PSYCH 3CC3 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Forensic Psychology, Psychology Today, Suggestibility
19 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Forensic psychology: a field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human
behaviour as it relates to the law or legal system.
Media portrayals of forensic psych are often inaccurate.
Problematic for viewers.
○
-
E.g. Cops
Reality fiction rather than reality TV.
○
Very biased; careful editing & retakes.
○
-
Forensic psychologists are interested in understanding the mechanisms that
underlie people's thoughts, feelings & actions.
Particularly how people function in the legal context.
○
-
History of Forensic Psychology ----
Early Research on Testimony & Suggestibility
Forensic psych began with research taking place in the US & Europe that had
serious implications for the legal system.
-
James Cattel
Developed expertise in human cognitive processes.
○
Conducted experiments looking at what would later be called the
psychology of eyewitness testimony.
○
Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollection.
Students recollections often inaccurate.
§
Relationship between participants' accuracy & their confidence was
far from perfect.
§
Potential assist in courts of justice.
§
○
-
Many began studying testimony & suggestibility.
Alfred Binet: La Suggestibilité
Many studies showing that children's testimony was highly
susceptive to suggestive questioning techniques.
§
○
William Stern
"Reality experiment" still used today to study eyewitness recall &
recognition.
§
Found that emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the
accuracy of a person's testimony.
§
○
-
Court Cases in Europe
Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1896)
One of the first expert witnesses to provide testimony in court.
○
Testified that extensive pre-trial press coverage could influence the
testimony of people by causing retroactive memory falsification.
People confuse actual memories of the events with the events
described by the media.
§
○
Supported with lab research.
○
-
Julian Varendonck (1911)
Called as an expert witness in case of the murder of a young girl.
○
Children quickly changed original testimony after being repeatedly
interviewed by authorities asking suggestive questions.
○
Testified that the testimony provided by the children in this case was
likely inaccurate because children are prone to suggestion.
○
-
Advocating for Forensic Psychology in North America
Hugo Munsterberg
Involved in several criminal cases.
○
Reviewed interrogation records of defendants' confessions.
Found confessions to be untrue.
§
○
Courts appeared to pay little attention to Munsterberg's findings.
○
Legal community went against Munsterberg.
But psychology had a lot to offer.
§
○
-
Likely because of attacks on Munsterberg's work, little progress was made by
psychologists working in areas of relevance to the law in the very early 1900s.
But it caught up with Europe.
○
-
New theories of crime were also being proposed by psychologists at a rapid
rate, especially around the mid-1900s.
-
Landmark Court Cases in the United States
Early to mid-1900s, psychologists in the US began to be more heavily involved in
the judicial system as expert witnesses.
-
First time: State v Driver (1921).
Court accepted expert evidence from a psychologist in the area of juvenile
delinquency.
○
But they rejected the psychologists' testimony.
○
-
More recently: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Case challenged the constitutionality of segregated public schools.
○
Outlawed segregation on the basis of the social implications it had on
Black children.
Research outlining this was conducted by forensic psychologist.
§
○
First time psychological research had been cited in a US Supreme Court
decision.
○
-
Other cases expanded the role of psychologists in court.
Rulings that allowed psychologists to provide opinions on matters that
were traditionally reserved for physicians.
○
People v. Hawthorne (1940)
Psychologists was permitted to provide an opinion about the
mental state of the defendant at the time of the offence.
§
○
Jenkins v. United States (1962)
Defendant pleaded "not guilty" by reason of insanity.
§
Three psychologists supported this defence; defendant suffering
from schizophrenia.
§
But, judge told the jury to disregard the testimony from the
psychologists because they "were not qualified to give expert
testimony on the issue of mental disease"
§
Appealed - APA provided report stating the psychologists are
competent to provide opinions concerning the existence of mental
illness.
§
○
-
Currently, it's common for psychologists to testify on matters such as fitness to
stand trial & criminal responsibility.
-
Progress in Canada
Growing since mid-1900s.
-
Much of the significant advances have emerged from research on eyewitness
testimony & jury decision making.
Most significant in area of corrections.
○
Dr. Paul Gendreau.
Developed policies in the criminal justice field.
§
Worked as psychologist in corectional facilities.
§
Champion for evidence-based practice & policy.
§
Published a lot on "what works" with respect to the assessment &
treatment of offenders.
§
Profound impact on how offenders are treated around the world.
§
Correctional Program Assessment Inventory
§
○
-
Canadian courts have been slower than US to open their doors to psychologists.
