EXAM Flashcards
Dahmer
Tried in 1992
Killed 17 men
Cannibalism
Defense tried to claim insanity - used ALI, found to be responsible
Archival Research to Study Jury Decision Making
Includes records of trials, transcripts, police interviews
High external validity
Weakness: inability to establish cause and effect, restricted data, unaware of reliability of data
Simulation Techniques to Study Jury Decision Making
Simulate a trial and have participants answer questions individually or as a group (can manipulate IV to see effects)
High internal validity
Low external validity
Field Study to Study Jury Decision Making
Use of actual jurors participating in jury duty
High external validity
Low internal validity (cause and effect, comparison group)
Representative Jury
A jury which represents the community
Random selection
All members have chance to participate
Reflect ideas and beliefs about community
Right to a Jury
Summary Offense - Judge Alone
Indictable Offense - Judge Alone (Less serious), Judge and Jury (Highly serious), Choice (Unlisted)
Hybrid - Judge Alone (Summary), Judge and Jury (Indictable)
Interviews with Jury to study Jury Decision Making
In Canada jurors can’t discuss what occurs in deliberation so have to go to the U.S.
High external validity
Weaknesses: Unreliable accounts, can’t establish cause and effect
Jury Comprehension Aids
Note-Taking - serves as memory aid and to help understand evidence through accord record of trial
Question Asking - neither particularly helpful nor harmful in trial
Summary Offenses
Tried by Judge Alone (No right to a jury)
Involve sentence fewer than 6 months and fine less than $2000
Factors which influence Jury Decision Making
Trial Evidence Comprehension Beliefs Jury Size Attitudes Decision Rule Presence of Expert Witnesses
Hybrid Offenses
Cross between summary and indictable
Indictable (Judge and Jury) - max. 5 years in jail
Summary (Judge Alone) - max. 6 or 18 months in jail
Indictable Offenses
Less Serious (Judge Alone) - Theft, breaching probation, deceit
Highly Serious (Judge and Jury) - Murder, treason, piracy
Unlisted (Choice) - Robbery, sexual assault with a weapon
Explanation Model of Jury Decision Making
Suggests that evidence is organized into a coherent whole
Realistic and intuitively appealing
Not precise or testable
Story Model of Jury Decision Making
Jurors organize information into a story
Judge provides relevant law and verdict options
Jurors find best fit between story and verdict
Mathematical Model of Jury Decision Making
View jurors as conducting a set of mental calculations regarding importance and strength of each piece of evidence
Precise and Testable
Not intuitively appealing or realistic
Challenge for Cause
Option to eject biased jurors
Must demonstrate partiality in community
Prospective jurors are probed with a set of pre-determined questions approved by the judge to examine jurors state of mind or thinking
Change of Venue
Moving trial to another community away from crime
Must demonstrate reasonable likelihood that community is biased or prejudice (Pretrial publicity, heinous crime, small community)
Adjournment
Delaying trial until some time in the future to allow for sufficient time to pass so that biasing effects of any pretrial information has dissipated
Issue: witnesses forget, move, or die
Sources of Juror Bias - Interest Prejudice
Direct interest or involvement in case (ex. related to victim)
Sources of Juror Bias - Specific Prejudicial
Specific attitude about case in questions (ex. prejudice against defendant)
Sources of Juror Bias - Generic Prejudice
Specific beliefs about people/crime related to case (ex. racist in case with black defendant)
Sources of Juror Bias - Normative Prejudice
Community sentiment affects opinion of case (ex. fans of sports athlete)
Impartial Jury
Unbiased Jury Characteristics
Attitudinal (Prejudice) - set aside pre-existing biases, prejudice, or attitudes
Behavioral (Discrimination) - Must ignore information not part of evidence
No connection to defendant/victim
Threats: Emotion, Media Coverage
Functions of a Jury
Not Sentencing Increase knowledge of justice system Act as conscience for community Use wisdom of 12 rather than 1 Protect against outdated laws Apply law to admissible evidence and render verdict
Presumptions of Impartiality in Canada
Limits on pretrial publicity
Limits on discussion by jurors
12 person jury (cancel out biases)
Reminders about sworn oaths
Fitness to Stand Trial
Current Mental State:
Understand nature of or object to proceedings
Understand possible consequences
Communicate with counsel
Assessed by psychiatrist - FIT-R or MacCAT
Defining Fitness
Is the accused able to assist in his defense?
