Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Forensic Psych > Courts And Juries > Flashcards

Courts And Juries Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What are the two types of trial?

A

Adversarial system

Inquisitorial system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the adversarial system?

A

Characteristic of Anglo American system.
Two advocates represent their parties positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case.
Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince a judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How is the adversarial system carried out?

A

Judges in an adversarial system are impartial in ensuring the fair play of due process, or fundamental justice.
Lawyers are partisan and act for opposed parties.
The judge does not actively steer the questioning.
All evidence must be relevant and presented orally rather than as a written submission.
Criminal defendant is not required to testify.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the inquisitorial system?

A

Characteristic of continental European system.
Legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case.
Primary objective is achieving the truth with the rights of the individual secondary.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How is the inquisitorial system carried out?

A

Judge can be involved in the early stages of the police investigation.
Those knowledgeable about the events provide information to the court.
Judge steers the legal process including the questioning of witnesses.
The criminal defendant is the 1st to testify and knows the states case against them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Adversarial v. inquisitorial systems

A

The systems are not as distinct as they might be – both may be used in the same jurisdiction.
There are also differences between different adversarial system (e.g., UK versus US). In the UK:
- lawyers are confined and are not free to walk around the court room when presenting the case.
- opening statement from the defence is given after the other side has presented its case.
- objections from lawyers are not dealt with in the presence of a jury.
- judges are more active in the flow of evidence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Are juries affected differently?

A

Theories of persuasion suggest two methods in which information is processed (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981):

  1. Central Route
  2. Peripheral route

Collett and Kovera (2003)

  • Mock trials under UK and US system
  • Some differences were found
  • BUT failed to demonstrate the two systems differentially affecting the trial outcome
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Are trial outcomes predictable?

A

Fitzmaurice et al. (1996) studied accuracy of sentencing.

  • Predictions weren’t particularly good.
  • Percentage of correctly predicted sentences as low as 20% and no higher than 60%.

But lawyers have to predict most likely outcome of taking a case to court

Lawyers assessments of outcomes follow the principles of psychology in decision-making under conditions of uncertainty (Fox and Rirke, 2002).

Evidence to suggest the way the issue is presented in terms of numbers of factors to consider affects the probabilities of different outcomes as assessed by the lawyer.

Cauffman et al., (2007) found that legal factors most important in determining prison sentence or probation order was awarded.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the structural constraints of presentation of evidence in court?

A

Can’t just present any evidence in court.

  • How, what, where and when evidence may be provided.
  • Usually on the order in which evidence is presented (Bartlett and Memon, 1995)
  • Restrictions on use of information about previous offences.
  • Prosecution gives its case first followed by the defence evidence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How can the primacy recency effect have an affect on presentation of evidence in court?

A

Arguments presented first may differ in their persuasive impact from arguments presented second.

Lind and Ke (1985): the longer the trial, the greater the advantage to the more recent case; the shorter the trial, the greater the advantage to the case presented first.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Strategies in presentation of evidence in court

A

Bartlett and Memon (1995)

  • Strategies that help a lawyer to persuade jurors and judges
  • Strategies that manipulate the credibility of the witness.

Bennett and Feldman (1981)
- Strategies used by lawyers to construct their narrative.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Why is narrative important in presentation of evidence in court?

A

In portance of narrative underlying layers cases: evidence not necessarily the key, the story that links the evidence together.

Pennington and Hastie (1981; 1986) – crucial to a good narrative:
- goals of the participants
– physical conditions
– psychological conditions

Bennett and Feldman (1981) – number of ambiguous linkages in a story (e.g. how different elements of the story link up) partly determined and undermines the credibility of perceived truthfulness of the story.

Structural properties of the ‘story’ far outweigh other factors (witness credibility, lawyers use of language etc.) In perceptions of its truthfulness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lawyer tactics: discrediting strategies

A

Witnesses and expert witnesses (e.g. training/education background, psycholgy’s scientific status, controversies associated with diagnosing mental illness; personal attacks)

Larson and Brodsky (2010) found experts subjected to more personal discrediting strategies were seen as more credible, trustworthy and believable than those who were treated more fairly.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Lawyer Tactics: Use of abstract language with child witnesses

A

Affects accuracy of testimony of the child.
Evans et al. (2009) looked at whether the outcome of a trial can be predicted from the complexity of the questions asked.
Trial verdict could be predicted accurately in 83% of cases from the complexity of the defence lawyers questioning BUT only convictions (not acquittals)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Lawyer Tactics: Plea bargaining

A

Kramer et al (2007) looked at lawyers’ decision making when advising a client about plea bargaining.
When the evidence was weak but the likely sentence, if convicted long and the defendant preferred to go to trial, then there was a low likelihood of the lawyer recommending a plea bargain deal.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Lawyer Tactics: Using the defendant as a witness

A

Pros and cons of the defendant taking the witness stand
Shaffer et al. (1985, 1982, 1979) showed defendants who do not take the stand are more likely to be judged negatively
Jones and Harrison (2009) found no convincing indication of whether it is better for the defendant to take the witness stand or not.

17
Q

Juveniles and the Justice System

A

Increased attention on juvenile delinquency and justice system from media attention to crimes involving children (Krisberg and Wolf, 2005)

Juvenile justice system has undergone significant changes over the last few decades.

18
Q

Early Juvenile Justice Systems

A

First juvenile court established 1899.

Focus of juvenile courts:

  • Rehabilitation - focus on needs of the children
  • Less punitive
  • Juveniles not viewed fully responsible for their actions and unable to form criminal intent (ages 7 - 14)

Court proceedings were not adversarial - duty to protect and care for juvenile offenders.

Offences were in the majority status offences (e.g. crimes only committed by juveniles such as truancy)

19
Q

Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Offences

A

Department of Justice, US (2001): Juvenile offending is decreasing despite public perceptions.

Prevalence of juvenile offenders (Shoemaker and Wolfe, 2005):

  • 2 million arrests each year
  • 1 million sent to juvenile court (500,000 sent to detention centres and 10,000 sent to criminal court)

Types of juveniles proceedings (Ostrom et al., 2001):
- 61% delinquency proceedings, 19% status offences, 19% victimisation or abuse of children

Age of juvenile offenders (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999):
- 58% younger than 16, 32% younger than 15, 9% younger than 12

Gender (Snyder, 2000)
- 83% increase in female in juvenile crime

Offence types vary (Godwin and Helms, 2002):

  • Status offences (truancy, loitering etc.)
  • Property offences account for 1/3 of all juvenile arrests (burglary, theft and arson)
20
Q

Risk factors for juvenile offending

A 
Delinquency and Violence (Farrington and Loeber, 2000; Lipsey and Derzon, 19988; Redding et al., 2005):
Family context
Problems in school
Peers and gang membership
Community context
Individual factors

Sexual Violence (Heilbrun et al., 2005) re-offending associated with:
Being an acquaintance of the victim
Not receiving any treatment
Being younger

21
Q

Role of Forensic Psychologist in Juvenile Court

A 
Evaluating treatment amenability
Providing treatment
Transfer evaluations
Competency evaluations
Insanity evaluations
Risk Assessment
22
Q

Case study: School Shootings

Shootings in Columbine High School in 1990s, Virginia Tech in 2007

A

Increasing public concern about school violence - media sensationalisation

Myths of school shootings (O’Toole, 2000; Cornell, 2007)

  • Epidemic and increasing
  • All shooters are the same
  • Shooters are loners
  • Shooters are motivated by revenger
  • Engage in unusual hobbies and activities
  • Have easy access to weapons

Earl prevention efforts:

  • Zero tolerance policies
  • Identifying warning signs
  • Profiling shooters

Threat assessments: Identification of precise actions associated with violent behaviour (Randazzo et al., 2006)

  • Shooters usually tell someone of their plans
  • Student makes a threat against the school
  • Access to weapons, formulated a plan and has a target

Warning signs: truancy, substance and alcohol abuse, anger and aggression.

Profiles largely considered inappropriate: all students who had been bullied and dressed in black trench coats

23
Q

What are the two types of juries?

A 
Lay person jury (12 people)
Escabinato jury (lay people and legal experts)
24
Q

Role of jury trial is overstated

A

England and Wales: 2% of criminal cases are put before a jury.
Jury system has received a lot of criticism.

25
Q

Research and Juries

A

Research is difficult.
Simulation or trials and mock juries.
Shadow juries.
Problems with field studies (randomisation, control groups and interpretation)

26
Q

Jury Selection

A

The principle of judicium parium in the Magna Carta is often cited as a guarantee to the right to a trial by one’s peers.
- However it is difficult to decide what the term one’s peers actually means.

There are some legal criteria that are used to select jurors in England.

