Lecture 8 - The trial Flashcards
(16 cards)
social cognition model
The social cognition model argues that you can gain an understanding of how people make judgments by examining how they employ a variety of cognitive processes to evaluate social information
input biases
what are the 3 and describe them
vividness - when making a decision, the tendency to place extra cognitive weight on information that is bizarre, abnormal or dramatic eg the presentation or graphic evidence
negativity - when making a decision, the tendency to place extra cognitive weight on information that portrays individuals, issues, and objected in a less favourable light
primacy - when making a decision, the tendency to place extra cognitive weight on earlier information and less cognitive weight on later information
processing biases and what are the 3 and explain
Representative heuristic - when making a decision, the tendency to employ emotioally-evokign stimuli and false beliefs rather than logic and common sense
illusory correlation - when making a decision, the tendency to believe that two events are causally related simply due to the fact that they occur within close proximity
framing - when making a decision, the tendency to be influenced by concentration on a cognitive anchor and then framing the decision around the anchor
output biases what are the two
response bias - the tendency to behaviour contrary to one’s decision due to social influences
functional fixedness - the inability to apply a logical decision due to cognitive categorization one holds about another person
attributions of causality
involved judgements about the cause of the behaviour or ourselves or others
primary attribution - heider
when deciding on the cause of the behavior of others who we do not know very well, we have a tendency to make an immediate dispositional or situational judgment
fundamental attribution error
when deciding on the cause of the negative behavior of others, we have a tendency to overemphasize dispositional factors and under-emphasise situational factors;
actor/observer bias
when deciding on the cause of the behavior of ourselves and others, we have a tendency to view our negative behaviours as situational and our positive behaviours as dispositional while doing the opposite for others.
head vs heart
involves framing the narrative as emotional or logical
whether the presentation of evidence should be aimed at the cognitive level or emotional level
how do attorneys determine whether to target cognitive level or emotional level
- tier of fact - cognitive approach is often when the judge is the tier of fact.
- level of emotional content in trial - higher level of emotional content the more likely an emotional presentation will be successful
- jury demographic - composition of the jury may dictate the approach
- defendant/victim appeal - suggested that less appealing individuals may indicate a cognitive approach is better suited
list some attorney tactics
vivid language
repetition
loaded questions
subtle shifts in wording
definitional tactics
establishing and disrupting connections in the stories being told
expert evidence - qualification of an expert witness generally involves a three part test
the subject matter is so complex or technical that is beyond the ken of the average person
the witness must be qualified to speak to the issue at hand
there must be scientific acceptance of the information presented by the witness
challenges for an expert witness
- Lack of understanding of the legal arena (concepts, processes, etc.)
- Role: Advocacy vs. Educator
- Probability vs. Certainty
- Personal Beliefs/Morals
- Ultimate Issue Evidence
- Forensic Awareness
insanity defence
some condition affecting their reason
“not to be in his right mind” - white spots on the tongue, an inconsistency between actions and answers, and restlessness
state of mind was abnormal
not in a state of mind to be put on trial
McNuaghton Rule - at the time of committign the act, the accused was labouring under such defect of reason, form disease fo the mind, as not to know the nautre and qualitiy of the act they were doing, or if they did knwo it, they didn’t know it was wrong.
what are the three elements insanity is based on
- the defendant was suffering from a “defect of reason from a disease of the mind”
- as a result, the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
- an inquiry has been carried out to determine whether the defendant knew what he was doing was wrong
proximate clause
a connection between the conduct of the defendant which the plaintiff claims was negligent,a dn the injury complained of by the plaintiff
