Study Guides (248,683)
Canada (121,693)
Psychology (623)
PSYCH 230 (19)
Final

PSYCH 230 Lecture notes (includes all lecture)

40 Pages
154 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYCH 230
Professor
John Rempel

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 40 pages of the document.
Description
Psych  230  Psychology  and  Law     Lecture  1   Goals     Understanding     Generalized   Basic  research   Testing   Targeted   Applied  research   Treatment     Physiological   -­‐fMRI     Cognitive  psychology     -­‐interested  in  memory.     -­‐in  cognitive  experiments,  you  watch  brief  flashes  of  information,  below  the  level  of  awareness.     -­‐cognitive  reaction  time:  how  fast  do  you  recognize  something.     Developmental  psychology     -­‐systematic  observation  with  systematic  coding  system     Personality     -­‐use  scales  to  measure  individual  differences.     -­‐functional  psychopath/dysfunction  psychopath:     -­‐impossible  to  treat  and  does  not  care  about  anyone  else.     Social  psychology     -­‐understand  people  in  relationship,  how  do  people  behave  in  the  presence  of  others.     -­‐humans  are  intensive  social  beings  to  develop  the  legal  system  we  have.     -­‐experimental  method  used  all  the  time.     -­‐correlation  methods:  use  questionnaire,  surveys.       -­‐because  you  can’t  get  everyone  to  get  into  different  situations.     -­‐human  behaviours  are  too  complicated  to  understand.     -­‐minimize  possibility  of  the  likelihood  of  incorrect  and  bias  explanations       -­‐designs  study  to  eliminate  alternate  incorrect  explanations.     CASE  STUDY   During  therapy  sessions  with  young  offenders,  Dr.Lawless  correlates  traumatic  childhood  relationships  to   criminals  and  criminal  offence.   -­‐Negative  parental  rejections  can  relate  to  criminal  offence.   -­‐54/60  offenders  indicated  that  a  severe  negative  incident  with  a  parent  was  related  to  their  criminal  activities.   -­‐90%  of  these  offenders  connected  their  criminal  behaviour  to  negative  childhood  incidents  with  their  parents.     What  are  the  alternative  explanation:   -­‐family  =  common  occurrence.  Bias   -­‐those  who  committed  crime  can  just  be  finding  excuses  to  the  crime  they  committed,  because  they  do  not  want  to   take  the  blame  and  the  responsibility  for  it.   -­‐leading  questions  in  order  to  get  results,  questions  that  calls  forth  the  answer  he  is  looking  for.     -­‐question  and  answer  does  not  match.  Hypothesis  does  not  match.  Does  the  crime  cries  for  attention.   -­‐no  control  group:  needs  a  group  of  people  who  did  not  committee  crime.  There  maybe  some  people  who  had   traumatic  childhood  but  DID  NOT  committee  crime.   -­‐the  nature  of  sample:  a  very  limited  sample,  it’s  very  hard  to  generalize  outside  the  group.   -­‐the  study  was  done  in  a  group,  it  can  impact  on  other  people’s  idea.   -­‐conformity   -­‐authority  figure  (Dr.Lawless):  has  a  lot  of  power.   -­‐subjectivity  of  perception:  foul  of  memor y.  People  might  have  difficulty  recalling  things  from  childhood.   -­‐cause  and  effect:  assumption  of  early  childhood  activities  causes  the  behaviour.     -­‐correlation  data   -­‐did  not  check  validity  of  the  test   -­‐biased  in  the  beginning  when  he  started  the  research.     -­‐look  for  evidence  to  support  the  hypothesis/believe  and  confirm  it  (leads  to  bias  and  over  interpret   something).  Logical  process  can  leads  to  bias   -­‐measurement  techniques   -­‐did  not  consider  other  factors  (cultural  factor,  peer  relationship),  the  only  cau se  that  was  discussed  was  traumatic   childhood  (However  this  is  criticizing  the  theory,  not  necessarily  just  the  methodological  techniques.     Guidelines  for  systemizing:   Experimenter     -­‐leading  questions     -­‐biased  data  collection  (interpreting  the  results  and   getting  the  answer  you  want)     -­‐no  independent  verification     -­‐demand  characteristics       -­‐power  and  authority  (people  wanting  to  please  the  authority  figure)       -­‐rapport     Participants     -­‐motivated  to  produce  the  desired  response     -­‐influence  each  other  (group  study)     -­‐memory  biases/fabrication     -­‐no  control  group     Non-­‐random,  non-­‐representative  sample     Conclusions     Correlational  data  (cannot  determine  cause  and  effect,  third  variable  causality)     -­‐multiple  causality  is  ignored.  (it  is  misleading  when  it  comes  to  a   conclusion  saying  this  is  the  MAJOR,  the   ONLY  CAUSE  to  certain  event,  because  other  causes  are  not  being  consider)     -­‐generalized  beyond  sample.             Lecture  2     Schwartz  (1992)  Values     -­‐Suggested  structure  to  the  values     -­‐10  grouping  of  values     -­‐Define  values:  emotion  linked  beliefs  that  represent  desirable  goals,  desirable  modes  of  conduct  and  these   becomes  the  guiding  principle  that  people  use.  Principles  that  guide  our  behaviour.     -­‐the  values  are  positive,  meaningful  things  to  us.     -­‐how  do  we  prioritize/order  these  values,  some  values  will  be  more  important   depending  on  person.     If  you  prioritize  certain  values  you  are  also  going  to  prioritize  similar  values.     Self  direction     -­‐independence     -­‐freedom     -­‐individual  decision  making/choice     -­‐self  control     -­‐curiosity     Stimulation     -­‐exciting,  daring  and  varying  life     -­‐courage     Hedonism     -­‐pleasure     -­‐enjoying  life     Achievement     -­‐successful     -­‐intelligent     -­‐self  respect     -­‐capable     -­‐ambitious  influential     Power     -­‐social  recogniztion     -­‐preserving  public  image     -­‐power  &  wealth  &  authority     -­‐social  power     Security   -­‐national  security   -­‐family  security   -­‐sense  of  belonging     Conformity   -­‐self  discipline   -­‐obedience   -­‐politeness   -­‐honoring  your  parent     Tradition   -­‐moderation   -­‐humidity   -­‐respecting  tradition   -­‐detachment   -­‐accepting  your  portion  in  life  (knowing  your  place)   -­‐sense  of  fate     Benevolence  welfares  of  others   (Interpersonal  values  that  shows  benefit  and  interacts  with  others  in  a  positive  way)   -­‐mature  love   -­‐meaning  in  life   -­‐true  friendship   -­‐responsible   -­‐helpful   -­‐faithful  &  loyal   -­‐forgiving     Universalism   (People  in  general  &  humanity,  the  goals  are  appreciation,  tolerance  )   -­‐world  at  peace   -­‐social  justice   -­‐inner  harmony   -­‐protecting  environment   -­‐unity  with  nature   -­‐world  of  beauty   -­‐wisdom   -­‐broad  minded   -­‐equality  (anchor)     Conservation  (Conservatives)   -­‐Self  protection,  protecting  ourselves  from  the  danger.     -­‐maintain  continuality.   Stare  decisis  (latin)     -­‐bi-­‐bi  deciding  cases     -­‐prevents  deciding  things  in  a  contradicting  way     -­‐  conservation  value  (we  fear  change)     Openness  to  change  ( Liberal)   Self  enhancement   -­‐growth   -­‐learning   -­‐prevention  orientation  and  promotion  orientation   -­‐gather,  obtain  and  acquire  (food,  knowledge  and  shelter)   Obiter  dicta     -­‐open  to  change  is  allowed   1982  Charter  of  Rights  and  Freedom  (Canada)     -­‐individual  rights  and  freedom     -­‐inherit  focus  on  individualism     -­‐gave  law-­‐making  power  to  the  court     -­‐charter  was  above  the  political  law,  the  law  needs  to  be  consistent  with  the  charter     -­‐not  judgment,  but  an  observation     -­‐focuses  on  individual  rights,  values  and  protecti on     -­‐not  included  in  Charter:  protection  of  group,  others,  culture     -­‐section  24  of  Charter       -­‐allows  evidence  to  be  excluded.  The  evidence  in  court  must  be  legally  obtain.       -­‐cannot  beat  a  confession  out  of  a  criminal     -­‐section  7  of  Charter       -­‐guarantee  the  right  to  life,  liberty  and  security  of  the  person       -­‐the  right  to  deprive  freedom  from  others.       -­‐the  right  to  silence     -­‐section  8  of  Charter       -­‐the  rights  to  be  secure  to  unreasonable  search       -­‐protecting  your  privacy  and  security       -­‐you  should  be  allowed  to  do  what  you  want  in  the  privacy  of  your  own  house     -­‐section  10  of  Charter       -­‐must  know  why  they  are  arrested  (form  of  consent)       -­‐protection  of  someone  with  crime       -­‐to  be  protected  from  being  on  your  own     -­‐section  11  of  Charter       -­‐be  informed  of  the  offense       -­‐must  be  tried  in  a  trial  in  a  certain  of  time  (trial  by  jury,  etc)     Child  Porn   Conservation:  absolutely  NO,  not  a  chance.   Liberty:  it’s  a  personal  choice.  If  you  look  at  it  at  home,  in  your  own  privacy  it’s  okay.     Self-­‐Transcendence   -­‐going  beyond  justice   -­‐morality   -­‐the  mentality  saying,  it’s  not  about  right  or  wrong,  but  about  getting  caught.     Understand  where  other  people’s  values  are  coming  from.  They  may  have  different  values  from  yous,  but  that   doesn’t  mean  they  don’t  agree  with  yours.  It’s   just  they  don’t  think  it’s  as  important  as  theirs.                 Lecture  3:  An  Integrative  Model  of  Offending     Structural  Antecedents     Physiological  Precursors   -­temperament  (ANS  responsivity)   -­dysregulation  of  neurotransmitter  (ex:  serotonin)   -­hormonal  levels  (ex:  testosterone)   -­‐aggressive  tendency   -­size  and  strength  (simply  being  strong  doesn’t  increase  tendency  of  being  a  violent  criminal,  but  it  provides   you  a  stage  to  problem  solving.  It  becomes  an  option  for  stronger  people  to  use  its  strength  to  solve  proble ms   against  people  who  are  not  as  strong.)   -­brain  injury  (the  injury  itself  does  not  create  criminality)   -­IQ  level  (think  you  are  smarter  than  others  and  will  not  be  caught,  ex:  corporate  crime)   -­‐twin  studies  are  done,  adopted  twins  gives  valuable  informati on  and  fact;  whether  certain  traits  are  inherited  or   environmental.     Environmental/Contextual  Influences   -­family  environment  (ex:  criminality,  substance  abuse,  psychopathology)     -­‐parents  corrupting  the  kids,  or  preventing  the  kids  from  doing  what  they  want     -­‐both  parents  have  mental  illness,  might  not  be  diagnosed   -­parenting  (ex:  attachment  level,  discipline  style)     -­‐relationships  between  parents  and  child     -­‐discipline  style:  strong  and  harsh  parenting  (angry  and  unloved)     -­‐loose/undisciplined  parenting:  no  sense  of  right  or  wrong,  do  whatever  they  want     -­‐-­‐-­‐>  However  this  is  not  a  simple  1  to  1  correlation,  harsh  parenting  does  not  directly  lead  to  criminal  acts.   -­social  environment  (ex:  SES,  neighbourhood,  media)     -­‐gangs  (subculture,  to  be  aggressive,  to  st eal  and  to  hurt)     -­‐the  environment  trains  people     -­‐criminals  are  just  doing  things  out  of  nature,  the  environment  had  no  control  of  it   -­peer  relationships  (ex:  deviant,  aggressive  friends)     -­‐I  have  to  do  certain  things  to  be  accepted  into  this  group  of  peo ple     -­‐not  directly  related  to  criminal  activity,  but  may  lead  to  criminal  action  or  provide  an  environment  for  it  (ex:   addiction  to  drugs)   -­achievement  (ex:  school  or  occupational  failure)     -­‐the   presence   of   some   of   these   factors   can   reduce   or   inhibit   the   d esire   and   risk   of   criminal   activity   (ex:   accepted  by  peers,  Excellency  in  school)   -­close  relationships  (ex:  absent  or  dysfunctional)   -­lifestyle  choices  (ex:  substance  abuse)     -­‐certain  choices  will  increase  and  some  decreases  the  likelihood  of  criminal  acti vities.   -­social  labeling     -­‐once  you  identify  yourself  or  when  others  have  identify  you  as  certain  type  of  person/future/goal.  When  you   get  label,  others  may  treat  you  according  to  that  label.  That  view  of  yourself  may  alter  how  others  think  of  you.  We   respond   to   people   to   how   we   perceive   them.   It   then   increases   the   probability   that   one   will   continues   on   the   identity  that  people  gave  you.     Others  expected  you  to  respond  aggressively,  therefore  they  treat  you  harsh  and  you  feel  attacked  so  you   defend  yourself.  Then  you  give  a  hostile  response.  You  respond  as  what  others  expected,  then  you  start  to  think   you  are  like  that,  a  hostile  person.  Then  you  are  label  and  may  contribute  to  criminal  action.     Psychological  Dispositions   -­insecure  attachment     -­‐did  not  feel  connected  to  your  parents  and  safe  around  the  world  ,  then  you  look  out  for  yourself     -­‐integration  of  nature  and  nurture   -­difficult  temperament   -­‐-­impulsivity   -­lower  empathy  and  conscientiousness   -­‐can  I  feel  what  others  feel  /  do  I  know  what  others  are  expe riencing.  If  I  can  then  I  would  have  respond  to   them  differently.  Psychopaths  are  believed  to  be  people  that  can’t  emphasize  with  others.  They  know  the  pain  is   presence  but  they  can’t  feel  and  understand  it.  Psychopath  may  not  be  able  to  feel,  but  they  kno w  they  can’t  harm   their  family  members.   -­deficient  problem  solving     -­‐may  not  have  highest  IQ  combines  with  low  problem  solving  skills  and  approaches  tend  to  be  very  limited  to   negative.  Do  not  have  the  cognitive  resource  to  quickly  and  accurately  identify   your  alternatives.   -­psychopathy     Cognitive  Impact     (what  are  people  thinking  about  when  they  think  about  criminal  activities)   The  following  are  categories  to  what  might  be  relevant:   -­beliefs  about  self  (ex:  entitlement,  relative  deprivation,  self -­reliance)     -­‐what  are  your  believes  about  yourself,  other  people,  victims  of  your  crime.   -­beliefs  about  others  (ex:  unreliable,  threatening,  unjust,  irrelevant)     -­‐are  they  people  you  can’t  trust,  irrelevant,  threatening  or  take  advantage  of  me.   -­interpretive  style  (ex:  more  self-­serving,  other-­blaming  attributions)     -­‐how  do  I  orient  the  situation     -­‐I  have  to  compete  to  survive     -­‐this  might  not  be  right,  but  it’s  their  fault,  they  made  me  do  it.  I  didn’t  have  a  choice   -­perceptions  of  gains  and  losses  (ex:  short -­term  gratification)     -­‐we  are  going  to  act  in  ways  that  maximize  our  gains  and  minimize  our  loss  (how  do  people  perceive  gains   and  loss,  not  everyone  weighs  gains  or  losses  the  same  way)     -­‐some  perceive  the  short  term  gain  or  loss  as  most  relevant.  If  I  shoplift   now,  I  got  the  iPod,  do  not  think  too   much  further  ahead.  HAVE  iPod  or  DON’T  HAVE  iPod.  Normal  perceiving:  stealing  iPod  may  lead  to  criminal  acts,   hard  to  find  a  job  and  can’t  afford  to  buy  iPod  anymore.     Emotional  Impact   -­greater  excitatory  emotions  (ex:  anger,  envy,  greed,  fear)     -­‐are  more  likely  to  amplify,  increase  the  likelihood  of  criminal  act     -­‐fear:  I  need  to  protect  myself   -­fewer  inhibitory  emotions  (ex:  empathy,  guilt,  apprehension)   -­‐lowers  the  response  to  criminal  activity     -­‐apprehension:  anxious     Motivational  Impact   -­self-­protection  goals  (ex:  minimize  or  eliminate  potential  threats,  sensitivity  to  rejection,  insult,  or  harm)     -­‐do  something  to  hurt  others  but  protect  yourselves     -­‐more  sensitive  to  rejection     -­‐react  more  negatively   -­self-­promotion  goals  (ex:  risk-­taking,  maximize  personal  gains,  establish  or  increase  dominance)     -­‐more  likely  to  take  risk,  but  can  lead  to  more  problem.         Integrative  Model     Structural  antecedents   (double  headed  arrow  running  between  physiological  precursor  and  envi ronmental  influences)     Physiological  precursors   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  Psychological  Dispositions  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  environmental  influences   |   |   |                                                            Psychological  impact               (double  headed  arrow  running  between  cognition  and  em otion)         Cognition  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐Motivations  -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  Emotions     |   |   |      Criminal  Behaviour             Lecture  4:  Policing   *Don’t  ignore  the  environmental  or  situational  sources.     Demands   -­multiple  and  diverse  tasks.   -­have  to  be  able  to  cope  with  uncertainty  and  surprises.   -­specialized  training  (ex:  hostage  negotiation)   -­knowledge  about  the  law  is  required  and  act  lawfully.     -­‐held  to  a  higher  standard.   -­promote  a  public  image)   -­‐negative  image  of  an  officer  will  cause  difficulty  in  wor k.  Maybe  be  ignored  or  avoided.  This  kind  of  image  can   be  temporated  with  investigation   -­stress     -­‐personal  stress:  not  know  what  will  come  up.     -­‐personal  risk:  what  potential  danger  will  they  encounter     -­‐being  responsible  for  the  wellbeing  of  others.     -­‐encountering  suffering:  one  of  the  few  that’s  always  first  on  the  scene   -­‐have  to  make  important  decision  under  time  constrain  (life  and  death  decision)   -­‐live  with  the  consequences  from  the  decision  made.     -­‐paper  work     -­‐judicial  inconsistency       -­‐polices  would  spent  long  hours  in  capturing  some  criminals,  but  then  judges  let  them  out  on  bail.  It   wasn’t  the  outcome  that  the  police  were  anticipating.  They  spend  long  time  in  capturing  them.     -­‐bad  press       -­‐decisions  were  correct  but  the  action  is  inappropriate       -­‐when  one  police  is  corrupted,  people  might  think  all  polices  are  corrupted.       -­‐it  will  be  hard  for  people  to  trust  you,  base  on  bad  things  that  others  did  and  the  medial  publicized  it.   -­in  addition  to  rewards  there  are  costs  to  this  job.   -­‐if  the  job  is  done  nicely,  it  will  save  people’s  life,  bring  goodness  to  society.   -­Screening   -­‐physical  skills:  very  easy  to  measure   -­‐psychological  skills:  measurement  tools  are  not  as  precise  and  not  as  available   -­‐measurement  weaknesses   -­‐None  of  us  are  as  good  as  we  think,  i ncluding  the  police,  when  it  comes  to  detecting  things  or  lies  that   people  makes  during  interviews   -­‐psychological  wellbeing  is  complex  and  hard  to  determine  or  measure.       Study  conducted:   Le  Kowitz       (1975)     Wooten  &  Brown       (2000)     Suspicision     Cynicism     Conservatism     Authoritarianism   outgroup  prejudice   Loyalty   solidarity   Secretivness   pragmatism   Physical  courage   action   Self-­‐assertiveness   mission     Cluster  1:  courage,  assertive,  pragmatesion,  action,  mission   Cluster  2:  suspicion,  cynicism,  pessimism/  loyalty ,  solidarity,  secrecy   -­‐close-­‐knit,  common  identity:  need  to  be  loyal  to  partners  and  they  need  to  know  you’ve  got  their  back.  People  are   counting  on  each  other  as  protection  and  support.   -­‐being  misunderstood  by  others   -­‐understand  the  job,  then  you  will  und erstand  the  tiredness  and  stress  of  the  job   -­‐police  have  negative  views  of  the  male  offenders  than  the  general  population     -­‐they  see  them  as  more  deviant,  less  normal,  less  trust -­‐worthy  and  more  fundamentally  bad   -­‐people,  including  officers,  have  tendency   to  over  generalize     -­‐ex:  faculty  picking/accepting  students   -­‐blue  wall  of  silence     -­‐it’s  a  huge  violation  to  report  after  you  did  something  wrong.  They  are  a  team  and  works  together       -­‐lawyer’s  defence  in  court:  police  protect  each  other  no  matter  what     Cluster  3:  authoritarianism,  conservatism,  prejudice   -­‐middle  class  conventional,  more  political  conservative  and  more  oriented  to  maining  the  status  quo   -­‐people  who  disagree  with  it  are  not  merely  challenging  my  view  of  world  but  my  job.   -­‐the  tendency  that  police  have  to  arrest  some  people  over  other  people.     -­‐if  it  was  a  judge,  they  might  just  let  them  go  with  a  warning.  Judge  is  an  authorities  figure,  it  would  be   embarrassing  to  arrest  them.  Discrimination  against  races,  not  everyone’s  treated  equally.   -­‐police  do  not  want  to  be  prejudice  but  they  also  do  not  want  to  ignore  potential  threat.     -­‐within  the  police  force,  they  also  need  to  deal  with  issues  with  police  from  different  cultural  background  and   gender  difference  (stereotype).   -­‐stereotype  of  female  officers       -­‐generally  weaker  than  male  officers:  however  nowadays  not  everything  requires  strength       -­‐passive  and  lack  confidence       -­‐emotional  disable:  can’t  be  calm  especially  during  the  time  of  the  month       -­‐their  attractive  outside  appearance  can  be  distrac tvie/distractting.       Critical  thinking  questions   Why  people  want  to  be  police?   Preerence  for  order  and  security   The  desire  to  provide  social  service  others,  to  benefit  others   A  job  that  allows  you  to  excersicse  independent  thoughts,  be  creative  and  learn  n ew  things  (exciting  job)  novelty   and  independence  figure.             Lecture  5:  Profiling     A  Brief  History  of  Profiling   Hunters/trackers:   Criminalistics   “Lay”psychology:    thee  veryday  rinci        eople  .   Criminological  typing:  Lombrosos  correlate  people’s  body  type/head  shapes  with  crmial  offense  they  are  more   likely  to  engage  in.   Psychoanalysis   FBI:   Empiricists:  psychological/clinical/foresensic  training  correlate  characteristic  of  criminals  and  their  outside   appearance       Core  assumptions  of  prof iling   Core  assumption#1   Criminal  behaviour  is  subject  to  the  same  set  of  “grand  laws”  of  human  behaviour  to  which  noncriminal  behaviour   is  subject     - Rewarded  behaviour  tends  to  be  repeating.  Cause  and  reward  structure.   o When   you   are   at   a   crime   scene   and   you   don’t   understand   it.   Look   at   it   again,   what   you   don’t   understand  is  why  the  criminal  commit  such  crime   - Criminals  are  also  human,  they  are  not  different  species.     B=f(P,E),  where  E=(V+C)   B  =  offender  behaviour   P  =  offender  characteristics  (person)   E  =  environment   V=victim   C=context   The  task  of  profiling?       to  solve  for  P!!!   - Behaviour  is  the  function  of  the  person  and  environment   - If  you  think  all  human  behaviour  is  completely  driven  by  the  situation  and  that  the  person  place  0  influence   on  the  situation.  You  cannot  be  a  profiler,  because  what  you  profile  is  the  situation.     Core  assumption  #2   Profiling  is  a  psychological  (attributional)  task.   - Attribution:  trying  to  answer  they  “why”  question.  If  someone  did  something,  why  do  they  do  it?   - Why  did  the  offender  did  this  to  the  victim,  why  they  did  it  this  way.  How  did  the  victim  react.   - Intention:  you  go  from  what  they  did  to  why  they  did  what  they  did.  What  were  the  cause  they  try  to  avoid   and  the  rewards  they  try  to  seek.   - Crime  scene  can  be  degraded  easily.  Ex:  par amedics  trying  to  get  the  body  out,  crime  scene  investigator   aren’t  paying  attention  to  the  crime  scene,  smoking  at  the  scene  and  etc..                 Top  “victim”  characteristics   Top  perpetrator  characteristics   Weak/helpless/vulnerable    50%   Male   32%   Innocent   30%   Aggressive/mean  violent   20%   Female   27%   Lows  SES   14%   Small   10%   Mentally  ill   13%     Dirty/disheveled     11%     Dark   11%     Evil   8% *These  are  all  from  stereotypes  of  the  society,  movie  and  media       “semen  was  found  in  the  vagina  of  a  deceased  female”   (N=  132)   Nature  of  sexual  contact   78%     Assault/rape   62%     Forced/consensual   11%     Before/after  death   5%   Death  Circumstances/Suspect  characteristics  51%   Insufficient  information   8%   Unspecified  sexual  contact     30%   - The  first  few  choices  are  biases.  From  the  statement  above  i t  did  not  state  it  was  a  crime  scene  nor  does  it   said  she  was  killed  by  others  and  it  was  a  forced  sexual  contact.   - Only  those  who  said  “insufficient  information”  and  “unspecified  sexual  contact”  got  it  right.       Core  profiling  Tasks   1.Victimology   o Key  questions:  why  here,  why  now,  why  him/her/it?  (basic  victimological  question)   o Key  concept:  risk!  (very  subjective,  victim  specific  context)      Psychological  autopsy  of  the  victim:  where,  how  and  where  they  spend  their  time.   2.Offender  profile     -­‐  Behaviour:  Why  do  they  occur  in  this  set  of  sequences?   a. Signature/personation?    It  doesn’t  have  to  be  done  that  way,  but  it  was  symbolic  to  the  offender.   b. M.O.  behaviour    Something  special  or  different   c. Staging    What  does  the  offender  want  and  not  want  you  to  see.    Are  they  trying  to  taunt  you  or  mislead  you.    People  usually  don’t  do  a  good  job  of  it.  Both  victim  and  perpetrator  can  do  it.   d. duress/interruption    how  do  people  deal  with  the  unexpected  and  how  to  people  response  to  stress    are  there  things  that  the  perpetrator  didn’t  plan  for  and  how  they  dealt  with  it.   e. Habit    Was  there  evidence  of  any  repetitive.    What  is  it  that  people  usually  do     -­‐Typologies   o Organized/disorganized   o Strongest  argument  for  the  use  o  typologies:  IF  it  can  be  validated,  it  usually  overlook  a  lot  of  the   major  things.      If  you  see  “this”  at  a  crime  scene  it  means  you  are  looking  for  “this  type”  of  person.  It  gives   you  observable  charactiertstic  for  you  to  narrow  down  the  offender.     Core  Challenges  in  profiling   1.Offenders  lie,  sometimes  victim  does  too.   2.apprehended  vs.  unapprehended  offenders   a. sampleing  is  an  issue,  gathering  data  can  be  difficult   3.validation  of  post-­‐mortem  victimology   4.traditional  research  goal  vs.  profiling  goal   a. in  researches  you  are  just  trying  to  find  statistical  trend   b. profiling  is  to  help  apprehending   the  individual  offenders   5.egos,  ignorance,  and  distrust   a. law  enforcement  focus  on  apprenhension.  They  want  convicition  psychologist  and  law  enforcement   people  are  working  on  different  bases,  so  it  can  create  distrust                           Lecture  6:  Police  Interviewing   2  types  of  interview  target   - the  witness   - the  suspects       Target   Witness   Suspect   Discovery   X     Confession     X   If  what  the  investigator  were  looking  for  is  diagonally  different  from  the  chart  above,  then  the  results  might  not   turn  out  well.     Expectations   Investigator:   - questioning  how  positive  and  confident  they  were  about  details.   - Looking  for  consistency   - Neutral  &  unbias   - Detect  specific  things  others  say   - Should  not  be  influence  by  others’     - Good  liar,  you  can  detect  other  liar  and  misleading  the  suspect  to   manipulate  them  and  get  what  information   you  want.   - Good  listener   - Trust  worthy   - Good  logical  deduction     Investigator  Biases   - World  view   - Prejudice  and  stereotype   o This  is  what  all  criminal  are  like   - Specific  prior  experiences   - Goals  of  the  interview  will  change  t he  expectations   Reid  Technique   - It  increases  the  confession  possibility,  however  it’s  possible  that  it  would  be  a  false  confession     Interviewee  Bias   - Memory  accuracy   - Personality:  (people  are  more  inclined  to  do  what  they  think  is  expected  of  them)   o Conformity   o Obedience   o Authoritarian   o Anxiety:  look  more  nervous  and  potentially  look  more  guilty.  Do  things  without  thinking  because   they  are  too  nervous  and  anxious.   - Voluntary  bias   o Choosing  not  to  speak  the  truth   o Only  60%-­‐70%  accurate.  Not  as  what  is  shown  on  media  w here  the  investigator  is  ALWAYS  right.   o People  are  more  likely  to  admit  that  they  don’t  remember  anything.  Memory  are  not  as  good  as   what  we  expect.     - We  want  people  to  recall  memory  accurately     - False  Confession   o Protecting  someone  else   o Desire  for  public  atte ntion   o Mental  illness   o Difficulty  determining  reality  and  fantasy.  They  might  think  they  did  it,  where  in  reality  the  idn’t. o Receive  rewards  after  confessing   o Pressure  and  stress  given  by  the  investigator  and  wanted  to  get  out  of  it.   o “I  will  get  off  easily  if  I  confess”   o Fabricated  evidence  against  me  that  I  can’t  fight  for.  Therefore  I  should  just  confess.  (they  feel  like   it’s  the  best  solution)   o Believe  in  their  own  false  guilt.  People  actually  came  to  believe  that  they  did  it.  Alter  state  of   conscious:  drunk.  You  start  to  doubt  your  own  memory  and  suspect  that  what  you  are  hearing  is   right.   - If  you  are  innocent  you  care,  you  would  not  want  to  be  convicted.   -     Person  B/C:  suspect   - Tell  either  his  own  story  or  tell  lies  about  person  C’s  story   Not  having  the  lawyer  present,  trying  to  persuade  people  that  they  are  innocent                 Lecture  7:  MOVIE  Notes  for  12  ANGRY  MEN   - The  law  states  12  to  nothing  for  determining  or  sending  someone  to  death  penalty.   - In  the  movie  for  the  murder  case,  the  12  jury  needed  to  vote  determi ne  the  penalty  for  the  kid.  11 -­‐1  vote.  Jury   believes  that  the  boy  is  guilty  for  killing  his  dad.  However  one  jury  said  said,  he  is  only  18  years  old,  he  was   kicked  around  between  parents.  Dad’s  in  jail.  He  showed  some  sympathy.   - Jury  1  had  no   - Jury  2  brought  out  facts  and  details  outline  of  what,  when  and  where  the  murder  occur.   - Jury  3  believed  that  the  boy  was  climsy.     - One  jury  said  theirs  is  a  witness  who  saw  everything.  She  said  she  couldn’t  sleep  and  when  she  look  out  the   window  she  saw  the  murder  happen.   - Against  jury  (jury  12):  questions  others  and  ask  why  do  they  not  believe  the  boy,  but  believe  the  women   (witness).   - Jury  6  looks  for  a  motive.  The  neighbour  said  they  heard  argument,  the  old  men  hit  the  boy  and  boy  ran  out  of   the  house.  Jury  12  doesn’t  beliebve  it’s  a  strong  motive  because  the  boy  is  always  under  violence   environment,  he  always  gets  beat  up.   - Jury  12  thinks  everyone  was  too  positive  about  the  murder.   o Defense  wasn’t  doing  a  thorough  enough  cross  over  examination.  Lawyers  can  just  be  playing   stupid,  if  he  was  the  kid  he  would  ask  the  laywers  to  defend  him.  But  the  laywer  didn’t.   - One  jury  believed  that  they  boy  never  went  to  movie.   - Jury  12  believes  that  coincidence  is  possible.  Jury  12  bought  a  exact  same  knife  trying  to  prove  that  it  is   possible  that  someone  else  took  the  knife  and  killed  the  old  men.   - Jury  12  wants  the  other  jury  to  vote  secretly  with  a  written  ballot,  not  just  a  raise  of  hand.   o This  kind  of  voting  gives  no  pressure  to  others.  You  vote  what  you  believe,  not  you  vote  because   others  voted  too.   - One  guy  said  “suppose  you  talk  everyone  out  of  this,  but  the  boy  really  killed  his  father”   - The  vote  is  not  10-­‐2.  they  have  to  discuss  about  it  again   - How  can  the  witness  from  a  different  floor  HEAR  argument  and  identify  it  as  the  kid’s.   - Jury  12  trying  to  prove  that  the  time  line  is  not  right   - Old  men  could  have  only  provided  a  testimony  and  wanted  to  be  a  witness  because  he  wanted  attention.  Or   the  old  men  could  have  just  “made  himself  believe  that  he  heard  the  voice.”   - The  jury  3  (Sadist)  contrad icts  himself  by  saying  “he  is  an  old  men,  how  can  he  distinguish  the  difference   between  15  or  20  seconds.  How  can  he  be  positive  about  anything!”   - Jury12  is  trying  to  recreate  the  scene.   - Jury  12  said  to  jury  3  and  said  “you  are  a  sadist  you  want  to  convict   the  boy  not  because  of  his  murders,  but   because  you  want  him  to  die.”  Jury  said  back  “I  will  kill  you”  other  jury  went  on  to  grab  and  stop  him.  Jury  12   “you  don’t  really  mean  you  want  to  kill  me  right?”   o I  will  kill  you,  the  phrase  that  was  said  by  the  jury  indicates  the  same  thing  as  what  the  witness  said   they  heard.   - The  vote  is  now  6-­‐6   - Stabbing  wound  is  not  consistent  with  the  height  and  the  downward  wound.   - One  of  the  jury  showed  the  proper  way  to  use  a  switch  knife.  The  wound  should  not  be  downward.  You  o pen   the  knife  and  you  slash  it.   - One  of  the  jury  just  votes  guilty  cause  people  voted  guilty.  Now  that  people  are  voting  not  guilty  so  he   followed.   