Lec 2/ Ch 1&2

Question 1

Lecture: Basics

• 3 things psych studies
• Why are psychologist scientists?
• Forensics psychology working definition
  
  • What is a working definition
  • Narrow FP defintiion
  • Braoder FP definition

Answer 1

Psychology basics

• Psychology: study behavior, emotions, and cognition
  
  • Why are psychologist scientists?
    
    • They use the scientific method
  • Some ppl typically think of psych as the study of ppl’s thoughts, and behaviors, but psych is much broader than that
    
    • Ex. some study bird cognition

Forensics psychology basics

• Working definition: not all agrees but good enough
• Forensics psychology: deals w/ all aspects of human behavior as it relates to the law or legal system (aka: legal psych or criminological psych)
  
  • No consensus among experts on the definition
  • Narrow definition: indiv in clinical practice in legal system
  • Broader definition
    
    • (1) psych rs related to law (added compared to narrow definition)
    • (2) professional practice of psych in legal system

Question 2

A Brief History of Forensic Psychology

• How old is FP compared to psych?
• Cattell: 1^st psych prof in US
  
  • What does Wundt do?
  • Study on “eyewitness testimony”
    
    • Method
    • Result
• Hugo Munsterberg: The Father of Forensic Psychology
  
  • Describe the case he was called to be an expert witness for
  • His book “On the Witness Stand (1908)”; What happened to Munsterburg after the publication?
  • 2 developments in FP Munsterburg’s work led to

Answer 2

A Brief History of Forensic Psychology

• Origins in Forensics psych is as old as psych
• Cattell: 1^st psych prof in US
• Did his PhD under Wundt (Wundt = 1^st psychologists, used scientific method to study the mind related to psychophysics and introspection)
  
  • Supports the idea that the origins of FP goes back to origins of psych
• Early rs on “eyewitness testimony”
  
  • Ask uni students to recall things they witness in daily life
  • Result: student answers are inaccurate
  • Students’ degree of confidence was not related to how accurate they were
  • Thinks these findings can be used in Courts

Hugo Munsterberg (He was ignored, then ridiculed, then won)

• The Father of Forensic Psychology
• Completed PhD under Wundt
• Called in as an expert witness
  
  • Poor protocols back then
  • Case in TB
    
    • Mentally disabled person charged w/ rape and murder of a girl
    • Munsterberg read the transcript b/w the officer and the “offender”
    • Munsterberg thinks: Officers were asking leading qs and the man was innocent
    • Court rejected Munsterberg’s testimony
• Wrote a book: On the Witness Stand (1908)
  
  • Argued psychology could assist the legal system w/
    
    • Eyewitness testimony
    • False confessions
    • Crime prevention
• The book was ridiculed by legal scholars
  
  • On legal scholar put Munsterberg and a “fictious trial” by the “Supreme Court of Wundt County” and found guilty of “claiming more than he could offer”
• In the wake of Munsterberg’s work, forensic psychology began to develop
  
  • E.g., Psychologists played an important role in opening the first clinic for juvenile delinquents in 1909
  • E.g., By 1917, psychological tests were used in law enforcement selection purposes

Question 3

Theories of Crime (why ppl commit crime)

• Biological Theories
  
  • ​Sheldon’s (1949) Constitutional theory
  • Jacob’s et al. (1965) Chromosomal Theory
  • Nevin’s theory of lead exposure (TB)
• Sociological Theories
  
  • ​Merton’s (1938) Strain Theory
  • Sutherland’s (1939) Differential Association Theory
  • Becker’s labelling theory
• Psych theories
  
  • Eysenck’s (1964) Biosocial Theory of Crime
  • Aker’s (1973) Social Learning Theory
  • (TB) Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime

Answer 3

Theories of Crime (why ppl commit crime)

Biological Theories

• Sheldon’s (1949) Constitutional theory: people hv diff temperament (reflected by body type), some temperaments increases likelihood of committing crime
  
  • Ectomorph (Thin) = shy
  • Endomorph (chubby) = jolly
  • Mesomorph (muscular) = aggressive – more likely to commit crime

-Jacob’s et al. (1965) Chromosomal Theory[EL1] : Chromosomal irregularity is linked to criminal behavior

• Typical Females are XX; Typical Males are XY
• Some males hv XYY (1 in 1000 male births): the extra Y chromosome makes males more masculine
  
