3.1 Forensic Intro

Question 1

Forensic psychology definition

Answer 1

the application of psychological knowledge and theories to all aspects of the criminal and civil justice systems, including the processes and the people

Question 2

admissibility criteria

Answer 2

experts must satisfy judge that they have special knowledge above and beyond that of the average juror and that this expertise will assist jurors

Question 3

functions of an expert witness

Answer 3

1. aid in understanding a particular issue relevant to the case
2. provide an opinion

Question 4

history of forensic psychology

Question 5

how do expert witnesses differ from regular witnesses

Answer 5

regular witnesses can only testify about what they have directly observed (no opinions, analysis)

Question 6

challenges of providing expert testimony

Answer 6

• lack of ecological validity of psychological research (real-world application)
• psychologists may become advocates, lose objectivity
• psychology can intrude upon legitimate activities of legal system
• it’s all common sense (not helpful)

Question 7

admissibility criteria england + wales

Answer 7

• experts not commonly used
• just because qualified doesn’t mean will be helpful, danger jury will think so - too much weight put on expert opinion
• psychologists/psychiatrists not needed unless mental illness
• all other psych knowledge seen common knowledge
• some relaxing of Turner ruling = more evidence on not mental illness

Question 8

admissibility criteria: australia

Answer 8

aus, NZ constrained by turner ruling, esp common-knowledge
- expert evidence relating to eyewitness testimony regularly disallowed
- evidence act 1995 NSW = common knowledge rule abolished

Question 9

fingerprints analysis

Answer 9

• fingerprint experts very accurate, not perfect
• used in court >100yrs but 1st study to objectively investigate accuracy 2011
• err on side of caution = free the guilty, but occasionally could false convict

Question 10

facial mapping analysis

Answer 10

• techniques not standardised, inconsistent
• take measurements, note characteristics
• much incriminating evidence of unknown validity + reliability

Question 11

hair analysis

Answer 11

• almost all FBI examiners have given flawed testimony
• hair, bite mark analysis NOT good - subjective, pattern-based, wrongful convictions on feature-comparison methods

Question 12

history: earliest research into eyewitness memory

Answer 12

James Cattell 1895, asked people to recall things they witnessed in their everyday life (e.g. apple seeds point) - often inaccurate

Question 13

history: misleading questions

Answer 13

alfred binet 1900, showed kids objects e.g. button, asked questions about object (what colour was the string holding it there, but there wasn’t any) –> misleading questions = poor accuracy

Question 14

history: reality experiments

Answer 14

• von Liszt 1902, Stern 1910 conducted reality experiments w/ staged events –> student ‘shot’ professor, best recall = 26% errors on main details, proves eyewitness unreliable, inaccurate

Question 15

history: first appearances of psych in courts

Answer 15

• varendonck 1911, called to be expert in murder young girl case
• staged event at school, tested memory for event
• concluded children’s memories inaccurate –> “what colour was the teacher’s beard?” “brown” <– doesn’t even have a beard

Question 16

history: questioning assumption that eyewitness memory accurate

Answer 16

• hugo von munsterberg, FATHER OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, questioning assumption inherently reliable eyewitness
• v critical lawyers for failure to recognise value of psychology + massively overstated case, probably put back discipline development for some decades

Question 17

history: eyewitness research reemergence

Answer 17

• 1960s, ’70s
• robert buckhout wanted to change legal system
• elizabeth loftus studied malleability of memory, postevent misinformatio paradigm