PSY 3173 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Forensic Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Psychology
21 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Class 1
Two main approaches to Forensic Psychology
1. Narrow approach: focuses mainly on the applied aspects
2. Broad approach: includes clinical AND research
Ties together many aspects of psychology:
● Social psychology
● Developmental psychology
● Clinical psychology
● Cognitive psychology
● First study was eyewitness testimony
● Forensic psych only recently became the name
○ Most Universities teach this information under “Forensic psychology”
○ Limits what can be taught-- can’t cover any civil law, for example
Canadian psychologists: focuses a lot on developing tools for risk assessment
Us: focuses on eyewitness testimony and jury opinion
Narrow: In the Us you can be certified as a forensic psychologist
● Main reason there’s a distinction between narrow and broad
● You have to fit this exact definition to be certified as a forensic psychologist
● ABFP: American Board of Forensic Psychologist
From slides: Psychologists (clinical, counselling, neuropsychology, school psych) when
regularly engaged as experts in assisting to provide psychological expertise to the judicial
system.
Broad: Canada takes a much more broad approach to forensic psychology
● Forensic psychologist is not a regulated title in Canada
● “Experts” in the field can refer to themselves as forensic psychologists
From slides: Any research that examines aspects of human behaviour directly relating to the
legal process, and the practice of psychology within or with a legal system that embraces both
civil and criminal law (Bartol and Bartol)
The roles of a Forensic Psychologist
● Forensic Psychologists have several different roles, depending on your interest and
experience
○ It's also possible to do more than one of the options
● Even if you don't identify as a forensic psychologist, as long as you have contact or
affiliation with the legal system and work in some sort of psychological field, you are
considered a forensic psychologist in Canada
● The Forensic Psychologist as a Clinician
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
○ Assessment and treatment of mental health issues as they pertain to the law
■ Risk assessment → risk of reoffending
○ Not limited to clinical work, may also do research
○ Wide variety of settings: schools, prisons, hospitals, ect.
■ Can participate in personnel selection in law enforcement (or develop
tools that help decide which police officers should be hired)
○ Can be an “expert witness” in court (give professional opinion)
● Forensic Psychiatrist: similar to forensic psychologist but focuses much more on
medicinal approach to treatment instead of therapy
○ Must have MD
○ Focusses on medical model of mental illness
● The Forensic psychologist as a researcher: working in universities or others (rcmp)
○ More than just mental health and the legal system
○ Focus more broad -- ie. effectiveness of risk assessment strategies
○ Avoid errors in police lineup
○ Reducing errors in eyewitness recall
○ May become professors of may work in the public sector such as correctional
facilities or police forces
● Legal scholar: fairly uncommon; focuses on law more than psych
○ Don’t focus on mental health but analyze if the law is in line with recent
psychological research
○ Slides: Scholarly analyses of mental health law and psychologically legal
movements
Relationship between Psychology and law
According to Haney (1980) there are 3 primary ways in which psychology and the law can relate
to each other:
1. Psychology AND the law: the use of psychology to examine the legal system
○ Use psychology to examine the legal system, from a psychological perspective
(psychology is separate from law)
○ Someone with a good knowledge of psychology looks at what’s currently in place
with the legal system and criticizes
○ A critic points out the things that aren’t in line with our current understanding of
psychology
○ May ask: Are eyewitness testimonies accurate? Are judges fair? Do they remain
consistent)
■ Knowledge is based on research in psych (ex. How the memory works to
understand eyewitness testimony)
2. Psychology in the law: the use of psychology in the legal system
○ Knowledge of anyone in the justice system -- it could be a psychologist, a judge
or police officer
○ Applying psychological knowledge to your work in the legal system (i.e. police
officers using psych knowledge when conducting an interview)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
○ A psychologist may provide an expert opinion based on psychological research --
instead of being a critic the two fields are working together
3. Psychology OF the law: using psychology to study the legal system
Focus is more on the future
● Look at specific law, try and determine if these laws are actually reducing crime
● Not basing opinions on research in psychology (like first point: Psychology and the law)
but instead take broad questions and focuses on the future
○ I.e. what role should police officers play in domestic disputes?
● NOT criticizing how things are done right now but instead focusing on how things should
be different in the future
● For civil cases = one civilian against another
● Criminal cases = someone vs. the crown
Trial courts
● Most cases begin in trial courts
● Lawyers for each side, jury, present witnesses, etc., and render verdict of guilty or not
guilty
Courts of appeal
● If you question the verdict (i.e. potential error of law) and one of the parties is able to
prove there was an error in the law, they are eligible to appeal the verdict
● No jury, only lawyer
● May decide to hold same verdict or order new trial
● If the court of appeal makes a decision and the person is still not happy with it, it can be
brought to the supreme court of Canada
Supreme Court of Canada
● No jury, only lawyers
● Verdict is final
Courts of appeal and Supreme Court results an shape how the law is -> decisions about what is
ethical, closing loopholes, ect. Decisions in court also shape the laws so they don’t have to go
through the same argument again
R vs. Hubbert (1975) -> Impartiality of jurors. Case was questioning whether jurors could be
partial instead of impartial
● Court recognized the right to question the impartiality of a jury
R vs. Sophonow (1986) (So-pho-now -> eyewitness evidence/ jailhouse)
● Lawyers proved many errors of law including flaws in police interviews
R vs. Lavallee (1990) -> Expert testimony for battered women syndrome
● If you’re a victim of violence for long enough, you may start to believe over time
that your life is in danger
● For self-defence must be in immediate danger
● Battered women syndrome doesn’t fit the criteria for self-defence
● Lavallee's case: She was being abused; her partner gave her a gun and told her
if she didn’t kill him he would kill her. He left the room and she shot him.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Two main approaches to forensic psychology: narrow approach: focuses mainly on the applied aspects, broad approach: includes clinical and research. Forensic psych only recently became the name. Most universities teach this information under forensic psychology . Limits what can be taught-- can"t cover any civil law, for example. Canadian psychologists: focuses a lot on developing tools for risk assessment. Us: focuses on eyewitness testimony and jury opinion. Narrow: in the us you can be certified as a forensic psychologist. Main reason there"s a distinction between narrow and broad. You have to fit this exact definition to be certified as a forensic psychologist. From slides: psychologists (clinical, counselling, neuropsychology, school psych) when regularly engaged as experts in assisting to provide psychological expertise to the judicial system. Broad: canada takes a much more broad approach to forensic psychology. Forensic psychologist is not a regulated title in canada. Experts in the field can refer to themselves as forensic psychologists.