Does the accused understand their role in the proceedings?
Does the accused understand the nature/consequences of the proceedings?
FIT-R
Identify Mental Disorder (Fitness)
Semi-Structured interview
Covers main fitness standards: Understanding of proceedings, communicative with counsel, understanding of consequences
Defining Responsibility
M’Naghten Standard - Cognitive
Irresistible Impulse Test - Volitional
ALI Standard - Cognitive/Volitional (Dahmer)
Guilty But Mentally Ill
NCRMD - Canada
MacCAT-CA
Fitness to go to trial and plead guilty
Structured interview
Understanding of legal system, situation and circumstances, reasoning ability
R-CRAS
Identifies Insanity
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Scale
Organicity
Psychopathology
Cognitive/Behavioral Control
Reliability (deceit, coaching)
MSE
Identifies Non-Insanity
Mental Status Examination
Psychological history, Mental state at time of offense, current mental status
NCRMD Treatment
Primary - Medication
A defendant found NCRMD should be detained (Forensic Hospital) only if they pose a threat to the public otherwise they should receive Absolute Discharge or Conditional Discharge
NCRMD
Mental state at time of crime
Retrospective assessment done on state of mind
Assessment order can take 30-60 days (R-CRAS, MSE)
Only defense can raise issue unless verdict of guilty has been handed down
Goals of Sentencing
Denunciation Specific Deterrent General Deterrent Incapacitation (separate from society) Rehabilitation Reparation (repayment) Promote Responsibility
Principles of Sentencing
Must be proportionate to gravity of offense
Must be proportionate to responsibility of offender
Should not deprive of liberty
Sentences for similar crimes should be similar
Sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered
Criminal record should play a role
Sentencing Options
Absolute Discharge Conditional Discharge Reparation Fines Community Service Conditional Sentence (community) Imprisonment
Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity
Variations in sentencing patterns due to influence of factors not legally relevant to case
Systematic Disparity
Consistent disagreement among judges about sentencing decisions
Due to: differences in judges views, personality, experience
Unsystematic Disparity
Inconsistency in a single judges decisions on similar cases
Due to: judge’s mood, irrelevant stimuli, interpretation that day
Death Penalty
Canada - abolished 1976/1999
USA - Permitted in 38 states
Arguments Against: Does not act as deterrent Expensive Biased Handed down to innocent
Public Attitudes on Sentencing
Feel offenders are treated too leniently
Little confidence in CJS
Support alternative sentencing options
Parole
Conditional release into community
Attempt to rehabilitate offenders
Community supervision
Types of Parole - Temporary Absence
Enter community on temporary bases (class, counseling, etc.)
Types of Parole - Day Parole
Enter community for a day (community activities, hold down job, etc.)