o You  vote  not  guilty  because  you  BELIEVE  so.  Not  because  what  others  voted.   Results  of  Jury’s  votes:   1  guilty,  2  not  guilty,  3  guilty,  4  ?,  5  ?,  6  not  guilty,  7guilty,  8  not  guilty,  9  not  guilty,  10  guilty,  11  not  guilty,  12  guilty     Discuss  first  then  vote.   - The  vote  is  now  3-­‐9  guilty  to  not  guilty.   - One  of  the  older  jury  got  furious  and  talked  loudly  said  the  kid’s  lying  and  no  one  needs  any  motive  to  kill  and   etc.   - Jury  12  said  no  one  really  knows  if  the  boy  is  guilty  or  not.     - One  of  the  jury  kept  on  rubbing  his  nose  and  has  those  same  glasses  marks  on  the  nose.  However  the  women   testify  didn’t  wear  glasses  on  court .   o This  means  the  woman  doesn’t  have  perfect  eyesight.  So  that  means  she  usually  wear  glasses.  No   one  wears  glasses  to  bed.  That  means  she  couldn’t  have  seen  the  murder  scene,  she  might  have   made  a  mistake.  The  women’s  testimony  is  now  in  question.   - The  vote  is  now  1-­‐11,  guilty  to  not  guilty.   - Jury  3  is  now  alone.  He  uses  the  knife,  the  old  men  and  the  boy  not  being  able  to  remember  the  movie  he   watched,  as  his  arguments.   - Jury  3  saw  a  photo  of  his  son,  break  down.  Called  for  not  guilty.     Class  Discussion  regar ding  the  movie   - People  make  their  decision  quickly,  just  to  get  it  over  with.   - Open  voting,  puts  pressure  on  people.  Feels  isolated  and  awkward  when  you  were  the  only  one  that  voted  a   different  one.   - Lots  of  bullying   - Bias,  prejudice   - 1  on  1  pressure  in  the  was hroom  “you  know  you  are  wrong,  you  are  alone”   - The  kid’s  age  and  background  is  also  another  factor  that  might  effect  decision   - Authority   - Personal  history:  I’ve  met  kids  like  that.       Qualities  you  don’t  want  in  a  jury.     - Easily  persuaded.  Easily  conforms  with   the  majority.  Lacking  confidence   - Prejudice   - Personal  experience  influencing  his  decision             Lecture  8:  TRIAL  PROCESS   Jury  Selection   - Impartial   o Generic  prejudice.  (wants  jury  without  bias)   o Normative  prejudice   o Specific  prejudice    Emotional  bias,  display  by  ju ry#3  who  had  issues  with  his  son     o Interest  prejudice    You  have  interest  in  the  outcome.   - cognitive  &  motivational  abilities   o understand  proceedings  (knows  what’s  going  on)   o takes  things  seriously  (motivated  to  do  the  job  and  do  it  well)   o open  minded   - representative  of  population             Lecture  9:  MEMORY   - People  typically  are  not  paying  attention  to  details   - “I  was  certain  and  wrong”  by  Jennifer   o A  guy  went  into  her  room  and  rape  her.  She  look  for  significant  things  on  the  attacker’s  body.  Head   down  to  the  police  wrapp ed  in  just  a  blanket.  She  went  over  the  rape  situation  over  and  over  again   in  her  head.   o She  forces  herself  to  remember  and  pay  attention  to  who  the  attacker  is.   - Mistaken  eyewitness,  making  false  identification  causing  false  conviction     3  stages  of  memory  p rocess   - Encoding   - Storage:  recalling  and  storing  the  event   - Retrieval     - Attention:  general  ability  to  what  you  pay  attention  to   o If  you  are  anxious  or  freighting  you  can  be  overwhelmed  and  have  limits  to  your  ability.   - Personal  relevance   o Does  it  matter  to  me?   o Time  that  robbery  occurs  when  I  was  withdrawing  money   o Not  paying  attention  to  details  that  does  not  matter  to  me   - Emotionally  impactful   o When  you  are  threatened  and  anxious,  you  tend  pay  more  attention  to  those  that  effects  your   wellbeing.  You  can  remember  som e  details  to  the  crime  very  well  and  not  remember  other  stuff  at   all.  Your  attention  is  very  limited,  only  to  those  of  your  interest.   o The  higher  your  anxiety  level  the  more  you  focus  on  self  relevance  things!   - Schema   o Narrative   o Sometimes  you  might  see  the  cr ime  replay  on  news  or  you  heard  people  talking  about  it.  Then  you   imagine  the  person  doing  what  you  just  heard.  Then  it  becomes  part  of  your  narrative.  But  in  the   long  run,  you  may  not  remember  that  you  didn’t  actually  see  the  actual  crime.  When  you  pictur e  it,   you  take  it  into  reality.   - Memory  is  an  active  process.  We  construct  our  memory.  We  take  something  and  integrate  the  event  into  a   network  of  related  memories  and  information.  We  store  information  in  a  way  that  makes  sense   Confidence  in  recalling  an  ev ent   - Our  recalling  would  be  better  if  we  are  in  the  same  mental
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit