KHA312 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: False Imprisonment, White Coat, Forensic Science
Psychology and Law: week 1
The Innocence Project: Barry Check & Peter Neufeld (1992)
- Non profit organisation
- Psychologists, students, lawyers
- Investigate suspected cases of wrongfully incarcerated
- Later exonerated
- Now based on DNA evidence
oBecause of lack of DNA investigations when incarcerated
oReal perpetrator caught in 50% cases
- Wrongful convictions have two sides:
oInnocent person go to jail
oGuilty person runs free and goes unpunished
- Social issue:
oAverage of 14 years in prison
- Is DNA a safeguard:
oDNA evidence only certain types of cases provide you with the
opportunity to use this
oMany crimes don’t offer genetic evidence
Online scams
Frauds
oObjective science vs. interpretive art
Single comparisons in the past, now multiple
Probabilistic at first
No longer one to one comparisons
Bunch of DNA from a number of different people
Does a suspect match some of the material
Don’t have good guidance on the error rates of this
multiple comparisons
Large samples
Extractions now used
Means gone from large, reliable data comparisons
Now making comparisons with a number of different
pools of data
Turned data into interpretive art
More scope for subjective interpretation
The way we use DNA evidence has changed over the years
Scientific scrutiny hasn’t advanced in sophistication
Its now expected there should be DNA
People expect that all DNA testing is accurate
Even though we don’t have data on error rates of new
methods
oWHY DO THESE ERRORS OCCUR?
This is why we study psychology and law
Eyewitness misidentification:
- Witnesses often asked to ID suspect in lineup
- False IDs result in wrongful conviction
oVery persuasive evidence
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The innocence project: barry check & peter neufeld (1992) Now based on dna evidence: because of lack of dna investigations when incarcerated, real perpetrator caught in 50% cases. Wrongful convictions have two sides: innocent person go to jail, guilty person runs free and goes unpunished. Social issue: average of 14 years in prison. Is dna a safeguard: dna evidence only certain types of cases provide you with the opportunity to use this, many crimes don"t offer genetic evidence. Frauds: objective science vs. interpretive art. Single comparisons in the past, now multiple. Bunch of dna from a number of different people. Does a suspect match some of the material. Don"t have good guidance on the error rates of this multiple comparisons. Means gone from large, reliable data comparisons. Now making comparisons with a number of different pools of data. The way we use dna evidence has changed over the years. People expect that all dna testing is accurate.
