police in developing an effective (and ethical) strategy for
interrogating a suspect
psychology in the law might consist of a psychologist using his or her knowledge in a police investigation to assist the police in developing an effective (and ethical) strategy for interrogating a suspect.
Psychology of the law
Psychology of the l aw Psychology of the law involves the use of psychology to study the law itself (Haney, 1980), and
it addresses questions such as “Does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society?” “Why is it important to allow for discretionary decision making in the Canadian criminal justice system?” and “What impact should court rulings have on the field of forensic psychology?”
Expert witness vs lay witness:
Judge goes through criteria to decide if you are testifying as either one
Expert = two primary functions:
Aid in understanding a particular issue relevant to the case
Provide an opinion
skilled in his or her area of expertise, in relevant rules of legal procedure, in direct and cross-examination strategies, and in effective ways of communicating who will be persuasive and helpful to the legal decision maker
This contrasts with regular witnesses who can only testify about what they have directly observed
Daubert criteria for deciding expert versus lay (US)
scientific evidence is valid if the research on which it is based has been
peer reviewed,
is testable,
has a recognized rate of error,
and adheres to professional standards
Mohan Criteria: In Canada
Be provided by an expert
Be relevant (this guy is a jerk - not necessary)
Be necessary for assisting the trier of factthe testimony must be about something that goes beyond the common understanding of the court.
Not violate rules of exclusion: as in you can’t bring in stuff that is against the court like - just cause he did somehting ekse in the past we think he did this one
(there is no testable rate of error or peer review so way more lenient in the Canadian system)
General acceptance test:
A standard for accepting expert testimony, which states that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community
2 Models of the correctional systems
Restorative purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate versus - go back into society as a healthy functioning person
retributive - purpose is to punish for bad behavior - do the crime do the time
Science versus the law 7 areas:
1. EpistemologyPsychologists uncover hidden objective . law is defined subjectively and is based on who can provide the most convincing story
- Nature of law . psychology is to describe how and why people behave.
Law, tells people how they should behave. Prescriptive and punish
-
Knowledge. psychology is based on the empirical, nomothetic (group-based) data collected using various research methodologies.
* law*, knowledge comes from the idiographic analysis of court cases and the rational application of logic - Methodology. psychology are predominantly nomothetic and experimental with an emphasis on controlling for confounding variables and replicating results.
law operates on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on constructing compelling narratives that adequately cover the details of a specific case while being consistent with the law.
-
Criterion. Psychologists statistical criteria are used (e.g., the use of p <.05 in significance testing).
* law*, beyond a reasonable doubt - Principles. Psychologists exploratory approach that encourages the consideration of multiple explanations for research findings. ideally through experimentation.
Lawyers : coherence with the facts and with precedent-setting cases
- Latitude of courtroom behaviour. The behaviour of the psychologist when acting as an expert witness is severely limited by the court.
The law imposes fewer restrictions on the behaviour of lawyers (though they are also restricted in numerous ways).
can present a wide range of evidence, call on various types of witnesses, and present their case in the way they see fit.
Science versus the law
science is Co-operative experimentation - make sure to spread ideas about research
Law is adversarial argumentation - defence and prosecution are add odds, they are not into wokring together
science Nomothetic - true for one situation is true for all situations
Law idiographic - what is law in one place may not be in another place - based on a lot of factors - in Napoleonic code what is true to one case does not apply to any other case - the merits of this case alone
science is Research based
Law stare decisis - what did an authority say? gov’t, supreme court
_science is_Descriptive - tells us how things work - 30 000 people a year don’t stop for the school bus
Law is prescriptive - tells us how things should work not actualy how they work - people re supposed to stop at a flasshing school bus
science is Strict methodological criteria - experiment and control group etc..
Law is liberal methodological - you can go ahead and wer your hijab
Equality v. discretion - like equal outcome for employment
Equality v. discretion - like equal outcome for employment
Truth v. conflict resolution - do we look for truth or conflict resolution? can’t totally know the truth but we can reduce conflict
Causation v. dialectics - sometimes it’s hard to find a cause so we look to dialecticals - this comes up in child abuse where research has shown that kids who were abused grow up to be abusers - child has a terror temperament like collic and parents crack and then parents abuse the kid because they lost it - chicken/egg for dialecticals - are people born criminals or is society influencing them etc….
Open v. closed systems
Truth v. conflict resolution
- do we look for truth or conflict resolution? can’t totally know the truth but we can reduce conflict
Causation v. dialectics -
dialectical
1.
relating to the logical discussion of ideas and opinions.
“dialectical ingenuity”
2.
concerned with or acting through opposing forces.
sometimes it’s hard to find a cause so we look to dialecticals - this comes up in child abuse where research has shown that kids who were abused grow up to be abusers - child has a terror temperament like collic and parents crack and then parents abuse the kid because they lost it - chicken/egg for dialecticals - are people born criminals or is society influencing them etc….
Open v. closed systems
open - are free - you get to choose who you are going to marry
closed - choices are made for you - religious sects - decisions are made by a hierarchy - arranged marriage
both have consequences :
open systems = more anxiety and stress
closed = more depression
Roles of the psychologist:
Basic or applied researcher
Policy evaluator -
Advocate - for LGBTQ or minorities etc..
Careers in Forensic Psychology
- Clinical/Police
- Human Relations Experts
- Social
- Counseling
- Correctional
- Behavioural specialists
- Organizational
- Developmental
- Pure & applied research
- Clinicians
- Consultation to police depts.
- Mediation for litigating parties
- Role-playing juries
- Risk assessment
- Competence/offender programs
- Profiling
- Assess social & penal programs
- Neglect, physical & sexual abuse
- Scientific data preparation
- Develop treatment programs
history of forensics
Ancient Chinese lie detector - rice in mouth wet/dry. same as polygraph
14th century Europe: insanity and idiocy - those who were incapacityt o stand trial were not treated the same way
16th century Britain: expert witnesses - someone has to be able to assess if they are ill or low iq
18th century: concept of competence introduced - ability to handle your life - competent in your defence?
Baccaria introduces proportionality = degree of punishment should be proportionate to the degree of crime - up until the 18th century crime and punishment were the same - steal a loaf of bread or killing someone - figured it out that inspired bigger crimes cuz if I’m gonna go to jail for a loaf of bread I might as well steal a million dollars if the punichment is no bigger
first experiments were those of
James Cattell at Columbia University
Cattell conducted experiments looking at what would later be called the psychology of eyewitness testimony
Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollection ,
Cattell (1895) asked 56 university students in psychology to recall things they had witnessed in their everyday lives
they were innacurate and confidence was opposite
La Suggestibilité (1900), the famous French psychologist
Alfred Binet
Franz von Liszt in 1901, participants in a law class were exposed to a scenario that involved two students arguing in a classroom (Stern, 1939). The scenario ended with one of the students drawing a revolver: results
emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the accuracy of a person’s testimony.
retroactive memory falsification caused by
extensive pretrial press coverage could influence the testimony of people by causing what he called