Canadian courts have relied on physicians (psychiatrists) for matters of
mental states & fitness to stand trial, rather than psychologists.
○
Difference = education.
US needed doctoral-level training to be psychologist, some
provinces in Canada only needed master's degrees.
§
Canadian courts perceive this as inadequate training.
§
○
-
But, Canadian courts have allowed forensic psychologists to provide testimony
on a wide range of other issues.
Value continues to increase.
○
-
A Legitimate Field of Psychology
Hasn't come as far as people would've wanted, but it's not a recognized &
legitimate field of study within psychology.
-
(1) Growing number of high-quality textbooks in the area provide the
opportunity to teach students about forensic psychology.
-
(2) Numerous academic journals are now dedicated to various aspects of the
fields; mainstream journals are beginning to publish research from the forensic
domain.
-
(3) Number of professional associations have now been developed to represent
the interests of forensic psychologists & to promote research & practice in the
area.
AP-LS
○
-
(4) New training opportunities in the field are being established in North
America & existing training opportunities are being improved.
-
(5) APA formally recognized forensic psychology as a specialty discipline in 2001.
-
Forensic Psychology Today ---
Debate on how forensic psychology should be defined in modern terms still
exists.
-
No generally accepted definition of the field.
-
Often referred to as legal psychology or criminological psychology.
-
Another definition states that forensic psychologists are those individuals
engaged in clinical practice within the legal system.
-
Therefore, most psychologists like to define it more broadly.
-
Bartol & Bartol (2006)
(a) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behaviour
directly related to the legal process
○
(b) the professional practice of psychology within, or in consultation with,
a legal system that embraces both civil & criminal law.
○
Focuses on the research that is required to inform applied practice in the
field of psychology.
○
-
The Roles of a Forensic Psychologist
The Forensic Psychologist as Clinician
Clinical forensic psychologists: psychologists who are broadly concerned
with the assessment & treatment of mental health issues as they pertain
to the law or legal system.
○
Work in a variety of settings -- prisons, hospitals.
○
Frequently asses an offender to determine if he or she is likely to pose a
risk to the community if released from prison.
○
Also interested in:
Conducting divorce & child custody mediation.
§
Providing expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature.
§
Carrying out personnel selection.
§
Conducting critical incident stress debriefings with police officers.
§
Facilitating treatment programs for offenders.
§
○
Must be a licensed clinical psychologists specialized in the forensic area.
○
Clinical psychologist vs psychiatrist
Both trained to treat individuals experiencing mental health
problems who come into contact with the law.
§
Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologists are not.
§
○
-
The Forensic Psychologist as Researcher
Experimental forensic psychologists: psychologists wo are broadly
concerned with the study of human behaviour as it relates to the law or
the legal system.
○
Doesn't have to be separate from the clinical role, but often is.
○
Interested in any research issue that related to the law or legal system.
○
Includes:
Examining the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies.
§
Determining what factors influence jury decision making.
§
Developing & testing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups.
§
Evaluating offender & victim treatment programs.
§
Examining the effect of stress management interventions on police
officers.
§
○
Differ in terms of training -- PhD with research in a forensic area (varies
greatly).
○
-
The Forensic Psychologist as Legal Scholar
Legal scholars "would most likely engage in scholarly analyses of mental
health law & psychologically oriented legal movements," whereas their
applied work "would most likely center around policy analysis &
legislative consultation"
○
Some initiatives allow psychologists to study law at the same time.
○
-
Other Forensic Disciplines
Forensic anthropology: examine the remains of deceased individuals to
determine how they might have died & to establish facts about them, such as
their gender, age, appearance, etc.
-
Forensic art: use art to aid in the identification, apprehension, & conviction of
offenders.
Might do this by drawing sketches of suspects, reconstructing faces of
deceased victims, or determining how missing children might look as they
age.
○
-
Forensic entomology: concerned with how insects can assist with criminal
investigations.
Can help determine when someone died based on an analysis of insect
presence/development on a decomposing body.
○
-
Forensic odontology: study the dental aspects of criminal activity.
Might identify deceased individuals through an examination of dental
records, or they might help determine whether bite marks found on an
individual were from a certain person.
○
-
Forensic pathology: (coroners) medical doctors who examine the remains of
dead bodies in an attempt to determine the time & cause of death through
physical autopsy.
-
Forensic podiatry: use their knowledge of how the feet & lower limbs function
to assist with police investigations & court proceedings.
Might relate to the degree of match between footprints found at crime
scenes & the footwear of potential suspects.
