Lecture notes, lectures 1 - 5, 7 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Lecture notes, lectures 1 - 5, 7 PDF

Description

Chapter 1: Introduction to Forensic Psychology What is Forensic Psychology?  Narrow Definitions o Clinical practice in the legal system  Broad Definitions o Research related to human behaviour and legal processes o Practice of psychology in legal system  New Definition o Linking psychology to the legal system Types of Forensic Psychologist:  Clinician o Job may include research and practice - Schools, prisons, hospitals, etc. o Area of interest is mental health issues and the law o Training – either an M.A. or a Ph.D. in psychology and internships  Researcher o Job may include research o Area of interest is human behaviour and the law o Training – graduate training in psychology and research on a forensic topic  Legal Scholar o Ph.D. in psychology and L.L.B. in law  Analyze mental health law  Policy analysis and legislative consultation o Program at Simon Fraser University  Can be in more than one role at one time Psychology and Law:  Psychology and the law o Use of psychology to study the operation of the legal system  Psychology in the law o Use of psychology within the legal system as it currently operates  Psychology of the law o Use of psychology to study the law itself History of Forensic Psychology:  Early Research o Daniel McNaughten – 1843  Found not guilty by reason of insanity  Established McNaughten Rule o Cattell – 1895  Questions about everyday observations  Relationship between confidence and accuracy o Binet – 1900  Suggestibility in children  Impact of leading questions







o Stern – 1910  Eyewitness reality experiment  Impact of emotional arousal  Mistakes increase when people are aroused, tensed, fearful, etc. Psychology in the courts o Von Schrenck-Notzing – 1896  Serial sexual murder case  Extensive pre-trail press coverage  Retroactive memory falsification  What we see vs. what we heard o Varendonck – 1911  Belgian murder trial – raping and killing a young girl  Child witnesses gave contradictory evidence – changed over time  Demonstrated inaccurate recall in children – easily change their memories  Must be very careful with children so that their memories are not altered Forensic psychology in North America o Munsterberg – 1908  On the Witness Stand – book outlining how psychology could aid the legal system (including jury, etc.)  Psychology and the legal system  Resistance from legal scholars – didn’t like the idea of psychology  Pushed psychology into legal arena  Father of forensic psychology ** o Law Schools  Marston – 1917  First professor of legal psychology  Research on lie detection o 1909: first clinic for delinquents o 1913: psychology in prisons o 1917: tests for police selection Relevant court cases o State v. Driver – 1921  First use of expert testimony  First time a psychologist was allowed inside the court room to give testimony  Partial victory for FP o Brown v. Board of Education – 1954  Linda Brown had to walk over a mile just to go to a segregated school, meanwhile an all-white school was much closer  Psychologists submitted a court brief outlining the detrimental effects on segregation  U.S. Supreme Court referenced brief - acknowledged social science research for the first time as being important  Instance in which social sciences was beginning to integrate into the justice system in some way

o Jenkins v. United States – 1962  Psychologists allowed to provide expert testimony on issues of mental illness? Depending on credentials and experience  Some psychologists are qualified to provide testimony A Distinct Discipline?  Textbooks  Academic journals  Professional associates (AP-LS)  Training opportunities  APA (American Psychology Association) recognized Psychological Experts in Court:  Functions of an expert witness o Aid in understanding the topic o Provide an opinion Psychology versus Law  Frustrating from a psychologist perspective Psychology 1. Knowledge Research 2. Methodology Nomothetic (broad) 3. Epistemology Experiments 4. Criteria Strict 5. Nature Descriptive 6. Principles Multiple 7. Latitude Limited

Law Stare Decisis Idiographic Adversarial Lenient Prescriptive Single Unlimited

Frye V. United States – 1923  Frye tried for Murder  Polugraph exam passed o Results inadmissible  General Acceptance Test o Gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs o Difficult to do so practically Admissibility of Expert Testimony: US  Daubert criteria o Provided by a qualified expert o Relevant o Reliable/valid  Peer reviewed  Testable (I.E. falsifiable)  Recognized rate of error  Meet professional standards



Mohan Criteria o Pediatrician charged with sexually assaulting his female patients o Provided by an expert o Relevant o Necessary – go beyond what the average person knows o Not violate rules of exclusion – cannot testify about things that would be ruled inadmissible (ex: past offenses may influence the jury, etc.)

