intro to forensic psych Flashcards
the first forensic psych study
james cattell, recollection being inaccurate, no correlation between accuracy and confidence
- eye witness
second forensic psych study
suggestability, memorizing objects, memory and recall
free recall is better than asking questions
memory more or less accurate when direct/leading vs recall
less acurate be suggesatbility
forensic psychology definition
field of psych that deals w all aspects of human behaviour as it relates to the law or legal system
- thinking patterns, emotions, risk factors, interview w criminal
narrow definition- forensic psych
clinical psych as it pertains to the legal system
assessing, treatments, consulting
broad definiton - forensic psych
research endeavor that examines human behaviour directly related to the legal process
clinical work within the legal system
ex. divorce - who gets the children
clinical forensic psychologist
assessment, treatment of mental issues as they pertain to the law or legal system
does an offender pose a risk to community?
who is best suitded for a job in policing? (interview candidtates)
Is this law enforcement officer ready to go back to work after a stressful vent
hospital, prison
can work privaelty, consult w lawyers, victims, perpretratirs
get them ready to go back into the real work from prison - less structure - are they ready - do they need a halfway house
experimental forensic psychologist
might never be in contect w lawyers or crimincals
memory, suggestibility, human behviour, info processing, stress’ influence
what factors influence a jury?
how can we effectivelt conduct eyewitness line ups?
what kind of biass exist amonf lae enfocment officers?
legal scholars
legal scholars
someones who condictd resarch and has a law degre
not common bc need a lot of school
has phD in psych
psychology AND the law
using psych to study the operation of the legal system
testing assumptions “are eyewitnesses accurate”
are juries fair?
do judges have biases?
psychology IN the law
psychological knowledge
dont need to be a psychologist to know this
using psych within the legal system as it currently operates
ex. providing testimony in court
relayed info from a psychologist
psychology OF the law
use of psychology to study the law itself
ex. does the law reduce the occurance of a crime
- hard to explain legal rights to a child
- when should eye witness testimony be thrown out (too young, too stressed)
- therapist has to report when client has intent to harm
witness
can testify abour what they directly observed
fact witness
info abt the criminal or victim
expert witness
provide court w their personal opinion on matters relevant to the case
an educator to the judge/ jury
needs special training
have to be reliable and helpful
NOT an advocate
ALWAYS objective
typically will be a clinical psychologist w years of training
is a forensic psychologist always an expert witness
no but a clinical one would be more likely than an experimental one
americas first expert witness
state v driver
psychologist w expertise in juvinile delinquency
victim was found to have a mental disorder
expert witnesses need to know…..
details of the case and their own testimny
their role in proceedings
how to commimocate in a persaucive and helpful manner - prove the truth is right
why is being an expert witness hard
bc theres a dif between psych truth and legal truth
epistemology psych vs law
law=subjective
psych =objective
Goals psych vs law
law= says how to behave and how to punish
psych= says why ppl behave the way they do
knowledge law vs psych
law- idiographic analysis, rational application of logic, case by case, common sense, rely on previoius cases to set a precedence
psych - based on empricial group based data, science to back claims, research methods, group focused not individual focuses, knowledge from pop
methods law vs psych
law - constructing compelling narriativies that are consistent w the law (lawyer says they did x but x falls in the bounds of the law)
psych - empirical, want to replicate results, control for confounfd, scientific method
criterion law vs psych
law - guilt is determined using several criteria, beyond reasonable doubt, not very conservative
psych - cautious to accept something is true (p<0.5)
principals psych vs law
law - tries to make one explnation the best reason for the events (only 1 truth)
psych - exploratory approach, consiers multiple explanantionz (all thinfs related)
court behv law vs psych
law - fewver restrictiond on lawyers - can call on many witness
pscyh - only one role if any and tyhey hv no power abt the case, many cases donr use psych expert witness
general acceptance test
expert testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientitic community
two criticism of general acceptance test
vagueness in terms of gernal acceptance
whether trial judges can make this determinatyion
bendectin general acceptance
even tho the drug was bad it was widely used therefor widely accetpted
moved to the daubert
daubert crieria came from the US supreme court
- research has been peer reviweed
- reseatch is testable/ falsifiable
- research has recognized rate of error
- reseacrch adgerenes to professional standards
mohan criteria - used in canada
- must be relevant it the case - states that a fact is more or less liekly
- must be necessary to assist the trier of fact beyond common undertsandinf of the court
- must not violate any rules of exclusion not being predujucual
- must be profvided by a qualified expert
experts must be independent and impartial