○
Also can assist in determining whether gait patterns caught on security
cameras match those of a particular suspect.
○
-
The Relationship Between Psychology & Law
Psychology and the Law
Psychology and the Law: the use of psychology to examine the operation
of the legal system.
○
Often examines assumptions made by the law or our legal system,
E.g., Are eyewitnesses accurate? Are judges fair in the way they
hand down sentences?
§
○
Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this
area - try to answer these questions so the knowledge can be passed on
to the legal system.
○
-
Psychology in the Law
Psychology in the Law: the use of psychology in the legal system as that
system operates.
○
Once psychological knowledge exists, the knowledge can be used in the
legal system by psychologists, lawyers, judges, & others.
○
Might include providing expert testimony on the basis of research or it
might be involved in the investigation process.
○
Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this
area.
○
-
Psychology of the Law
Psychology of the Law: the use of psychology to examine the law itself.
○
Psychology of the law involved the use of psychology to study the law
itself.
○
E.g., "Does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society?"
○
Not a core topic, but it's a growing research area.
○
Domain of the legal scholar.
○
-
Modern-Day Debates: Psychological Experts in Court
Increasingly asked to provide expert testimony in court.
-
Includes cases of custody issues, malingering & deception, the accuracy of
eyewitness identification, the effects of crime on victims, & the assessment of
dangerousness.
-
Functions of the expert witness
Expert witness: a witness who provides the court with information (often
an opinion on a particular matter) that assists the court in understanding
an issue of relevance to a case.
○
Expert witness is supposed to be there as an educator to the judge & jury,
not as an advocate for the defence or the prosecution.
○
-
The challenges of providing expert testimony
Psychology & law differ greatly.
(1) Knowledge
§
(2) Methodology
(3) Epistemology
§
(4) Criteria
§
(5) Nature of Law
§
(6) Principles
§
(7) Latitude
§
○
It makes sense that judges often have difficulty seeing how psychologists
can assist in court proceedings.
○
E.g., the fact that psych creates a normative data set it can be hard to
apply to a case - like "ok, this is what people normally do, but that might
be the case here."
○
-
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in US:
Criteria in US based on Frye v. United States (1923)
○
General acceptance test: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which
states that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the
testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Vague
§
○
More specific admissibility criteria was set in Daubert v. Merrel Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993).
For scientific evidence to be admitted it must be …
(1) Provided by a qualified expert□
(2) Relevant□
(3) Reliable□
§
○
Daubert criteria: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states
that scientific evidence is valid if the research on which it is based (1) has
been peer reviewed, (2) is testable, (3) has a recognized rate of error, and
(4) adheres to professional standards.
○
-
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in Canada:
Laid out in R v. Mohan (1994)
○
Mohan Criteria: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states
that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the testimony (1) is
relevant, (2) is necessary for assisting the trier of fact, (3) does not violate
any exclusionary rules, & (3) is provided by a qualified expert.
○
-
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Forensic Psychology
Monday, January 8, 2018
7:56 PM
Forensic psychology: a field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human
behaviour as it relates to the law or legal system.
Media portrayals of forensic psych are often inaccurate.
Problematic for viewers.
○
-
E.g. Cops
Reality fiction rather than reality TV.
○
Very biased; careful editing & retakes.
○
-
Forensic psychologists are interested in understanding the mechanisms that
underlie people's thoughts, feelings & actions.
Particularly how people function in the legal context.
○
-
History of Forensic Psychology ----
Early Research on Testimony & Suggestibility
Forensic psych began with research taking place in the US & Europe that had
serious implications for the legal system.
-
James Cattel
Developed expertise in human cognitive processes.
○
Conducted experiments looking at what would later be called the
psychology of eyewitness testimony.
○
Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollection.
Students recollections often inaccurate.
§
Relationship between participants' accuracy & their confidence was
far from perfect.
§
Potential assist in courts of justice.
§
○
-
Many began studying testimony & suggestibility.
Alfred Binet: La Suggestibilité
Many studies showing that children's testimony was highly
susceptive to suggestive questioning techniques.
§
○
William Stern
"Reality experiment" still used today to study eyewitness recall &
recognition.
§
Found that emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the
accuracy of a person's testimony.
§
○
-
Court Cases in Europe
Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1896)
One of the first expert witnesses to provide testimony in court.
○
Testified that extensive pre-trial press coverage could influence the
testimony of people by causing retroactive memory falsification.
People confuse actual memories of the events with the events
described by the media.
§
○
Supported with lab research.
○
-
Julian Varendonck (1911)
Called as an expert witness in case of the murder of a young girl.
○
Children quickly changed original testimony after being repeatedly
interviewed by authorities asking suggestive questions.
○
Testified that the testimony provided by the children in this case was
likely inaccurate because children are prone to suggestion.
○
-
Advocating for Forensic Psychology in North America
Hugo Munsterberg
Involved in several criminal cases.
○
Reviewed interrogation records of defendants' confessions.
Found confessions to be untrue.
§
○
Courts appeared to pay little attention to Munsterberg's findings.
○
Legal community went against Munsterberg.
But psychology had a lot to offer.
§
○
-
Likely because of attacks on Munsterberg's work, little progress was made by
psychologists working in areas of relevance to the law in the very early 1900s.
But it caught up with Europe.
○
-
New theories of crime were also being proposed by psychologists at a rapid
rate, especially around the mid-1900s.
-
Landmark Court Cases in the United States
Early to mid-1900s, psychologists in the US began to be more heavily involved in
the judicial system as expert witnesses.
-
First time: State v Driver (1921).
Court accepted expert evidence from a psychologist in the area of juvenile
delinquency.
○
But they rejected the psychologists' testimony.
○
-
More recently: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Case challenged the constitutionality of segregated public schools.
○
Outlawed segregation on the basis of the social implications it had on
Black children.
Research outlining this was conducted by forensic psychologist.
§
○
First time psychological research had been cited in a US Supreme Court
decision.
○
-
Other cases expanded the role of psychologists in court.
Rulings that allowed psychologists to provide opinions on matters that
were traditionally reserved for physicians.
○
People v. Hawthorne (1940)
Psychologists was permitted to provide an opinion about the
mental state of the defendant at the time of the offence.
§
○
Jenkins v. United States (1962)
Defendant pleaded "not guilty" by reason of insanity.
§
Three psychologists supported this defence; defendant suffering
from schizophrenia.
§
But, judge told the jury to disregard the testimony from the
psychologists because they "were not qualified to give expert
testimony on the issue of mental disease"
§
Appealed - APA provided report stating the psychologists are
competent to provide opinions concerning the existence of mental
illness.
§
○
-
Currently, it's common for psychologists to testify on matters such as fitness to
stand trial & criminal responsibility.
-
Progress in Canada
Growing since mid-1900s.
-
Much of the significant advances have emerged from research on eyewitness
testimony & jury decision making.
Most significant in area of corrections.
○
Dr. Paul Gendreau.
Developed policies in the criminal justice field.
§
Worked as psychologist in corectional facilities.
§
Champion for evidence-based practice & policy.
§
Published a lot on "what works" with respect to the assessment &
treatment of offenders.
§
Profound impact on how offenders are treated around the world.
§
Correctional Program Assessment Inventory
§
○
-
Canadian courts have been slower than US to open their doors to psychologists.
Canadian courts have relied on physicians (psychiatrists) for matters of
mental states & fitness to stand trial, rather than psychologists.
○
Difference = education.
US needed doctoral-level training to be psychologist, some
provinces in Canada only needed master's degrees.
§
Canadian courts perceive this as inadequate training.
§
○
-
But, Canadian courts have allowed forensic psychologists to provide testimony
on a wide range of other issues.
Value continues to increase.
○
-
A Legitimate Field of Psychology
Hasn't come as far as people would've wanted, but it's not a recognized &
legitimate field of study within psychology.
-
(1) Growing number of high-quality textbooks in the area provide the
opportunity to teach students about forensic psychology.
-
(2) Numerous academic journals are now dedicated to various aspects of the
fields; mainstream journals are beginning to publish research from the forensic
domain.
-
(3) Number of professional associations have now been developed to represent
the interests of forensic psychologists & to promote research & practice in the
area.
AP-LS
○
-
(4) New training opportunities in the field are being established in North
America & existing training opportunities are being improved.
-
(5) APA formally recognized forensic psychology as a specialty discipline in 2001.
-
Forensic Psychology Today ---
Debate on how forensic psychology should be defined in modern terms still
exists.
-
No generally accepted definition of the field.
-
Often referred to as legal psychology or criminological psychology.
-
Another definition states that forensic psychologists are those individuals
engaged in clinical practice within the legal system.
-
Therefore, most psychologists like to define it more broadly.
-
Bartol & Bartol (2006)
(a) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behaviour
directly related to the legal process
○
(b) the professional practice of psychology within, or in consultation with,
a legal system that embraces both civil & criminal law.