  • more aggressive, prone to violent crime  “Violent super male”
• In fact, XYYs
  
  • (a) do more antisocial and criminal b
  • (b) overrepresented in prison pop. But, they also have
• But they also have the following features which in turn are associated w/ crime
  
  • lower IQs
  • lower income and education
  • fewer social supports
• (TB) Nevin’s theory of lead exposure: suggested childhood lead exposure (from paint or gas) is related to criminal b
  
  • Recent rs: lead exposure  affect brain areas for emo regulation  increase anti-social b

Sociological Theories

• Merton’s (1938) Strain Theory: Some low SES people use crime to compete for status
  
  • We all want social status; those with high SES can obtain status by legitimate means; those w/ low SES commit crime to obtain status
• Sutherland’s (1939) Differential Association Theory: People are more likely to get involved in crime when they learn values that favor violations of law (societal view)
  
  • Ex. if you are raised by parents who support stealing, you are likely to steal
• (TB) Becker’s labelling theory: deviance/antisocial b is a label attached to an act by society
  
  • It is not an act
  • When society label individuals as “criminal”, this promotes one’s deviant behavior via self-fulfilling prophecy

Psychological Theories

• Eysenck’s (1964) Biosocial Theory of Crime: People high in E and N don’t learn from the cons of their behavior and are difficult to condition, and won’t develop a conscience
  
  • So, they aren’t sufficiently socialized and commit crime
• Aker’s (1973) Social Learning Theory: Crime is learned; role models and the expectations of rewards from crime leads to crime (ind view)
• (TB) Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: low self-control w/ criminal opportunities explain one’s propensity to commit crimes

Forensic psychology: applied psychology; other psych theories are applied to explain crime

[EL1]*not in TB

Question 4

3 roles of forensic psychologist

• What do they do?
• Educational requirements

Answer 4

The roles of forensic psychologist

• Clinician: Assess and treat of MH issues in the legal system
• Scientist: Experimenter or researcher; psychology as it relates to the legal system
  
  • Ex. Cattell studying eyewitness testimony
• Legal Scholar: Interdisciplinary training in psychology and law

The forensic psychologist as clinician

What do they do?

• If there is a divorce, there are asked help w/ child custody decisions
• Provide expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature
• Personnel selection (e.g., for the police)
• Treatment programs for offenders

Educational requirements (need to know)

• Need PhD in Psychology (ON, BC, QBC, PEI), MSc is sufficient in other provinces
• Supervised practice in forensic setting

Forensic Psychiatrists are MDs in forensic settings

The forensic psychologist as researcher

What do they do?

• Examine the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies
• Determine what factors influence jury decision making
• Evaluate programs (e.g., victim treatment)
• Study stress management interventions among police officers

Educational requirements (need to know)

• Need a PhD in Psychology
• Research focused on forensic psychology
• No supervised practice, but may pursue postdoctoral training

Question 5

Expert witnesses/expert testimony

• Non-expert witnesses
• Expert witness
• 3 main requirements
• Desribe the following differences b/w psychology vs law
  
  • Epistemology
  • Nature of law
  • Knowledge
  • Methodology
  • Criterion
  • Principles
  • Latitude of courtroom behavior
• Daubert Criteria
  
  • ​Which country uses this?
  • State the 4 criteria
• Mohan Criteria
  
  • ​Which country uses this?
  • State the 4 criteria

Answer 5

Expert witnesses/expert testimony

Definition

• Non-expert witnesses testify about what they have directly observed
• Expert witness: provides the court with info that assists the court in understanding an issue relevant to a case.
• It’s is hard!
  
  • Need to be an expert in your field
  • Need to know legal procedures
  • Need to be an effective communicator (persuasive and helpful)

Why is it hard?

Differences b/w psychology and law

• Epistemology = how we come to know what we know
  
  • Psychology: Objective Truth (use scientific method)
  • Law: Subjective, most convincing story (no SM)
• Nature of Law
  
  • Psychology: Descriptive—why do people behave the way they do? (What is)
  • Law: Prescriptive—people should behave this way.
• Knowledge
  
  • Psychology: Knowledge is nomothetic or “general laws”
  • Law: Knowledge is idiographic (case specific) analyses and reasoning
• Methodology
  
  • Psychology: Nomothetic, scientific method
  • Law: Case-by-case basis, develop compelling stories that cover details of a specific case
• Criterion
  
  • Psychology: Statistical (e.g., Hypothesis testing, p < .05)
  • Law: Prescriptive—”Beyond reasonable doubt”
• Principles
  
  • Psychology: Consider multiple, even competing explanations; explore
  • Law: Stick to available facts
• Latitude of courtroom behavior
  
  • Psychology: Expert witness—strict protocol
  • Lawyer: More options

Criteria for accepting expert testimony - US

• In US scientific evidence must meet the “Daubert Criteria” to be admitted into court
• 1. The rs has been peer reviewed
• 2. The rs is testable (ex. falsifiable)
• 3. The rs has a recognized rate of error (very important)
• 4. The rs adhere to professional standards

Criteria for accepting expert testimony – Canada (see TB for examples on each criteria)

• In Canada, scientific evidence must meet the Mohan Criteria to be admitted in court
• 1. Evidence must be relevant
• 2. Evidence must be necessary for assisting the trier of fact
• 3. The evidence must not violate exclusionary rules
     * Ex. Can’t cause prejudice among jurors
     
     • Offender is red-hard
     • Psychologist state: red-heads are more hot-tempered
     • This evidence will bias the decision made by jurors
• 4. The evidence must be provided by a qualified expert
• ** Box 1.5 Applying Mohan Criteria**

Question 6

Police Psychology

• Police selection
• Police Discretion
• Police stress

Answer 6

Police Psychology

Police Selection

• Procedures to screen out undesirable candidates and select desirable ones

Police Discretion

• Latitude that officers have when making decisions

Police Stress

• Occupational stress and organizational stress

Question 7

Police selection

• Binet’s IQ test purpose
• Terman’s Stanford Binet IQ test application and purpose
• Cochrane et al. (2003)
  
  • Method
  • Results - 2 major stept to develop police selection instruments
• KSAs consensus
• Which test does the RCMP use for police selection?
• Preditive validity

Answer 7

Police selection

• Psychology applied to selection procedures is as almost as old as psychology itself
• Terman (1917) used the Stanford-Binet IQ Test to assist with police selection in California
• In France, Binet published the first intelligence test in 1905
  
  • French gov asked Binet to dev IQ test so that “challenged” kids can have “special education”
• The goal of selection procedures is to select the best candidates.
  
  • Who will perform the job well?

Police Agency Selection Procedures in the US

• Cochrane et al. (2003)
  
  • Collected data on what is the most common police selection procedures among 155 police agencies
    
    • Background checks
    • Medical exams
    • Selection Interviews
    • Personality tests
    • Physical agility tests
    • Recommended tests
    • Cog ability tests (IQ test)

Developing Police selection instruments

Step 1: Conduct a job analysis

• Identify the particular knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) that make a good police officer
• Not easy… KSAs vary on type of work!
  
  • E.g., KSAs of the ideal constable (officer) vs. ideal manager are different
• But there’s consensus: honesty, reliability, sensitivity to others, good communication skills, high motivation, problem-solving skills, being a team player
• The RCMP uses the Six Factor Personality Test

Step 2: Constructing and Validating Instruments

• Do scores on the test predict performance outcomes?
  
  • E.g., Do scores on the 6 Factor Personality Test predict supervisor ratings of performance, number of promotions, absenteeism?
• Predictive validity: Often measured with correlation coefficients, which quantify how two variables are associated with each other (assumes a linear relationship)

Question 8

Police selection cont

• What is the largest correlation
• Reliability
• Meyer et al
  
  • Methods
  • Conclusions on effect sizes
• Hemphill (2003) & new correlation benchmarks
• Predictive validity of police selection instruments
  
  • Selection interviews
    
    • what it does?
    • purpose
    • Annell et al. (2015) - results
  • Psychological tests
    
    • Which test does RCMP use?
    • Hirsh et al. (1986) meta-analysis
    • Aamodt (2004)
  • Assessment centres
    
    • What are they
    • Purpose?
  • Pynes and Bernardin (1992)

Answer 8

Correlations

• Standardized index, look at association b/w 2 variables
• The largest correlation is estimates of reliability
  
  • Reliability = Correlate the same measure w/ itself
  • Ex. Give test at point A, then at point B; see if there is a relationship

Meyer et al: looked at Ex. of real correlations b/w different variables

Results

• Aspirin use and less heart attaches: r = 0.02
  
  • The magnitude is literally 0, but this translates to saving 85 lives out of 1000?
• Psychotherapy & outcome: r = 0.27
• Viagra & improve sexual functioning = .38
• Distance from equator & daily temperature

