PSY328 Psychology & Law Final Exam Study Guide

39 Pages
755 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY328H1
Professor
William Huggon
Semester
N/A

Description
Psych & the Law – Final Study Guide Lecture 5 – Selecting a Jury in Canada & Jury Decision Making Vocab • Summary offence – petty crime. Punishment = 6 months or under, 5000 fine….jailed for less than 2 yrs…(i.e., minor offence) • Indictable offence – serious. Could get anything from a fine to life in jail w no parole • Hybrid offence – a bad crime, but it’s the first time, or you led the police to solve some other case, or you confessed before going to court (i.e., showed remorse, show rehabilitation) o Punishment decided by the crown? • Admissible evidence – decisions by jury should be based SOLELY on admissible evidence (evidence judge says jury can use as part of their judgement) …not supposed to use inadmissible o Opening and closing statement of lawyers are NOT admissible bc they are not evidence (bt evidence says it sways jury decisions) • Mathematic decision making model – listen to all evidence, list all positives, all negatives, then weigh strength of evidence accordingly  compare to decisional criteria for guilt • Story model (decision making) – have active comprehension process  jurors try to find best fit bw the story constructed and the verdict categories provided by judge o See if all pieces fit in the story • Polarization effect – more confident in your initial position. More extreme • Boomerang/Backfire Effect – sometimes telling jurors to disregard evidence makes them pay more attention • Peremptory challenge – a defendant or lawyer’s objection to a proposed juror, made w/o needing to give a reason • Mitigating – circumstance that doesn’t exonerate the person but which reduces the penalty associated with the offence o Ex. a confession – will give you a lesser sentence • Conditional Discharge – requires offender to follow a specific set of rules for a specified length of time set out in a probation order o When duration has passed and the conditions are met, the discharge becomes absolute • Absolute Discharge – a person who receives absolute discharge from a court is deemed not to have been convicted (although has been found guilty) – so records are kept but won’t affect jobs or crossing border • Probation – may be imposed on its own, as a suspension of a sentence, or in addition to other sentencing options (can’t be more than 3 years, not for severe crime) o Transitory period – you’re out of prison, but gets followed around to make sure you rehabilitated • Restitution – payment made by the offender to the victim to cover expenses resulting from the crime o Restitution for pain and suffering is not available through the criminal courts • Substantial risk – 1) pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the current conviction forms a part, that shows a likelihood that the offender will cause death or injury or inflict severe psychological damage o 2) by conduct in any sexual matter has shown a likelihood of causing injury, pain, or other evil to people in the future through similar offences • Base rate – the percentage of ppl within a given population who commit a criminal or violent act • Peremptory challenge – a defendant’s or lawyer’s objection to a proposed juror, made without needing to give a reason • Parole – supervised release into the community after serving a set amount of your sentence in custody o Eligibility – after serving 1/3 of their sentence or 7 years (or if judge states you are eligible after a certain amt of time then you refer to that certain amt of time) o Goal of parole – protection of society  Short term – looks at undue risk to society if offender is released  Long term – considers if parole would help the offender return to the community as a law abiding citizen • Violence – (instrumental or reactive) o Physical vs. psychological damage o Actual harm vs. intent o Instrumental vs. reactive o Sexual vs. non-sexual • PCL-R (Hare 1991) – 20 item clinical rating scale; each item refleting a diff symptom or characteristic of psychopathy … items rated on a 3 pt scale (doesn’t apply – apply ) o Not based on person’s present state, more based on person’s lifetime functioning o Items are summed to yield totals from 0 – 40 that reflects the degree to which an individual resembles the prototypical psychopath o Cutoff score of 30 or greater is used to diagnose psychopathy o A clinician who wants to measure change in psychopathic symptomatology during incarceration can’t use PCL-R When do we use JURY? • Summary offence • Indictable offence • Hybrid offence • ** US more focused on punishment (but still has rehabilitation going on ) Breakdown of Jury vs. Judge Trials • Civil trials = usually judge only • Criminal Cases = o 2/3 resolved W/O trail o 1/3 by trial  ½ - JURY  ½ - Judge (alone) • Indictable cases – have a choice of either judge alone or with jury o Depending on what you did, who you are, what lawyer says o Criminal summary offence = no choice for jury Function of Jury • **Render a Verdict. • Which of the 2 realities are real  Crown vs. Defendant • (juries in the States may also give sentences) What Jury DOESN’T do • Sentencing (Canada) – just decide guilty or non-guilty nd • One Exception – 2 degree murder …juries can give recommendations in regard to parole ineligibility period Jury Set Up • Canada - 12 juries • Lawyers can just pick out the members they don’t want • Unanimous verdict – but can continue w less than 2 members excused • Must only use FACTS of the case & laws supplied by Judge o Laws governing the case & choices for decision are at the jurisdiction of judge • With mistrial – you get a new trial. And start over. Strength of Jury • Combines wisdom of 12 o But 12 is not that many  However w more ppl there may be problem with being anonymous and not speak up about their opinion o USA can have as little as 6 o Studies show that numbers of jury DOES matter  6 members are less representative  Recall fewer aspects of evidence  Spend less time deliberating  **the smaller the jury the greater pressure for dissenting member to conform  **defendants feel more fairly judged if juries debated for long time • Ppl from the community – conscience of community o In the past abortion -- juries said not guilty  Based on precedent it should be found not guilty everywhere but it was not Models of Jury Decision Making • Mathematical Model • Story model • Which one is better? – Pentington & Hastie (1988) o Jury uses Story model o When one side uses story and one uses mathematical model – jury is more swayed by story model Fairness • Jury R. vs. Sheratt (1991) – a jury of one’s peers o 1) Representative  Voter registration, enumeration lists, gender, race, SES o 2) Impartial – must not be biased, if biased must be able to be set aside • Representativeness – o Randomly selected o Not actually all groups in community or specific peers o Representative of wider community o Statutory exemptions?  Students are NONstatutory – but don’t have to  Ppl bz serving the community, & ppl who can easily sway jurors (lawyer) • Impartiality – o Must be impartial, represent larger community o R vs. Sherratt (1991) – right to jury is meaningless w/o impartial jurors o R. vs. Parks (1993) – (worried jury was racist bc parks was black) Partiality has 2 components  1) Attitudinal • Prejudice  2) Behavioural • Discrimination  2 other potential jurors will decide whether or not you are impartial (prejudiced) • Social behavioural component of this method = you told everyone you will be unprejudiced so you start acting in line w the social norms • Ppl strive to be accurate/correct and accepted/liked • Presumptions of Impartiality o States – presumptions of partiality o Canada – presumptions of impartiality (this person won’t be biased) o Difference caused by –  Laws • 6.49 – if you talk about your deliberations you could get 6 months in jail or 5000 fine (maximum Summary Sentence) • The details of the crime don’t come out until jury is over; in USA they have freedom of speech and media …can influence jurors  Instructions o Extra Legal Biases can influence jurors  How we perceived the world is influenced by biases • Encoding, combining info, being a part of different groups  Expectations, beliefs, attention, perception could alter jurors beliefs about the evidence presented • Fazio’s Attitude Model o Attitude activation  selective attention  immediate perception of object  definition of event  behaviour o OR Norms (activate situational factors)  definition of situation  definition of event  behaviour o If you’re prejudiced, the presence of the person is going to activate all your prejudices  The more we activate, the stronger it is  belief perseverance o If challenged for cause – extra motivation to be less prejudiced …change your definition of event to be more neutral  Challenge to be more accurate, liked by everyone else, social norm o Social Norms can trump attitudes (e.g., everyone else is doing it!) • Polarization Effect – individuals become more extreme in their initial position following discussion o More confident with majority agrees with you • Leniency Effect o Jurors move towards greater leniency o In most mock trials, when juror verdicts are split 50/50 a jury lean towards not guilty • Personality Traits – o High in authoritarianism (conservative) – may be more pro-prosecution • • Demographic Variables – o Attractiveness –  Mazzella & Feingold (1994) – one of the greatest advantages for a defendant is to be attractive (how you dress, your physical appearance) o Race, SES, education, gender, income  Low SES – is disadvantage o Basic underlying 3 variable effect – Similarity Principle  Black sheep effect – when evidence is weak or ambiguous similarity bw defendant and juror can lead to leniency • But when evidence is strong leads to greater punishment • Stereotypes regarding Expert Testimony o Gender stereotypes – male expert talking about murder is believed more, female talking about self-defence is believed more • Canada’s most famous Partial Juror o Peter Gill and Gillian Guess – Gillian was one of the 12 jurors o Law 649 – you’re not allowed to talk about jury deliberations …but this was the only time with exception – all jurors called back as witnesses o Gillian was talking to everyone about her experience on her phone o Peter Gill only got 6 yrs in prison (w no record) for obstructing justice – bc first time o Set Legal Precedents –  First case of juror w sexual relations w defendant  Only case where juror faced criminal sanction  Only case where jury room discussions made part of public record • Source of Bias – (when verdict is based on bias rather than weighing of trial evidence) o 1) Interest  Interest or stake in trial, relationship to player in trial o 2) Specific  Pre-trial publicity, attitude or beliefs about the specific case  Ps exposed to negative pretrial publicity were more likely to judge the accused guilty compared to ps exposed to no negative or less ptp (Kramer, Kerr, Carroll (1990) o 3) Normative  o 4) Generic • Disregarding Inadmissible Evidence – o Hans & Doob (1976) – not possible o Suppression –  Cognitive control/regulation is effortful  If control of implicit responses is occurring, should observe subsequent depletion of cognitive resources  Particularly inhibitory resources (observation system doesn’t get depleted) o Factors that affect disregarding –  Strength of evidence – w weak evidence, more likely to consider inadmissible • When crime is less serious -- inadmissible evidence more impact o Pull from resources you shouldn’t have • With strong evidence, able to disregard inadmissible evidence  When crime is less serious – jurors have more flippant attitude  Kassin & Sommers (1997) – why was evidence stricken? • Murder trial with potentially inadmissible evidence …Phone tap w defendant admitting to murder • Results – o Told evidence was inadmissible bc evidence was illegally gotten – verdicts found similar to if wiretapping was allowed (guilty) o Inadmissible bc evidence was hard to comprehend – verdicts similar to control where evidence was not admitted • Normative Bias – based on community sentiment (will base verdict on community belief rather than evidence) o Community hates child rapists more so than other cities bc of a certain similar case in the past • Generic Bias - racial/ethnic prejudice, sexual orientation prejudice, stereotype endorsement, base verdict on group membership rather than evidence • Remedies for Bias – o 1) Publication Bans – pretrial info can’t be published until jury is selected, jury isn’t sequestered until end of the trial o 2) Adjournment – most rarely used solution  Delay of Trial  Pros – time reduces impact of prejudicial info  Con – may forget important info, but won’t forget emotional info o 3) Change of Venue – if it appears expedient to the ends of justice – where there’s a fair and reasonable probability of impartiality or prejudice in community  Usually have trial where crime occurred  POSITIVE correlation bw amount of PTP and the belief the accused is guilty o 4) Challenge for Cause – legal mechanism placed to challenge jurors as to whether they would be impartial w respect to a particular issue  Must establish a reasonable inference of potential bias in the population  Judge decides whether a challenge is warranted and has final approval of any questions to be put out to jury • In canada – are not allowed to nag jurors w questions Jury Selection • Canada – most cases judged without a jury o Presumption that jurors are not biased and can be impartial o Only info available to lawyer about jurors are name, address, occupation, demeanour, and physical appearance o No jury consultants in Canada – jurors are responsible for deciding whether potential juror is biased (judge judges in US) o R vs. Parks - ….& R. vs. Williams • USA – presumption that jurors are inherently biased and must be challenged o Jurors may also make decisions regarding sentencing o There are long and personal challenges done by lawyers often involving jury consultants o Can get rid of jury for any reason • Impartiality – o R vs. Parks (1993) – partiality has 2 components  Attitudinal – prejudice  Behavioural – discrimination • Challenge for Cause o Select first two “triers” – they decide whether potential juror is acceptable or unacceptable to sit on upcoming trial (after asking the question) o (legally having a bias does not necessarily indicate you are partial) o *note dual process theory – force you into deliberate route (hear this question at least 2x…so you decide on this question 2 x) o You are in a legal public space – you will usually act in pro social conventional ways o If triers find juror unacceptable or if lawyer uses Peremptory challenge – juror is sent back to jury office (challenged juror is free to be called for another jury pool later on) o R. vs. Koh (1998) – process removes jurors who are fortright about their prejudices & sensitizes the remaining jurors to their duty to be impartial • MODE Model (Fazio 1990) – o Do you have the motivation and cognitive capacity to process the info? o Yes – activates deliberate processing mode  attitude is consistent with behaviour o No – spontaneous processing mode  strong chronically accessible attitude?  YES = general attitude activated  attitude consistent behaviour  NO = general attitude not activated  Behaviour unrelated to attitude Lecture 7 – Sentencing Purpose & Principles of Sentencing in Canada • Sentencing – the judicial determination of a legal sanction upon a person convicted of an offence (punishment doesn’t necessarily have to be jail time …could be fine or parole) • Bill C-41 (1996) – most comprehensive reform of the law of sentencing in Canadian history o Created 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada • 718 (the fundamental purpose of sentencing) – o 1) To denounce unlawful conduct o 2) To deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; specific and general deterrence o 3) To separate offenders from society where necessary o 4) To assist in rehabilitating offenders o 5) To provide reparations for harm done to victims or community  Ex. vandalism – have to clean it up & clean other ppl’s vandalism up too o 6) To promote a sense of responsibility in offenders & acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community o **in Canada – no jail time if at all possible. In US aggravated assault would def get you jail time, in Canada it really depends on the situation • Section 718.1 A of the criminal code o A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender o US – just consider gravity of offence o Canada - consider who the person is + other factors that may relate  Point – rehabilitate (US – just life sentence) • Section 718.2 A – Sentencing Principles o A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:  1) A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender • Aggravating – i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, nationality, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability o ii) evidence that the offender in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the crime (police or priest) • Crimes motivated by HATE – R. v. Miloszewski, Synderek, Nikkel, Leblanc, and Kluch (1996) o Manslaughter charge; crown established the crime was racially motivated – give 15-18 yrs in jail instead of the regular 5 (for hate crimes) o Section 718.2 A(i) – crimes motivated by hate or bias should result in the imposition of a harsher than average penalty • Mike Curry’s case – couldn’t prove as hate crime o Even if the ppl they assaulted weren’t lesbians Mike would probably still have beat them up (parking spot, & talk to his kid) o Charged w multiple counts of assault – sizes are diff so violence against the two girls = assault  2) Sentence should be similar for offenders committing similar offences under similar circumstances – make sure we have precedence  3) Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly harsh or long (almost never will you get 210 yrs in prison in CA)  4) An offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances  5) if reasonable sanctions, other than imprisonment should be considered for all offenders (even murderers) • Problems with Reasons to Sentence – o Some of them conflict! – separate from society or rehabilitate? o If a judge picks the goals consistently diff than another judge – is it still stare decisis? o Sentencing Disparity - any diff in severity bw the sentence received from one judge on a particular occasion and what an identical crime would receive on another occasion or from a different judge (MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM W SENTENCING IN CANADA)  Sources – • Systemic Disparity – consistent disagreement among judges about sentencing (personality, philosophy, experience) • Unsystemic Disparity - a judge’s inconsistency over occasions in judgment (focus – mood or irrelevant stimuli))  McFatter (1986) – showed sentencing disparity due to unsystemic