Types of Parole - Full Parole
Serve rest of sentence in community under supervision (assessment to determine recidivism)
Types of Parole - Statutory Release
Mandatory release after two-thirds of sentence (supervised, recidivism assessed)
Effect Size
Degree to which Treatment and Comparison group differ (reducing recidivism)
\+ = Lower recidivism for Treatment group - = lower recidivism for Comparison group
Ex. +0.9 = Treatment group shows highly reduced recidivism
Metal-Analysis
Statistical aggregation of the results derived from many independent studies in order to integrate findings to find an effect size
Need Principle
Intervention should target Criminogenic Needs
Dynamic attributes associated with recidivism - can be changed through intervention, targeting these needs affects probability of recidivism:
Antisocial attitudes, personality, behavior, and peers
Education
Substance Use
Risk Principle
Correctional interventions should target offenders who are at high risk to re-offend
Responsivity Principle
Delivering treatment programs in a style and mode matched to the ability and learning style of the offender and their personality
General Responsivity - based on general knowledge of offenders
Specific Responsivity - based on individual differences
Responsivity Results
Show that meeting responsivity in treatment programs is the most effective way to reduce recidivism rates
‘What Works’ Carleton University Meta-Analysis
Higher risk clients must be targeted
Criminogenic needs must be included in treatment
Adherence to responsivity advised
Adherence to ECT principles reduces re-offending
Non-residential setting reduce recidivism
Effective workers must be relied on
Risk Assessment
Used for prediction and management of risk
Informs: sentencing, classification, treatment, parole, supervision, release conditions
Goals: Improve accuracy, consistency, and transparency
Risk Prediction
Assesses risk factors and whether people will commit future violence
Risk Management
Focuses on identifying treatment to manage and reduce risk factors and prevent re-offending
Static Risk Factors
Factors that do NOT change over time and are not affected by treatment
Can be reliability measured and are very predictive (convenient and frequently used)
Examples: Demographic variables, History of Criminal Behavior or mental illness
Dynamic Risk Factors
Factors which change over time and can be changed with treatment
Less convenient and reliable in risk assessment so not used as frequently
Stable Dynamic Risk Factors
Persistent, change slowly
Examples: criminal attitudes, coping ability, impulse control
Acute Dynamic Risk Factors
Rapidly fluctuating
Examples: Intoxication, mood
Big Four Risk Factors
Criminal History
Personality
Attitudes
Peers
Unstructured Clinical Judgement
Decisions based on professional discretion with no guidelines or pre-defined rules
Subjectively select, analyze, and interpret risk factors
Adv. Idiographic, Flexible
Dis. Inconsistent, Low Accuracy
Actuarial Tools
Decisions based on risk factors that selected and combined based on empirical or statistical association with specific outcome (statistical model)
Ex. VRAG
Adv. Consistent, High Accuracy
Dis. Nomothetic, Validity across samples
Structured Professional Judgement
Decisions guided by pre-determined list of risk factors selected from research, final decision determined based on clinical judgement
Ex. HRC-20
Adv. Flexible, Nomothetic-Idiographic
Dis. Moderate accuracy, less consistent
Measuring Predictive Accuracy - ROC Analysis
Receiver Operating Characteristics
Used for measuring accuracy of risk assessment by examining false positive and true positives across decision thresholds
Measuring Predictive Accuracy - AUC
Area Under Curve
Reflects predictive accuracy
0.50 (chance) to 1.00 (perfect accuracy)
Independent of specific thresholds or cut-offs
Not impacted by base rates or prevalence
Interpersonal Features of Psychopathy
Glib/Superficially charming
Grandiose, inflated self-worth
Manipulative
Affective Features of Psychopathy
Shallow emotions
Lack of Guilt
Callous
Lifestyle Features of Psychopathy
Impulsive
Irresponsible
Poor anger control
Criminal Behaviors
Psychopathy
Personality Disorder defined by a collection of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral characteristics including: manipulation, lack of empathy or remorse, impulsivity, and antisocial behaviors
Psychopathy Base Rates
90% of serial killers 1% of population 10-25% of prisoners 44% of police killers 20% male prisoners 14% female prisoners
PCL-R
Hare Psychopathy Checklist
20 items scored on 3-point scale
Totals from 0 to 40
Low scores - reactive murders
High scores - Instrumental murders
Lexical Decision Task
Examines disconnect between emotional and neutral words
Non-Psychopaths quicker in reaction time to emotional content
Psychopaths no difference in reaction time (brain scans imply they perform task in a superficial manner)
Startle Blink
Examines reflexes when something unexpected occurs (neutral, pleasant, unpleasant)
Non-Psychopaths - increased blinks to unpleasant
Psychopaths - Decreased blinks to unpleasant