Influential Canadian Court Cases:  R v. Sophonow (1986) o Most famous wrong conviction in Canada o Convicted then over turned  R v. Lavallee (1990) o Battered woman syndrome o Roll of expert witnesses in these situations  R v. Swain (1991) o Insanity defense o When it can be used, how long a person can be held, the name, etc.  R v. Oickle (2000) o Police interrogation techniques o What they can and cannot do – okay to use psychological coercion Psychological Theories of Crime:  Psychoanalytic Theories o Internal dynamics and early experiences o John Bowlby – theory of maternal deprivation  Early separation from mother prevents effective social development  Results in antisocial behaviour patterns  The younger the age of an individual when they first offend, predicts their future offences  Learning Theories o Learning through direct and indirect consequences o Albert Bandura – social learning theory (BoBo Doll Experiment)  Criminal behaviour is learned  Direct and indirect reinforcement (e.g., anti-social peers, violence on TV)  Personality Theories o The make-up of criminal personalities o Hans Eysenck – bio-social theory  Testable – test personality scales & measure against criminal behaviour  PEN Model (psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism)  People high on Neuroticism and Extraversion are more likely to become involved in crime

Wednesday January 14th, 2015 Chapter 2: Policy Psychology Police Selection:  The process used to select police officers  Either by screening out or screening in  Applicants are assessed for: o Physical fitness o Cognitive abilities o Personality o Job related abilities Who can apply to the RCMP?  Canadian citizen  Good character  Proficient in English or French  Canadian high school diploma  Valid driver’s license  19 years of age  Physically fit and meet medical assessment  Be willing to relocate anywhere in Canada History of Police Selection:  Used since the early 1900s  1917: IQ tests used to select officers  1950s: psychological and psychiatric screening standard in major forces  Today: background checks, medical exams, selections interviews, cognitive and personality assessments, etc. Police Selection in Canada:  Provincial and Territorial differences  All agencies: background checks & medical exams  Most us cognitive ability testes and personality tests Police Selection Process:  Job analysis o Define what knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) make a good police officer o Issues:  Stability of KSAs over time  Different KSAs for different jobs  Agreement on KSAs  Construction and validation: o Develop an instrument to measure KSAs and ensure they are related to performance o Issues:

 

Deciding on performance measure (e.g., punctuality, complaints, commendations) Different performance measures provide different results

Selection Instruments:  Selection interview  Psychological tests o Cognitive ability tests o Personality tests  Assessment centers (situational tests) Selection Interview:  Selection interview: o Very common o Semi-structured questions o Goal is to determine if applicant has KSAs  Problems: o Research on predictive validity is mixed o Low interviewer agreement Psychological Tests:  Cognitive ability tests: o Measures aptitude (memory, logic, observation, comprehension) o Used frequently in Canada (e.g., RCMP Police Aptitude Test) o Moderate predictive validity (training vs. on-the-job)  Personality tests: o Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)  Identifies psychopathology (e.g., schizophrenia)  Screening-out tool  Moderate predictive validity (Scogin, et al., 1995) o Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI)  Developed specifically for police selection  Measures personality and behaviour  Better predictive validity than the MMPI (Scogin, et al., 1995) o Example IPI Questions:  I have never cheated on an exam  I have been suspended from school Assessment Centers:  Use of situational tests  Simulation of real world police tasks  Applicant behaviour is assessed by multiple observers  Work simulation exercise: o Watch crime and identify violations of law and recommend action  Domestic disturbance exercise: o Frequent but most difficult to deal with

 

o 15 minutes to resolve dispute Homeowner complaint o Deal with both homeowner and high-priority call Witness probing exercise o Interview witnesses of armed robbery

Police Discretion  Police Discretion: knowing when to abide by the law and when to allow for some latitude  Why allow discretion? o Limited resources o Some laws vague or minor o Can’t account for all situations  Must live with consequences Youth Crime:  Discretion is encouraged  ~80% of Forces attempt to handle informally  Belief that formal sanctions are not effective response  Responses include community referrals, resolution conferences, arrests, etc. Mental Illnesses:  “Pose danger to self or others” or “causing serious disturbance”  Three options o Informal resolution o Escort to psychiatric facility o Arrest  Leads to criminalization o Hoch (2009) study Domestic Violence:  Historically ignored (large percentage of calls each day are domestic violence)  Pro-arrest policies introduced  Various options o Mediation o Community referrals o Separations  Complicated and stressful for officers Use of Force:  Necessary and Reasonable  Use of force is rare o 1.5% to 0.07% of interactions o Mostly male (94%) o Most people impaired (88%)  Policies change over time – Tasers

Canada’s Use of Force Model:  Guideline for needed level of force  Instructs officer to consider: o Situational factors – are there other people around? Potential hostages? Etc. o Subject’s behaviour – willing to talk, signs of violence, etc. o Tactical considerations – alone, in need of back up, etc.  One step higher than suspect

Sources of Police Stress:  Occupational stressors: o Shift work, human suffering  Organizational stressors: o Excessive paperwork, lack of advancement  Criminal justice stressors: o Frustration at court systems, corrections system  Public stressors: o Distorted views of police Consequences of Stress:  Physical o Cardiovascular disease, digestive disorders, cancer  Psychological/personal o Depression, PTSD, divorce, substance abuse o Results mixed and contradictory  Job-related o Absenteeism, early retirement Managing Police Stress:  Many programs used to manage police stress: o Physical fitness programs o Professional counseling services

o Family assistance programs o Critical incident debriefings o Adaptive coping strategies Adaptive Coping Strategies:  Change maladaptive coping o Alcohol, anger, withdrawal  Adaptive coping skills o (E.g., better communication) – building communication skills  Find someone to talk to about the situation o Control response not event o Positive impact on health

Criminal Profiling What is Criminal Profiling?  A technique for predicting the personality, behaviour and demographic characteristics of an individual based upon an analysis of the crimes he or she has committed  Typically used in low volume serious crimes o Serial murder, serial rape, serial arson  Extreme psychopathology exhibited o Reserved for serious types Case Example:  North London: Kilburn Area  3 murders and 26 rapes – 1982 and 1986  Women in their early 20s  Strangers – attacked during night – near or on railway  Used mask and conversation – violent rapes – used a knife  Talked to victims after rape – Questions victims about where they lived  Varied description of rapist by victims  Greeted victims as he passed and then attacked from behind  Restrained victims by fastening hands behind their backs  Gave victims instructions on how to get home  Rapist: lived near the railway, married, no kids, only two male friends, practiced martial arts, violent towards his wife, collector of hard-core porn, carpenter with British rail, 28 when arrested (started at age 24) History of Criminal Profiling:  Late 1800s – Jack the Ripper investigation o Doctor tried to determine characteristics of Jack through wounds on the victims  1950s – New York Mad Bomber investigation o Psychiatrist (James Brussell) – based on different crimes and how they were committed he made a list of possible characteristics – predicted the offender would wear a double breasted suit – ended up being correct  1970s – Criminal Profiling program developed at the FBI o In-house profilers that have their own unit o Similar to Criminal Minds  Today – similar programs developed internationally (e.g., RCMP’s Behavioural Science Section) o Psychologist, psychiatrists, etc. try to predict o FBI – most famous/widely known The Purposes of Profiling:  Suspect prioritization o Thousands of types of suspects, cannot interview them all – try to narrow it down  New lines of enquiry o Different take on the case – different perspective

  

Interview strategies o Best way to interrogate, weaknesses, etc. Predict dangerousness o Once offender is released Flush out offender o Release profile, put pressure on the suspect, hopefully changes their behaviour, make mistakes, etc.

Types of Profiling:  Inductive Profiling o Profiling an offender from what is known about other offenders  Deductive Profiling o Profiling an offender from evidence relating to the crime of that offender Inductive Profiling:  Example: 80% of serial killers who attack people in parking lots are white males  our offender has attacked three people in parking lots, therefore it is likely that our offender is a white male o Look at details of crime and offender and see if there is a relationship  Consistent theme in any characteristics  Clinical o Experience and intuition  Statistical o Base rates and multivariate analysis  Problem – sampling issues o Representative sample Deductive Profiling:  Example: body of a female victim is found in a locked warehouse in busy waterfront section  offender can easily access warehouse and feels comfortable in the area  Rely on logical reasoning o Based on evidence  Sherlock Holmes and Patrick Jane o Fictional characters – find things about offenders just from observing the scene  Unfortunately, logical ≠ correct o Logical predictions and reasoning that ends up being incorrect How often is Profiling Used?  > 100 profilers  FBI, 1000 profiles/year in USA  242 profiles 1981 – 1995 UK Profile Construction:  What + Why = Who o Too vague

 

Profiling art not science o Some statistical examples Conclusion – nobody knows! o Musicians and painters

FBI Approach:  Organized vs. disorganized dichotomy  Most offenders mixed  Research suggests not useful (Canter et al., 2004) Organized Disorganized Behaviour Background Behaviour Background Planned Offense (Use of Restraints)

High Intelligence, Skilled Occupation

Spontaneous Offense (No Restraints)

Low Intelligence, Unskilled Occupation

Used Vehicle

Geographically Mobile, Lives Far

No Vehicle

Geographically Stable, Live Close

What do Users Say?  British police officers (copson, 1995 – N = 182) o 83% - “operationally useful” o 69% - definitely use profiling again o 14% - helped solve case o 2.7 % - profiling helped identify offender  Canadian police officers (Snook et al., 2007 – N = 51) o Valuable investigative tool (88%) o Further understanding of case (84%) o Profilers accurate (45%) o Can misdirect investigation (78%)  Not tested on percentages – know theme/take home message ** Problems with Profiling:  Information contained in profiles o Vague and ambiguous o Multiple interpretations  Profiling behavioural assumptions o Trait model of personality  Does it work?! – most important question * o Do profilers produce accurate predictions What do profiles Contain?  Analyzed 21 actual profiles (Alison et al., 2003) o 5 US, 13 UK and 3 Other  Classified content of profiles

 

o Factual/summary information – case info o Unsubstantiated opinion (e.g., no backing)  “I think it was a white male” o Unverifiable (e.g., emotions)  “They struggle with internal anger” o Ambiguous (e.g., vague – “poor skills”)  “Doesn’t get along well with others” o Opposing alternatives – multiple outs  Unemployed, etc. wide range of options 2090 statements (Mean = 147/profile) Only 25% statements were predictions about offender (780) o 82% - unsubstantiated o 55% - unverifiable – vague, no reason behind it, opinion, etc. o 24% - ambiguous – no real way to tell if prediction was correct o 6% - opposing alternatives – multiple ways it could be correct o 1% - fully justified (most from 1 profile) – logical reasoning with a prediction

Impact of Ambiguity:  Two investigator groups given same profile o Compare to details of suspect  Suspect differed on key components o Profile rated as accurate in both groups o Useful in investigation  People interpret ambiguity to match suspect o Horoscopes Profiling Behavioural Assumptions:  Nomothetic: similar processes affect all individuals same way  Deterministic: behaviour is affected in predictable ways  Non-situational: behaviour remains stable across situations Trait Model of Personality: Trait Indicators: Punctual Tidy Polite

Criminal Behaviours: Verbal Violence Physical Violence Threats to Victim

Latent Trait: ‘Conscientiousness’

Disposition: ‘Aggressiveness’

Behaviour in Other Contexts: Organized Responsible Dependable

Behaviour in Everyday Life: Conviction to violent crimes Domestic disputes Violent pornography

Profiling behavioural Assumptions:  Little to no support for trait theory  Situational factors impact criminal actions across crimes  Our personalities and criminal actions differ significantly depending on the situation  Assumptions of profiling in doubt o Not very strong in supporting the idea that how an individual acts at a crime scene is representative of how they will act in other given situations Does Profiling Work?  Meta-analysis of 5 profiling studied o Statistically combine accuracy scores o Profilers vs. Students, Psychologists, and Police Officers  Used solved cases, administered questionnaire  Profilers barely outperformed other groups  Low level of objective accuracy in Profilers’ predictions  Profilers don’t want to be tested! o 1000’s of profiles done every year Take Home Messages:  Profiles offer ‘comfort’ to officers but do not help solve crimes – redundant  Profiles contain few predictions about offender and those things are often ambiguous, unjustified, or unverifiable  Profiling lacks theoretical support  ‘Expert’ profilers can barely out-predict university students Why is Profiling Used?  Cover all bases o Victim, public, etc.  Feel there is nothing to lose o Ignore potential for harm – downside  Focus on the wrong person  Person you want to fit the profile – forced to have the profile fit them o Why not? Fresh perspective  Actually believe profilers can help with uncertain investigation o Some people may not feel qualified to deal wit...