sources • Possible sentences – o Absolute & conditional discharge, probation, restitution, fines & community service, conditional sentence, intermittent imprisonment, imprisonment (judge can combine) • Absolute & Conditional Discharge (736) o Considerations -  Best interest to offender, but not contrary to public interest o Exclusions –  Offence w minimum sentence  A term of 14 yrs or life sentence o Probation – (for summary/hybrid offences – can’t be more than 3 yrs)  Mandatory conditions: • 1) keep peace and be of good behaviour • 2) appear before court when required • 3) notify the court or the probation officer of any change of name or address, employment or occupation  Optional conditions: • Report to probation officer • Remain within jurisdiction of court • Abstain from alcohol or drug use • Abstain from owning, possessing, or carrying weapon • Provide for dependents • Perform community service • Participate in treatment program • Comply w any other reasonable conditions set by the court o Probation violation –  Stiff penalties punishable by a term of imprisonment up to 2 years  Get original sentence as well as get punished for breaching probation • Fines & Community Service – o Fine = most frequently used sentencing option in Canada (45% of convicted adult offenders are fined) – max is 2 yrs in prison and 5000 in fine??? o Court will clearly set out how much time you have to pay it back • Conditional Sentence – a prison sentence served in the community (prison sentence is “suspended”)  alternative to incarceration o Only for those given a jail sentence of less than 2 yrs, and who the court thinks will not pose a threat to public safety o Require –  1) mandatory conditions – report to parole officer  2) optional conditions - treatments o Violation –  Suspension cancelled, may be required to serve remainder of sentence in prison o Intermittent imprisonment – a term of imprisonment for 90 days or less  Court will specify the times when the term of imprisonment will be served (ex. weekends)  Must comply w the terms set out in a probation order when not serving  (necessary when there is undue punishment to other people around you who didn’t have anything to do w it if you were sent to prison) • On average, time spent in custody in Canada is NOT less than other countries – 28.4 yrs o Less than 2 years in prison = provincial jail o More than 2 yrs – federal penitentiary • Other possible sentences: o Long term offender – (753.1 Criteria)  1) appropriate sentence of 2 yrs or more for the offence  2) “substantial risk” that the offender will reoffend (see vocab above)  3) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community  *possibility of eventual risk – sentence of imprisonment of at least 2 yrs followed by period of supervision in community not exceeding 10 yrs o Dangerous offender declaration – convicted of serious personal injury offence, NOT yet sentenced, but constitutes a danger to the life, safety, or physical/mental well being of others (murder, assault, violent or sexually violent crimes)  Subject to 10 or more yrs of imprisonment  Section 752 – includes list of sexual offences deemed to be serious personal injury offences  Serious personal injury offence – an offence involving violence or attempted violence which can or will inflict mental or physical injury on another  Dangerousness – • A pattern of unrestrained behaviour that’s likely to cause danger • A pattern of aggressive behaviour w indifference to the consequence of the behaviour • Behaviour that is of such brutal nature that ordinary standards of restraint will not control it  Alternatively – • If the offence shows a failure on the person’s part to control sexual impulses that is likely to result in harm to another …. • Sentence = INDEFINITE INCARCERATION – w parole eligibility review every 2 years after 7 yrs of incarceration has been served (normal = parole every year) o Rape is not a life sentence…but multiple rapes would give you harder sentence Lecture 8 – Violence and Risk Assessment Parole – • Parole decision considerations – o Protection of society o All available info o Must take least restrictive choice o Offenders must be given access to info regarding the decision (so they can improve their chances and rehabilitate themselves) • Looking at Risk – o Policies differ depending on type of offender  Category 1 – offenders who have committed serious offences usually involving violence  Category 2 – offenders who have committed other offences Preliminary Risk Assessment – • 1) Details of the offence – criminal history, social problems, mental prob, performance on earlier releases, relationships and employment • 2) Probability of an offender to reoffend Secondary Risk Assessment – • Psychological or psychiatric reports • Opinions from professionals that indicates whether release would present an undue risk to society – need be based on stats • Info from victims • Whether offender has received treatment, whether offender shows good understanding of the seriousness and effects of the offence o Treatment away from prison is for ppl who are not at flight risk – if return, shows no impulsivity risk (impulsivity = large factor in recidivism) • If offender’s release plan shows support and control and is realistic and confirmed Identify ppl likely to commit violence and develop interventions to reduce risk • Predicting future behaviour is difficult bc – things (situational factors) change o We assume things happen bc of personality factor not situational factor Violence Risk Assessment - the process of evaluation individuals to … • 1) Characterize the likelihood they will commit acts of violence • 2) develop interventions to manage or reduce that likelihood (Violence prevention!) Risk Assessment vs. Dangerousness • Dangerousness – case by case, vague, stable trait, predicts violence • Risk assessment – empirical data, specific, changes over time, prevents violence o Specific to other criminals that have committed similar crimes in similar situations and have been followed around to see what happens Types of Predictors – • Risk Factors – o Static Risk Factors – your first crime? o Dynamic risk factors – can change over time, amendable to treatment • 4 Major Risk Factors for VIOLENCE – o DISPOSITIONAL – reflect person’s trait ad style  1) Gender - 90% violence crimes done by men  2) Age – age is inversely related to risk • Accidental or intentional death – most caused by age 15 - 59 o HISTORICAL – impulse control & social maladaption to society  1) Previous antisocial and criminal behaviour • Maladjustment to society prob bc of dysfunctional family problems  2) Conditional release, parole and probation violation • Impulse control  3) delinquency • maladjustment  4) dysfunctional family environment  5) physical and sexual abuse as a child  6) age of onset – younger = more practice o CONTEXTUAL –  1) Unemployment – maladjustment  2) Lack of intimate relationship – awkward, lead to maladjustment  3) Access to weapons - Impulse control problem o CLINICAL  1) Mental Illness – schizophrenia and mania • Most mental disorders are a reducing risk factor  2) Substance abuse - addictive personality related to impulse control and maladaption to society • Question to ask when given a case study to evaluate – o Have they been previously convicted of a crime o Are they up for parole? • Overarching Factors o Impulsivity o Maladjustment to society and social instability  ** Criminal Psychopaths on the other hand are antisocial – the know the rules, just decided not to follow • Sexual Deviance Risk Factors – o Previous Sexual Deviance o Sexual Preference for Children – escalation (does not go backwards) • #1 Risk for Violence – PSYCHOPATHY Types of Parole – • Temporary Absence o First type usually granted (low level offender, not violent, low risk) o Escorted or unescorted temporary absence o For substance abuse programs, family violence counselling, technical training • Day Parole o Half way house/low risk offender o To participate in community based activities – must return to their institution at end of day o Performance will be used in full parole review • Full Parole (at 1/3 of your completion) o Serve remainder of sentence supervised in community o Usually must have been granted and completed temporary absences or day parole • Statutory Release o Mandatory release granted after serving 2/3 of sentence o Must follow parole conditions similar to probation and conditional release o Not qualified if have a life sentence • Does Parole work? o Inmates that successfully completed day parole to obtain full parole are less likely to reoffend than inmates granted mandatory statutory release without doing any day paroles • **GRAPHS ** EXPLAIN Lecture 9 – Approaches to Risk Assessment • Low base rate problem – very difficult to make predictions when the base rates are too low o 50% reoffending rate is not too low o If base rate is lower than 10% - those committed are going to be spending a lot more time in jail • Unstructured clinical judgement o 1) All based on professional discretion (not dsm, based on opinion) o 2) Lack of guidelines o 3) Lacks consistency o Before 1966 – all came down to a professional’s credibility (trust based on face value) o Dr. James Grigson – made claims sometimes without even examining the defendant  Used term “sociopath” when it should be anti-social personality disorder  You’re not supposed to argue on either side…you’re suppose
More Less

Related notes for PSY328H1

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