Conclusions

• The modal effect size is between .10 and .30 for psychology as a whole (including experimental investigations)
• Effect sizes in psychology are comparable to, and often larger than, those found in medicine[EL1]

Hemphill (2003)

• Cohen’s Rules of thumb for correlations: .1, .3, .5
  
  • Out of date
• Currently: looked at Meyer’s data
  
  • Less than .2 = lower 3^rd
  • .2 to .3 = Middle 3^rd
  • .3 + = upper 3^rd

Predictive validity of police selection instruments

Selection interviews

• Semi-structured (set list of questions for all applicants)
• Assess whether applicant has KSAs for the job
• Not a whole lot of research supporting their validity
• Annell et al. (2015)
  
  • found only partial support for predictive validity: of 36 correlation coefficients, only 5 were significant; largest was r = .10.
  • But, these recruits already had two years of academy training, 6 months of field training, and had already passed other assessment hurdles

Psychological tests

• Cognitive ability (intelligence) tests are commonplace
  
  • E.g., RCMP use the RCMP Police Aptitude Test: composition, comprehension, memory, judgement, observation, logic, computation
• Hirsh et al. (1986) meta-analysis of 40 studies
  
  • r = .36, training success
  • r = .13, on-the-job performance
• Aamodt (2004), more recent meta-analysis
  
  • r = .41, academy performance
  • r = .16, supervisor ratings of on-the-job performance

Assessment Centres

• Sophisticated facilities in which the behavior of applicants can be observed by multiple raters
  
  • Situation test! Approximate real-world policing in simulated environments.
• Some evidence in support of validity.
• Pynes and Bernardin (1992) found
  
  • r = .14 for training academy performance
  • r = .20 for on-the-job performance

[EL1]* not in TB

Question 9

Police discretion

• Definition
• Why is discretion needed? (4 key reasons)
• Sheehan and Cordner (1989)
  
  • Why don’t police enforce all the laws all the time?

Answer 9

Police discretion

• The freedom that officers have for deciding what should be done in a given situation
  
  • What street should I patrol?
  • Should I stop that vehicle for a traffic violation?
  • What level of force is required to achieve my objective?
  • Should I call an end to this investigation?
• Discretion is necessary because the job is too complicated and resources are scarce.
• Sheehan and Cordner (1989)
  
  • 1. Enforcing all the laws all the time would force police to be at the station and in court all the time, not on the streets where they’re needed
       * E.g., Minor infractions like going 2 km/hr above the speed limit
  • 2. Enforcing all the laws all the time would overwhelm the justice system
       * There’s limited resources
• 3. Politicians pass some laws that aren’t intended to be strictly enforced
• 4. Politicians pass laws that are purposely vague, allowing for discretion

Question 10

TB: Early Research on Testimony and Suggestibility

• Alfred Binet
  
  • study on kids free recall vs misleading
• William Stern
  
  • “reality experiment”
  • Method - Staged event w/ revolver
  • Result

Answer 10

• Alfred Binet – also studied testimony and suggestibility
  
  • Methods:
  • 1. showed kids a series of objects for a short period of time (ex. button glued to a posted board)
  • 2. After viewing the board,
       * A. some kids wrote down everything they saw
       * B. others were asked qs
       
       • Some qs were direct (ex. how was the button attached to the board?)
       • Some qs were mildly misleading (ex. wasn’t the button attached to the board?)
       • Some qs were highly misleading (ex. what was the color of the thread that attached the button to the board?)
  • Results:
    
    • Binet found asking kids to report everything the saw (aka free recall) resulted in the most accurate answers
    • Highly misleading qs  least accurate ans
• William Stern – also studied suggestibility of witnesses
• His study = “reality experiment”
  
  • It is commonly used by rs to study eyewitness recall and recognition
  • Method: ppl are exposed to staged events and are asked to provide info about the event
    
    • 1. Ppl in a law class were exposed to a scenario involving 2 students arguin in class
         * The scene ended w/ 1 student pull out a revolver
    • 2. Observers were asked qs about the event
  • Results: Consistent w/ Cattell and Binet, Stern found the testimony of participants are usually wrong
  • Recall was the worst for portions of the event that were particularly exciting (ex. pulling out a revolver)
  • Conclusion: emotional arousal have a -ve impact on the accuracy of a person’s testimony

Question 11

TB: Court cases in Europe

• Albert von Schrenck-Notzin
  
  • Press coverage effect on testimony
  • retroactive memory falsification
• Julian Varendonck
  
  • 2 friends’ testimony on Ceci’s murder

Answer 11

• Albert von Schrenck-Notzing: the first expert witness to provide testimony on the effect of pretrial publicity in 1900s
  
  • Case: 3 sexual murders
  • There were lots of media attention
  • Schrenck-Notzing testified that the extensive pretrial press coverage can influence ppl’s testimony by causing “retroactive memory falsification”
    
    • He supported this w/ lab rs
  • retroactive memory falsification: a process where ppl confused actual memories of events w/ events descrived in the media
• Julian Varendonck: an expert witness in 1900s
  
  • Case: murder of a young girl, Ceci
  • 2 of Ceci’s friends played w/ her on the day of her murder
  • CEci’s mom asked the friends where Ceci was
  • 1 friend said “IDK”
  • This friend showed the police where the kids played
  • In the next 2 mo, the 2 friends were reptitvely interviewed by authorities who asked many suggestive qs

Question 12

TB: Landmark Court Cases in the United States

• Case: State v. Driver raped a girl
  
  • What could the Psychologist do?
• Case: People v. Hawthorne
  
  • What could the Psychologist do?
• Case: Jenkins v. United States
  
  • APA stance
  • What could the Psychologist do?

Answer 12

• Case: State v. Driver raped a girl
  
  • The court accepted evidence from a psychologist, but rejected the psychologists’ statement that the girl is a “moron” who can’t be believed
• Psychologists were then allowed to provide opinions on matters that were usually from MDs
• Case: Psychologists was allowed to give his opinion on the mental state on People v. Hawthorne
• Case: Jenkins v. United States; Jenkins raped someone, pleaded not guilty due to insanity
• 3 psychologists provided supported this, course rejected their opinion
• APA issued statement that psychologists are competent to provide expert opinion
• So, there was a new trial
• In the US, psychologists testify on “fitness to stand trial” and criminal responsibility, and other issues

Question 13

TB:

• Progress in Canada
• 5 ways Forensics psych is more recognized now

Answer 13

• Canada courts are slower than US courts to allow psychologists in court; CAN mainly relied on psychiatrists (MD) due to educational standards

A Legitimate Field of Psychology

• 5 ways Forensics psych is more recognized now
• 1. Good Forensic psych TB
• 2. There are forensic psych journals, and mainstream psych journal publish forensic rs
     * Suggest many ppl are studying it
• 3. Forensic psych associations
     * Ex. American Psychology Law Society
     * Ex. Criminal Justice Section in CPA
• 4. New training opportunities undergrad or grad
• 5. APA recognizes forensics psych as speciality

Question 14

TB: Box 1.2 Canadian Researcher Profile: Dr. Stephen Wormith

• Observations on offenders in Correction Center

Answer 14

Box 1.2 Canadian Researcher Profile: Dr. Stephen Wormith

• Dr. Wormith and Dr. Andrews apply principles of reinforcement behavioral analysis, Bandura’s Social learning theory to offenders
• For PhD: observed offenders in Correction Center
  
  • Some sincerely did not want to return to a life of crime
  • But 6 months later they will show up again to the institution
  • Observations are consistent w/ the “the will and the skill” perspective of offender rehab
  • Dr. W created a list of offender risk factors
• Updated the risk assessment tool (the level of service inventory revised) as stagg need a more sophisticated tool that can
  
  • Address static and dynamic risk (criminogenic need)
  • Consider client strengths, noncriminogenic factors, and offender responsivity
  • Which tne forge a link b/w offender assessment, case planning, and service delivery
• Dr. Wormith strongly advocated for the risk/need/responsivity (RMR) model of offender rehab

Question 15

TB: Box 1.3 Other Forensic Disciplines

• Forensic anthropology
• Forensic biology
• forensic entomologist
• Forensic odontology
• Forensic pathology/coroners
• Forensic toxicology

Answer 15

Box 1.3 Other Forensic Disciplines

• Forensic anthropology: study remains of dead indiv to determine their identity and how they died
• Forensic biology: apply life sci to legal investigations
  
  • Ex. forensic entomologist – determine when someone died based on analyzing insect presence/development on decomposing body
• Forensic odontology: study dental aspects
  
  • Ex. identify deceased indiv via examining dental records
  • Ex. determine who left bite marks on an indiv
• Forensic pathology/coroners
  
  • MDs who examine injuries or remains of dead bodies to determine the time and cause of death via physical autopsy
• Forensic toxicology: study effects of drugs and chemicals on ppl w/in the context of law
  
  • Ex. they are consulted if drugs are involved in one’s death

Question 16

TB:

The Relationship Between Psychology and Law

• 3 relationships in psychology
  
  • definition

Answer 16

The Relationship Between Psychology and Law

• 3 relationships in psychology:
  
  • Psychology and the law
  • Psychology in the law
  • Psychology of the law (not focus of TB)
• 1. Psychology and law
• Here psych is separate to law
• Psych studies compounds of law from a psych perspective
• Studies assumptions made by law
  
  • Ex. are eyewitness accurate
  • Do some interrogation techniques case ppl to falsely confess
  • Are judges fair?
  • Can we accurately predict whether and offender will be violent when released?
• 2. Psychology in the law
• When there is knowledge in the field of “psychology and the law”, we can use this knowledge in the legal system  “psychology in the law”
• There are many forms
  
  • Ex. Psychologist provide expert testimony concerning some issue of relevance to a case
    
    • Psychologist testify based on his/her understanding of eyewitness rs; how certain factors influence the accuracy of identifying from a police lineup
  • Ex. Psychologists their knowledge in police investigation to assist police to develop effective and ethical strategy to interrogate a suspect
• 3. Psychology of the law = use psychology to study the law
• Addresses qs like
  
  • Does the law reduce the amount of crime in society?
  • Why is it important to allow discretionary decision making in the justice system
  • What impact should court rulings have on the field of forensic psych
• Need knowledge in multi discplines

Question 17

TB:

Box 1.4 Influential Court Cases in the Field of Forensic Psychology

• Hubbert 1975
  
  • jurors have to be?
• Sophonow (1990s)
  
  • murder conviction overtunred b/c?
• Lavallee (1990s)
  
  • expert testimony for?
• Wenden v/ Trikha 1990s
  
  • MH & warning
• R v. Swain
  
  • insanity defence standard
• R v. Levogioanniss
  
  • how should kids testify in court?
• R v. Mohan
  
  • provided criteris for?
• R. v. Williams: SCC acknowledge jurors are…?
• R. v. Gladue
  
  • what judges should do w/ criminal b
• R. v. Oickle (2000)
  
  • 2 things from police that are admissible in court
• R. v. LTH
  
  • What police have to prove and not prove to young perseon when determining if their statement is admissible
    *

Answer 17

Box 1.4 Influential Court Cases in the Field of Forensic Psychology

• Hubbert 1975 : jurors are assumed to be impartial (unbiased) and there are safeguards (ex. limitations on what the press can released b4 a trial)
• Sophonow (1990s): overturned a murder conviction b/w there were problems w/ eyewitness evidence collected by the police in their investigation
• Lavallee (1990s): Supreme court Canada (SCC) provided guidelines on when and how expert testimony is used for cases on battered women syndrome
• Wenden v/ Trikha 1990s Alberta Court rules that MH professionals have a duty to warn 3^rd party if they believe their client intends to seriously harm that indiv
• R v. Swain: SCC changed the insanity defence standard (ex. name of the defence, when the defence can be raised, how long insanity acquittees can be detained)
• R v. Levogioanniss: SCC rules that kids can testify in court behind screens to prevent them to see the accused
• R v. Mohan: SCC provided formal criteria when expert testimony should be used in court
• R. v. Williams: SCC acknowledged that jurors can be biased (ex. community sentiments on an issue)
• R. v. Gladue: SCC rules that prison sentences are being relied on too foten by judges to deal w/ criminal behavior (esp. Aboriginals offenders); other sentences should be considered
• R. v. Oickle (2000) SCC rules that police interrogation techniques (aka psychological coercion) are acceptable and confessions extracted there can be admissible in court
• R. v. LTH: SCC rules that when determining the admissibility of a statement made by a young person to the police, the prosecution does not have to prove the person understood his or her legal rights as explained by police
  
  • They do have to prove that these rights were explained to the young person using language appropriate for their age and understanding

Question 18

TB: Criteria for Accepting Expert Testimony

• Frye v. US
  
  • Charge
  • 2 things the court rejected
  • Why did the court reject it?
  • General acceptance test:
  • Criticism on general acceptance test
    
    • Example profiling
    • Define profiler
• Daubert v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals
  
  • Why did Daubert sue Company?
  • What did the company due?
  • Court decision?

Answer 18

Criteria for Accepting Expert Testimony

• Frye v. US
• Trye was tried for murder
• Court rejected results from polygraph exam he passed
• Court rejected the polygraph expert – William Martson, to present evidence
• Court indicated that for novel scientific evidence to be admissible in court, it must be generally accepted in the scientific community
• General acceptance test: standard for accepting expert testimony, suggests that expert testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the testimony is generally accepted w/in the relevant scientific community
• Criticism on general acceptance test:
  
  • The term “general acceptance” is vague, whether trial judges can determine this
  • Ex. lawyer wants to have a criminal profiler provide expert testimony in court
  • Profiler: person who attempts to predict the characteristics of an unknown offender based on offender’s crimes
  • Profiling is commonly used investigate technique but members of scientific community disagree strongly about whether this is grounded on valid rs
• Daubert v. Merrell Pharmaceuticals
• Daubert sued Merrell Dow b/c he believes morning sickness drug his mom used led to his birth defects
• Merrell Pharmaceuticals: showed that the drug does not result in birth defects
• Court rejected Daubert’s expert evidence b/c their results were not generally accepted by the scientific community
• Daubert’s lawyer challenged the courts’ interpretation of “general acceptance”
• The Supreme court provided the “Daubert criteria”
• Daubert criteria: US standard for accepting expert testimony
  
  • 1. Rs has to be peer reviewed
  • 2. Rs is testable (ex. falsifiable thru experiments)
  • 3. Rs has a recognized rate of error
  • 4. Rs adheres to professional standards

Question 19

Criteria for accepting expert testimony in Canada

• Case: R. v. Mohan
  
  • Who is Mohan?
  • Who did he try yo bring in to testify for him?
  • Court ruling?
  • Mohan criteria (4)
    
    • Example
• Case: White Inman v. Abbott Co
  
  • What does it state regarding expert opinion?

Answer 19

• Criteria in Canada
• Case: R. v. Mohan
• Mohan = pediatrician charged w/ sexually assaulting teenage femals patients
• Mohan wanted to provide expert testimony for psychiatrist to tstidy that a typical offender would be a pedophile and Mohan was not
• The judge ruled the testimony was inadmissible
• SCC agreed and established the standard for admitting expert testimony in Canada
• Mohan criteria: Canada standard for accepting expert testimony
  
  • 1. Evidence is relevant
       * Ex. Serial rape case – white defendant and black victim
       * Expert states 95% of all rapes are intraracial
       * This testimony maybe relevant as it makes the defendant less guilty
  • 2. Evidence is necessary for assisting the trier of fact
       * IOW: the testimony must be about smth that goes beyond the common understanding of the court
       * Ex. Testimony from a profiler suggest that the offender who committed the rapes is likely to have been unemployed or a shift worker at the time of crime
       * If the testimony is based on the fact that many of the rapes were done in the day, it is doubtful that the testimony is admissible by court
       * This is b/c jurors applying their common sense can come to the same conclusion
  • 3. Does not violate any exclusionary rules
       * Ex. testimony that are relevant can be inadmissible if its potential prejudicial effect (on jurrors) outweighs its probative value
       * Defendant raped young girls
       * It is relevant that the defendant has previously convicted of similar crimes in the past
       * Testimony like this may have value
       * If the prejudicial effect associated w/ this testimony is so great that is leads the jurors to convict the defendant, not b/c they are convinced he is guilty but b/c he did it b4 so he deserves to be punished anyways
  • 4. Provided by a qualified expert
       * Expertise is determined by the type and amount of training and experience a witness has
       * Ex. If the testimony relates to an offender who committed a series of rapes, the witness must have the expertise in this domain for the testimony tb admissible
       * There may be difficulties to determine what type of training or experience is valid, esp when the testimony is based on “art” (ex. profiling)
• NOTE: there are additional criteria added to the Mohan criteria
• Case: White Inman v. Abbott Co
• Experts must be independent and impartial
  
  • Determined by whether the expert’s opinion would not change regardless of which party retained him/her
• NOTE: these criteria makes the judge’s job slightly easier, but each criterion heavily relies on the discretion of the judge

Question 20

TB: Box 1.5 The Challenges of Applying the Mohan Criteria: The Case of R. v. D.D.

• Case: R. v. DD
  
  • What does the young girl claim?
  • What was the central part?
  • Defence lawyers
  • The crown
  • Trial judge decision
  • Court of appeal ruling
  • SCC central ruling
  • Main point

Answer 20

Box 1.5 The Challenges of Applying the Mohan Criteria: The Case of R. v. D.D.

(2000)

• Case: R. v. DD
• Young girl claimed tb sexually assaulted by the accused (living w/ mom at the time) when she ws 5/6 yo
• Central pt: the girl didn’t report the abuse at that time; the accusations came up 2.5 y later (the girl = 10 yo)
• Defence lawyers: argued the delay in reporting the assaults showed the young girl wasn’t telling the truth
• The Crown: wants to introduce expert testimony from child psych to testify the delays in reporting abused for a variety of reasons and do not suggest the allegations are false
  
  • Ex. based on rs, the psychologist plan to testify factors that discourage kids from reporting abuse (embarrassment fear of getting self or others in trouble, bribery/threats by perpetrator)
• Trial judge admitted the expert evidence; the jury found the accused guilty
• Case was appealed, court of appeal determine the expert testimony of the psychologists should not have been admitted
  
  • The testimony was not relevant to the vase (it relates to the girl’s credibility)
  • Based on Mohan criteria, the Court thinks the testimony was not needed to assist the triers of fact
  • Ordered a new trial w/o expert testimony
• Crown agreed to a new trial, but appealed the finding that the expert’s testimony is inadmissible
• SCC central point: Mohan criteria of necessity
  
  • Was the evidence presented by the psychologist needed for the triers of fact in that it went beyond their common understanding
  • SCC was split: 4 thinks the testimony as inadmissible; 3 opp
  • Result: the expert testimony = inadmissible
• Conclusion: SCC and Court of Appeal disagreed w/ the trail’s judge interpretation on the Mohan necessity criterion; challenging to interpret Mohan’s criteria

Question 21

TB:

Box 1.6 Myths Associated with the Field of Forensic Psychology

• 1. Forensic psychologist vs scientist
• 2. Forensic psychologist and police
• 3. how to be a FP
• 4. Do you need a law degree to be an FP expert witness?

Answer 21

Box 1.6 Myths Associated with the Field of Forensic Psychology

• Myth 1: Forensic psych and forensic scientists perform the same tasks
  
  • Fact – they are not the same
  • Both examine issues relevant to law/legal system
  • Forensic psych: use knowledge of behavioral or social sciences to do this
  • Forensic scientists: use hard sciences (ex. bio, chm, phy)
  • They have diff training and examine diff problems
• Myth 2: Forensic psychologists spend much of their time helping the police w/ criminal investigations
  
  • Fact – few spend a lot of time doing this, very few in specific investigate activities (ex. criminal profiling)
  • They are more likely doing rs in uni/gov, assess/treat offenders in prisons & communities, consulting w/ courts & correctional agencies
• Myth 3: to be a rs in the field of forensics psych, you need a grad degree in forensic psych
  
  • Fact – most FT rs in FP have a grad degree in psych but not labelled “forensic psych”
  • This is b/c there are few FP programs
  • They have supervisor w/ rs in FP
• Myth 4: For you tb admitted as an expert witness in court, you need a law degree
  
  • Fact - it is helpful to have legal knowledge; there is no requirement that expert witness new a law degree or legal knowledge
  • But they must have the expertise the areas of their testimony and meet other admissibility criteria for expert testimony (ex. testimony is relevant to the case)

Question 22

1st degree murder

2nd degree murder

attempted murder

manslaughtr/homicide

Answer 22

First-degree murder

• A homicide that is both planned and deliberate
• E.g., contract killings
• Automatic: Life-sentence, no possibility of parole (early release) for 25 years

Second-degree murder

• A deliberate killing that is not planned
• E.g., X and Y are having a disagreement; things get out of hand; X impulsively kills Y.
• Minimum: Life-sentence, no possibility of parole for 10 years

Attempted murder

• Trying to cause the death of another person.
• Maximum of life sentence; If firearm is used, 4, 5, or 7 years depending on prior convictions.

Manslaughter

• A homicide committed without intent, although there may have been intent to cause harm.
• No minimal sentence, except when committed with a firearm (minimum 4 years in prison).