○
Focuses on the research that is required to inform applied practice in the
field of psychology.
○
-
The Roles of a Forensic Psychologist
The Forensic Psychologist as Clinician
Clinical forensic psychologists: psychologists who are broadly concerned
with the assessment & treatment of mental health issues as they pertain
to the law or legal system.
○
Work in a variety of settings -- prisons, hospitals.
○
Frequently asses an offender to determine if he or she is likely to pose a
risk to the community if released from prison.
○
Also interested in:
Conducting divorce & child custody mediation.
§
Providing expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature.
§
Carrying out personnel selection.
§
Conducting critical incident stress debriefings with police officers.
§
Facilitating treatment programs for offenders.
§
○
Must be a licensed clinical psychologists specialized in the forensic area.
○
Clinical psychologist vs psychiatrist
Both trained to treat individuals experiencing mental health
problems who come into contact with the law.
§
Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologists are not.
§
○
-
The Forensic Psychologist as Researcher
Experimental forensic psychologists: psychologists wo are broadly
concerned with the study of human behaviour as it relates to the law or
the legal system.
○
Doesn't have to be separate from the clinical role, but often is.
○
Interested in any research issue that related to the law or legal system.
○
Includes:
Examining the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies.
§
Determining what factors influence jury decision making.
§
Developing & testing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups.
§
Evaluating offender & victim treatment programs.
§
Examining the effect of stress management interventions on police
officers.
§
○
Differ in terms of training -- PhD with research in a forensic area (varies
greatly).
○
-
The Forensic Psychologist as Legal Scholar
Legal scholars "would most likely engage in scholarly analyses of mental
health law & psychologically oriented legal movements," whereas their
applied work "would most likely center around policy analysis &
legislative consultation"
○
Some initiatives allow psychologists to study law at the same time.
○
-
Other Forensic Disciplines
Forensic anthropology: examine the remains of deceased individuals to
determine how they might have died & to establish facts about them, such as
their gender, age, appearance, etc.
-
Forensic art: use art to aid in the identification, apprehension, & conviction of
offenders.
Might do this by drawing sketches of suspects, reconstructing faces of
deceased victims, or determining how missing children might look as they
age.
○
-
Forensic entomology: concerned with how insects can assist with criminal
investigations.
Can help determine when someone died based on an analysis of insect
presence/development on a decomposing body.
○
-
Forensic odontology: study the dental aspects of criminal activity.
Might identify deceased individuals through an examination of dental
records, or they might help determine whether bite marks found on an
individual were from a certain person.
○
-
Forensic pathology: (coroners) medical doctors who examine the remains of
dead bodies in an attempt to determine the time & cause of death through
physical autopsy.
-
Forensic podiatry: use their knowledge of how the feet & lower limbs function
to assist with police investigations & court proceedings.
Might relate to the degree of match between footprints found at crime
scenes & the footwear of potential suspects.
○
Also can assist in determining whether gait patterns caught on security
cameras match those of a particular suspect.
○
-
The Relationship Between Psychology & Law
Psychology and the Law
Psychology and the Law: the use of psychology to examine the operation
of the legal system.
○
Often examines assumptions made by the law or our legal system,
E.g., Are eyewitnesses accurate? Are judges fair in the way they
hand down sentences?
§
○
Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this
area - try to answer these questions so the knowledge can be passed on
to the legal system.
○
-
Psychology in the Law
Psychology in the Law: the use of psychology in the legal system as that
system operates.
○
Once psychological knowledge exists, the knowledge can be used in the
legal system by psychologists, lawyers, judges, & others.
○
Might include providing expert testimony on the basis of research or it
might be involved in the investigation process.
○
Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this
area.
○
-
Psychology of the Law
Psychology of the Law: the use of psychology to examine the law itself.
○
Psychology of the law involved the use of psychology to study the law
itself.
○
E.g., "Does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society?"
○
Not a core topic, but it's a growing research area.
○
Domain of the legal scholar.
○
-
Modern-Day Debates: Psychological Experts in Court
Increasingly asked to provide expert testimony in court.
-
Includes cases of custody issues, malingering & deception, the accuracy of
eyewitness identification, the effects of crime on victims, & the assessment of
dangerousness.
-
Functions of the expert witness
Expert witness: a witness who provides the court with information (often
an opinion on a particular matter) that assists the court in understanding
an issue of relevance to a case.
○
Expert witness is supposed to be there as an educator to the judge & jury,
not as an advocate for the defence or the prosecution.
○
-
The challenges of providing expert testimony
Psychology & law differ greatly.
(1) Knowledge
§
(2) Methodology
(3) Epistemology
§
(4) Criteria
§
(5) Nature of Law
§
(6) Principles
§
(7) Latitude
§
○
It makes sense that judges often have difficulty seeing how psychologists
can assist in court proceedings.
○
E.g., the fact that psych creates a normative data set it can be hard to
apply to a case - like "ok, this is what people normally do, but that might
be the case here."
○
-
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in US:
Criteria in US based on Frye v. United States (1923)
○
General acceptance test: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which
states that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the
testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Vague
§
○
More specific admissibility criteria was set in Daubert v. Merrel Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993).
For scientific evidence to be admitted it must be …
(1) Provided by a qualified expert□
(2) Relevant□
(3) Reliable□
§
○
Daubert criteria: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states
that scientific evidence is valid if the research on which it is based (1) has
been peer reviewed, (2) is testable, (3) has a recognized rate of error, and
(4) adheres to professional standards.
○
-
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in Canada:
Laid out in R v. Mohan (1994)
○
Mohan Criteria: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states
that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the testimony (1) is
relevant, (2) is necessary for assisting the trier of fact, (3) does not violate
any exclusionary rules, & (3) is provided by a qualified expert.
○
-
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Forensic Psychology
Monday, January 8, 2018
7:56 PM
Forensic psychology: a field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human
behaviour as it relates to the law or legal system.
Media portrayals of forensic psych are often inaccurate.
Problematic for viewers.
○
-
E.g. Cops
Reality fiction rather than reality TV.
○
Very biased; careful editing & retakes.
○
-
Forensic psychologists are interested in understanding the mechanisms that
underlie people's thoughts, feelings & actions.
Particularly how people function in the legal context.
○
-
History of Forensic Psychology ----
Early Research on Testimony & Suggestibility
Forensic psych began with research taking place in the US & Europe that had
serious implications for the legal system.
-
James Cattel
Developed expertise in human cognitive processes.
○
Conducted experiments looking at what would later be called the
psychology of eyewitness testimony.
○
Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollection.
Students recollections often inaccurate.
§
Relationship between participants' accuracy & their confidence was
far from perfect.
§
Potential assist in courts of justice.
§
○
-
Many began studying testimony & suggestibility.
Alfred Binet: La Suggestibilité
Many studies showing that children's testimony was highly
susceptive to suggestive questioning techniques.
§
○
William Stern
"Reality experiment" still used today to study eyewitness recall &
recognition.
§
Found that emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the
accuracy of a person's testimony.
§
○
-
Court Cases in Europe
Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1896)
One of the first expert witnesses to provide testimony in court.
○
Testified that extensive pre-trial press coverage could influence the
testimony of people by causing retroactive memory falsification.
People confuse actual memories of the events with the events
described by the media.
§
○
Supported with lab research.
○
-
Julian Varendonck (1911)
Called as an expert witness in case of the murder of a young girl.
○
Children quickly changed original testimony after being repeatedly
interviewed by authorities asking suggestive questions.
○
Testified that the testimony provided by the children in this case was
likely inaccurate because children are prone to suggestion.
○
-
Advocating for Forensic Psychology in North America
Hugo Munsterberg
Involved in several criminal cases.
○
Reviewed interrogation records of defendants' confessions.
Found confessions to be untrue.
§
○
Courts appeared to pay little attention to Munsterberg's findings.
○
Legal community went against Munsterberg.
But psychology had a lot to offer.
§
○
-
Likely because of attacks on Munsterberg's work, little progress was made by
psychologists working in areas of relevance to the law in the very early 1900s.
But it caught up with Europe.
○
-
New theories of crime were also being proposed by psychologists at a rapid
rate, especially around the mid-1900s.
-
Landmark Court Cases in the United States
Early to mid-1900s, psychologists in the US began to be more heavily involved in
the judicial system as expert witnesses.
-
First time: State v Driver (1921).
Court accepted expert evidence from a psychologist in the area of juvenile
delinquency.
○
But they rejected the psychologists' testimony.
○
-
More recently: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Case challenged the constitutionality of segregated public schools.
○
Outlawed segregation on the basis of the social implications it had on
Black children.
Research outlining this was conducted by forensic psychologist.
§
○
First time psychological research had been cited in a US Supreme Court
decision.
○
-
Other cases expanded the role of psychologists in court.
Rulings that allowed psychologists to provide opinions on matters that
were traditionally reserved for physicians.
○
People v. Hawthorne (1940)
Psychologists was permitted to provide an opinion about the
mental state of the defendant at the time of the offence.
§
○
Jenkins v. United States (1962)
Defendant pleaded "not guilty" by reason of insanity.
§
Three psychologists supported this defence; defendant suffering
from schizophrenia.
§
But, judge told the jury to disregard the testimony from the
psychologists because they "were not qualified to give expert
testimony on the issue of mental disease"
§
Appealed - APA provided report stating the psychologists are
competent to provide opinions concerning the existence of mental
illness.
§
○
-
Currently, it's common for psychologists to testify on matters such as fitness to
stand trial & criminal responsibility.
-
Progress in Canada
Growing since mid-1900s.
-
Much of the significant advances have emerged from research on eyewitness
testimony & jury decision making.
Most significant in area of corrections.
○
Dr. Paul Gendreau.
Developed policies in the criminal justice field.
§
Worked as psychologist in corectional facilities.
§
Champion for evidence-based practice & policy.
§
Published a lot on "what works" with respect to the assessment &
treatment of offenders.
§
Profound impact on how offenders are treated around the world.
§
Correctional Program Assessment Inventory
§
○
-
Canadian courts have been slower than US to open their doors to psychologists.
Canadian courts have relied on physicians (psychiatrists) for matters of
mental states & fitness to stand trial, rather than psychologists.
○
Difference = education.
US needed doctoral-level training to be psychologist, some
provinces in Canada only needed master's degrees.
§
Canadian courts perceive this as inadequate training.
§
○
-
But, Canadian courts have allowed forensic psychologists to provide testimony
on a wide range of other issues.
Value continues to increase.
○
-
A Legitimate Field of Psychology
Hasn't come as far as people would've wanted, but it's not a recognized &
legitimate field of study within psychology.
-
(1) Growing number of high-quality textbooks in the area provide the
opportunity to teach students about forensic psychology.
-
(2) Numerous academic journals are now dedicated to various aspects of the
fields; mainstream journals are beginning to publish research from the forensic
domain.
-
(3) Number of professional associations have now been developed to represent
the interests of forensic psychologists & to promote research & practice in the
area.
AP-LS
○
-
(4) New training opportunities in the field are being established in North
America & existing training opportunities are being improved.
-
(5) APA formally recognized forensic psychology as a specialty discipline in 2001.
-
Forensic Psychology Today ---
Debate on how forensic psychology should be defined in modern terms still
exists.
-
No generally accepted definition of the field.
-
Often referred to as legal psychology or criminological psychology.
-
Another definition states that forensic psychologists are those individuals
engaged in clinical practice within the legal system.
-
Therefore, most psychologists like to define it more broadly.
-
Bartol & Bartol (2006)
(a) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behaviour
directly related to the legal process
○
(b) the professional practice of psychology within, or in consultation with,
a legal system that embraces both civil & criminal law.
○
Focuses on the research that is required to inform applied practice in the
field of psychology.
○
-
The Roles of a Forensic Psychologist
The Forensic Psychologist as Clinician
Clinical forensic psychologists: psychologists who are broadly concerned
with the assessment & treatment of mental health issues as they pertain
to the law or legal system.
○
Work in a variety of settings -- prisons, hospitals.
○
Frequently asses an offender to determine if he or she is likely to pose a
risk to the community if released from prison.
○
Also interested in:
Conducting divorce & child custody mediation.
§
Providing expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature.
§
Carrying out personnel selection.
§
Conducting critical incident stress debriefings with police officers.
§
Facilitating treatment programs for offenders.
§
○
Must be a licensed clinical psychologists specialized in the forensic area.
○
Clinical psychologist vs psychiatrist
Both trained to treat individuals experiencing mental health
problems who come into contact with the law.
§
Psychiatrists are medical doctors, psychologists are not.
§
○
-
The Forensic Psychologist as Researcher
Experimental forensic psychologists: psychologists wo are broadly
concerned with the study of human behaviour as it relates to the law or
the legal system.
○
Doesn't have to be separate from the clinical role, but often is.
○
Interested in any research issue that related to the law or legal system.
○
Includes:
Examining the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies.
§
Determining what factors influence jury decision making.
§
Developing & testing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups.
§
Evaluating offender & victim treatment programs.
§
Examining the effect of stress management interventions on police
officers.
§
○
Differ in terms of training -- PhD with research in a forensic area (varies
greatly).
○
-
The Forensic Psychologist as Legal Scholar
Legal scholars "would most likely engage in scholarly analyses of mental
health law & psychologically oriented legal movements," whereas their
applied work "would most likely center around policy analysis &
legislative consultation"
○
Some initiatives allow psychologists to study law at the same time.
○
-
Other Forensic Disciplines
Forensic anthropology: examine the remains of deceased individuals to
determine how they might have died & to establish facts about them, such as
their gender, age, appearance, etc.
-
Forensic art: use art to aid in the identification, apprehension, & conviction of
offenders.
Might do this by drawing sketches of suspects, reconstructing faces of
deceased victims, or determining how missing children might look as they
age.
○
-
Forensic entomology: concerned with how insects can assist with criminal
investigations.
Can help determine when someone died based on an analysis of insect
presence/development on a decomposing body.
○
-
Forensic odontology: study the dental aspects of criminal activity.
Might identify deceased individuals through an examination of dental
records, or they might help determine whether bite marks found on an
individual were from a certain person.
○
-
Forensic pathology: (coroners) medical doctors who examine the remains of
dead bodies in an attempt to determine the time & cause of death through
physical autopsy.
-
Forensic podiatry: use their knowledge of how the feet & lower limbs function
to assist with police investigations & court proceedings.
Might relate to the degree of match between footprints found at crime
scenes & the footwear of potential suspects.
○
Also can assist in determining whether gait patterns caught on security
cameras match those of a particular suspect.
○
-
The Relationship Between Psychology & Law
Psychology and the Law
Psychology and the Law: the use of psychology to examine the operation
of the legal system.
○
Often examines assumptions made by the law or our legal system,
E.g., Are eyewitnesses accurate? Are judges fair in the way they
hand down sentences?
§
○
Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this
area - try to answer these questions so the knowledge can be passed on
to the legal system.
○
-
Psychology in the Law
Psychology in the Law: the use of psychology in the legal system as that
system operates.
○
Once psychological knowledge exists, the knowledge can be used in the
legal system by psychologists, lawyers, judges, & others.
○
Might include providing expert testimony on the basis of research or it
might be involved in the investigation process.
○
Clinical & experimental forensic psychologists are typically involved in this
area.
○
-
Psychology of the Law
Psychology of the Law: the use of psychology to examine the law itself.
○
Psychology of the law involved the use of psychology to study the law
itself.
○
E.g., "Does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society?"
○
Not a core topic, but it's a growing research area.
○
Domain of the legal scholar.
○
-
Modern-Day Debates: Psychological Experts in Court
Increasingly asked to provide expert testimony in court.
-
Includes cases of custody issues, malingering & deception, the accuracy of
eyewitness identification, the effects of crime on victims, & the assessment of
dangerousness.
-
Functions of the expert witness
Expert witness: a witness who provides the court with information (often
an opinion on a particular matter) that assists the court in understanding
an issue of relevance to a case.
○
Expert witness is supposed to be there as an educator to the judge & jury,
not as an advocate for the defence or the prosecution.
○
-
The challenges of providing expert testimony
Psychology & law differ greatly.
(1) Knowledge
§
(2) Methodology
(3) Epistemology
§
(4) Criteria
§
(5) Nature of Law
§
(6) Principles
§
(7) Latitude
§
○
It makes sense that judges often have difficulty seeing how psychologists
can assist in court proceedings.
○
E.g., the fact that psych creates a normative data set it can be hard to
apply to a case - like "ok, this is what people normally do, but that might
be the case here."
○
-
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in US:
Criteria in US based on Frye v. United States (1923)
○
General acceptance test: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which
states that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the
testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.
Vague
§
○
More specific admissibility criteria was set in Daubert v. Merrel Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993).
For scientific evidence to be admitted it must be …
(1) Provided by a qualified expert□
(2) Relevant□
(3) Reliable□
§
○
Daubert criteria: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states
that scientific evidence is valid if the research on which it is based (1) has
been peer reviewed, (2) is testable, (3) has a recognized rate of error, and
(4) adheres to professional standards.
○
-
Criteria for accepting expert testimony in Canada:
Laid out in R v. Mohan (1994)
○
Mohan Criteria: a standard for accepting expert testimony, which states
that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the testimony (1) is
relevant, (2) is necessary for assisting the trier of fact, (3) does not violate
any exclusionary rules, & (3) is provided by a qualified expert.
○
-
Chapter 1: An Introduction to Forensic Psychology
Monday, January 8, 2018 7:56 PM
