Chapter 1 - Introduction to Forensic Psychology PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture notes based on first chapter of Forensic Psychology (Pozzulo, Bennell, Forth)...

Description

CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY LEARNING OBJECTIVES ● Identify major milestones in forensic psychology ● Provide narrow and broad definitions of forensic psychology ● Describe the differences between clinical and experimental forensic psychology ● List three ways psychology and law interact ● List criteria for expert testimony in Canada EARLY RESEARCH IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY Cattell (1895): ● The accuracy of everyday observations ● After developing an expertise in the study of human cognitive processes while working with Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig, Germany, Cattell conducted experiments looking at what later would be called the psychology of eyewitness testimony. ● For example, a paper entitled Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollection, Cattell (1895) asked 56 university students in psychology to recall things they had witnessed in their everyday lives (e.g., “What was the weather a week ago today?”). Cattell found that not only his students’ answers were often inaccurate, but also that the relationship between participants’ accuracy and their confidence (i.e., that their recollection was accurate) was far from perfect. ● In Cattell’s view, these findings had the potential to assist in “courts of justice”. Binet (1900): ● Suggestibility in children ● In his work La Suggestibilite (1900), Alfred Binet presented numerous studies in which he showed that the testimony provided by children was highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques. ● In one study, Binet presented children with a series of objects for a short period of time (e.g., a button glued to poster board). After viewing the object, some of the children were told to write down everything that they saw while others were asked questions. ● Some of these questions were direct, others were mildly leading, and others were highly misleading. Binet demonstrated that asking children to report everything they saw (i.e. free recall) resulted in the most accurate answers, while highly misleading questions resulted in the least accurate answers.

Stern (1939): ● The eyewitness ‘reality experiment’ conducted in 1901 ● Participants are exposed to staged events and are then asked to provide information about the event. ● In a 1901 experiment, participants are exposed to a scenario that involved two students arguing in a classroom. The scenario ended with one of the students drawing a revolver; the observers were then asked questions about the event. ● Stern found that the testimony of participants was often incorrect. In addition, he found that the recall was the worst for portions of the event that were particularly exciting (i.e., when the revolver was drawn). This led him to conclude that emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the accuracy of a person’s testimony. COURT CASES IN EUROPE ● Albert von Schrenck-Notzing testified as an expert in 1896. ● The case involved a series of three sexual murders, drawing a lot of press coverage, and von Shrenck-Notzing testified that this extensive pretrial press coverage could influence the testimony of people by causing what he called retroactive memory falsification. ● Retroactive memory falsification: a process whereby people confuse actual memories of events with the events described by the media. ● Following this case, Julian Varendonck provided expert testimony in a 1911 case involving the murder of a young girl, Cecile. ● His testimony showed that children can provide inaccurate testimony due to suggestive questioning techniques. FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY IN NORTH AMERICA ● Munsterberg’s 1908 book On the Witness Stand discusses the role of psychology in the legal system including issues involving: eyewitness testimony, crime detection, false confessions, suggestibility, hypnotism, and even crime prevention. ● Pushes psychology into diverse areas of the criminal justice system, including prisons and police forces. LANDMARK UNITED STATES COURT CASES State v. Driver (1921): ● Case involved the attempted raope of a young girl and the court accepted expert evidence from a psychologist in the area of juvenile delinquency.

● However, the court rejected the psychologist’s testimony that the young girl was a “moron” and therefore, could not be believed. In its ruling the court stated “ It is yet to be determined that psychological and medical tests are practical, and will detect the lie on the witness stand.” ● This case is considered a partial victory for forensic psychology in North America. Jenkins v. United States (1962): ● Case involved charges of breaking and entering, assault, and intent to rape. The defendant, Jenkins, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Three psychologists supported this defence on the basis that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the crimes. ● However, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the testimony from the psychologists because “psychologists were not qualified to give expert testimony on the issue of mental disease.” ● The case was appealed. As part of the appeal, the APA provided a report to the court stating their view that psychologists are competent to provide opinions concerning the existence of mental illness. ● The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, stating that “some psychologists are qualified to render expert testimony on mental disorders.” PROGRESS IN CANADA ● Similar contributions to eyewitness testimony and jury decision making ● Research and advances in corrections: - Constructing better risk assessment tools and developing effective treatment approaches ● Canadian courts slower to recognize psychologists - Partially explained by different licensing standards - Canadian courts tend to rely upon physicians (primarily psychiatrists) to conduct assessments of fitness to stand trial and criminal responsibility vs using psychologists. - In the United States, most states require doctoral-level training before one can be a licensed psychologist, while most provinces and territories only require a master’s degree. Canadian courts may perceive this to be an inadequate level of training to qualify as an expert in some circumstances, especially when compared to the medical degree held by forensic psychiatrists.

A LEGITIMATE FIELD OF PSYCHOLOGY ● High quality textbooks ● Academic journals ● Professional associations ● Training opportunities ● Recognition as a specialty discipline DEFINITION OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY There are two primary ways of defining forensic psychology: ● Narrow definitions: highlight certain aspects of the profession while ignoring other aspects ● Broad definitions: more inclusive NARROW DEFINITION ● A field of psychology that primarily includes: ● Clinical practices in forensic psychology: - Assessment - Consultation - Treatment ● Excludes psychologists who primarily conduct forensic research BROAD DEFINITION ● A research endeavor and/or a professional practice that examines: - Human behaviour in relation to the legal system - Includes application and research - Includes areas such as social, cognitive, personality, organizational, and developmental psychology THE ROLES OF A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST Clinician: ● Clinical forensic psychologists are broadly concerned with mental health issues as they pertain to the legal system. ● Work in a variety of settings, such as private practices, prisons, and hospitals. ● A frequent task for this type or forensic psychologists might involve the assessment of an offender to determine if he or she is likely to pose a risk to the community if released from prison. ● Other issues that clinical forensic psychologists are currently interested in include, but are not limited to: - Conducting divorce and child custody mediation - Providing expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature

-

Carrying out personnel selection (e.g., for law enforcement agencies) Running critical incident stress debriefings with police officers Facilitating treatment programs for offenders

Researcher: ● Also concerned with mental health issues in the legal system but also with any issues related to the legal system. ● Research interests can include: - Examining the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies - Determining what factors influence jury decision-making - Developing and testing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups - Evaluating offender and victim treatment programs - Studying the effect of stress management interventions on police officers Legal Scholar: ● Least common role for forensic psychologists ● Interests can include: - Engage in scholarly analysis of mental health law - Policy analysis RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW Psychology and the Law: ● The use of psychology to study the operation of the legal system Psychology in the Law: ● The use of psychology within the legal system as it currently operates Psychology of the Law: ● The use of psychology to study the law itself PSYCHOLOGY EXPERTS IN COURT ● Functions of an expert witness ● Challenges of providing expert testimony ● Admissibility criteria FUNCTIONS OF AN EXPERT WITNESS ● Two primary functions: - Aid in understanding a particular issue relevant to the case - Provide an opinion

● This contrasts with regular witnesses who can only testify about what they have directly observed. ● Expert witness is supposed to be there as an educator to the judge and jury, not as an advocate for the defence or prosecution. CHALLENGES OF PROVIDING EXPERT TESTIMONY ● Experts need to know not only about their testimony but about the proceedings and their role in the proceedings ● Providing effective testimony to the courts is difficult because of differences that exist between the field of psychology and law. ● According to Hess, psychology and law differ along at least seven different dimensions (p. 36): 1. Epistemology 2. Nature of law 3. Knowledge 4. Methodology 5. Criterion 6. Principles 7. Latitude of courtroom behaviour CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING EXPERT TESTIMONY General Acceptance Test (Frye v. United States): ● 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. ● Major criticism is vagueness of terms general acceptance and whether trial judges can make this determination. Daubert Criteria (Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Inc.): ● An American standard for accepting expert testimony, which states that scientific evidence is valid if:: 1. The research has been peer reviewed 2. The research is testable (e.g., falsifiable through experimentation) 3. The research has a recognized rate of error 4. The research adheres to professional standards Mohan Criteria (R. v. Mohan): ● A Canadian standard for accepting expert testimony, which states that expert testimony will be admissible in court if: 1. The evidence is relevant.

2. The evidence must be necessary for assisting the trier of fact. 3. The evidence must not violate any other rules of exclusion (i.e., rules that would otherwise exclude the admissibility of the evidence). 4. The testimony must be provided by a qualified expert....