  • Jurors are selected at random from the electoral role.
  • Jurors must be 18 - 70 years old and not be in the categories of disqualified or ineligible people e.g. mental health issues.
  • Anyone who has been in prison for five years or more: members of the legal profession now eligible.

Other aids to selecting juries and jurors:

  • Focus groups
  • Mock trials
  • Community attitude surveys
  • Prospective juror questionnaires
  • Jury selection consultants
27
Q

Problems with jury selection

A

Does random selection from the electoral role guarantee a fair trial?

  • random selection from the electoral role may not even provide representative juries.
  • The young and the poor are less likely to appear on electoral roles.

Moreover, over 50% of the people summoned of jury service fail to attend. Thus, juries may not be representative.

Marshall (1975) argues that a representative jury is not necessarily impartial.

28
Q

Scientific Jury Selectioin: Voir Dire

A

French “to speak the truth”
“Trial within a trial”

It is a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence, or the competency of a witness or juror.

Is the stage at the beginning of a trial at which judges (sometimes lawyers) seek to identify bias or prejudice among potential jurors.

Jury generally removed.

Not practiced in the UK.

29
Q

The trial

A

Extra-evidential factors have been found to influence jurors:

  • pre-trial publicity (Greene and Loftus, 1984)
  • Inadmissible evidence; even retracted confessions.

These factors have been found to influence jurors despite judges’ instructions to ignore,

Other factors include:

  • Defendant’s attractiveness
  • Defendant’s socio-economic status
30
Q

The verdict

A

An issue of great concern is whether juries make perverse decisions.

Kalven and Ziesel (1966) compared judges’ preferred verdicts to those reached by juries.

  • Re-analyses of their data revealed that knowing the judge’s preferred verdict improved prediction of the jury’s decisions by only 21%.
  • Juries seem to be more inclined to acquit than judges are.

McCabe and Purves (1974) used the shadow jury technique
- They found a correlation of .43 in decisions.

Thus, juries don’t seem to be reliable.
Juries are allowed to reach decisions on the basis of their conscience.
If the jury is the just face of the CJS, this should be allowed.

31
Q

What are the jury decision rules?

A

Juries may vary in terms of size and in terms of the proportion of the jurors who must agree on a verdict.

UK: Combined decision rule: unanimity followed by a 10 out of 12 majority.

32
Q

Jury Decision Rules - Research

A

Zeisel (1971)
- Greater the size of the jury, the greater the possibility of a hung jury.

Meta-Analysis of 17 studies by Saks and Martii (1997):

  • Longer deliberation and more hung verdicts in larger juries.
  • Guilty verdicts not more common in large juries
  • Juries with a unanimous decision rule tend to be more evidence driven.
33
Q

Alternatives to the jury

A

The single magistrate or judge:
- This happens in the UK for less serious offences.
A tribunal of both judges and lay persons
A group of judges

34
Q

Expert Witness: Psychologist

A

Groscup et al. (2002) - 1/4 of expert witnesses in US from social and behavioural sciences.

Expert witnesses different to other witnesses - allowed to express an opinion.

Cannot offer evidence outside the terms of their expertise (determined at Voir Dire)

Guidelines and advice available for expert witnesses (BPS; Coleman;; 1998)

35
Q

Evidence from expert witness

A

Daubert decision: which experts can give evidence
Daubert criteria (Perry, 1997)
- Whether technique or criteria is verifiable, accepted in scientific community and likelihood of error in the study.

Nijboer (1995) guidelines:

  • Matters within capacity of the ordinary person are not for comment by expert witness.
  • Cannot give evidence that invalidates the role of the judge or jury
  • Confined to matters that admissable evidence
36
Q

Selection of the Expert witness

A 
Mossman and Kapp (1998) did a survey of American lawyers:
Criteria of selection
- Knowledge in a specific area
- Communicative ability
- Local reputation

Rarely taken into consideration

  • Academic writings
  • National reputation
37
Q

Problems with psychologists as expert witnesses

A

Coles and Veiel (2001)

  • Reducing complex matters to fixed characteristics of the individual.
  • Ex: fitness to plead

Other potential problems

  • capacity of jury to understand
  • responsibility of opinion/weight of the opinion (ex: risk assessments)
38
Q

What does the British crime survey (2000) say about courts and juries?

A

One third of British adults have been to court (witness, spectator, juror).

10% of Britain had been to court accused of a crime

2/3 believe CJS respects the right of and treats fairly people accused of crime.

40% believed that those who commit crimes are brought to justice

Forensic Psych (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions