psychology & the law Flashcards
three stages in the jury selection process
stage 1 : master list of eligible citizens is compiles
stage 2: certain number of people are randomly drawn from the list and summoned for duty
stage 3: pretrial interview of voir dire of potential jurors to uncover signs of bias.
question period that tries to detct bias
voir dire
if person knows the party in a trial, has formed an opinion or has vested interest in the trial are ??
excluded for cause.
what are pre-emptory challenges
defense and prosecution can exclude jurors without reason
TRUE or FALSE: contrary to popular opinion women are harsher as criminal trial juror than men
FALSE
trial lawyers as intuitive psychologists
- rely on?
- predict?
- rely on implicit theories and stereotypes
- some claim lawyer can predict person’s verdict by race, gender, ethnic background, and other demographics
problems with pre-emptory challenge
- take out a group = no longer representative of community
- can lead to discrimination
- research does not support folk wisdom that juror’s verdict can be predicted on basis of demographics
scientific jury selection
- harrisberg 7
method of selecting juries through surveys that yield correlations between demographics and trial-relevant attitudes (correlate to come up with profile ideal for defense juror)
when is scientific jury selection used most often?
in high-profile criminal trials, civil trials in which lrge sums of money are at stake
– OJ simpson trial
determine statistical relatinoships between what? how?
- between general demographic factors and attitudes relevant to partiuclar case.
use data from focus groups, mock juries, surveys - lawyers exclude those whose profiles assoc with favourable attitudes
does scientific jury work?
shown to relate to a win, but hard to make a clear casual attribution.
is scientific jury selection ethical?
is the goal for lawyers to eliminate bias or slant the jury in their favour?
- critics say: jury tips justice in favour of wealthy clients. Widens SES gap that’s already present in jury system
TRUE or FALSE: without being beaten or threatened, innocent people someitmes confess to crimes they did not commit
TRUE
9 steps to interrogation - start with what?
physical environment that leads to social isolation, uncomfortable experience.
- confront
- themes that appear to justify/excuse crime
- interrupt statements of innocence/denial
- overcome all objections 5. keep increasingly passive suspect from tuning out
- show sympathy, urge to tell
- offer face-saving explanation
- recount details
- convert statement into full written confession
2 approaches to police interrogations
pressure the suspect into submission by expressing certainty of their guilt = false evidence
– befriend the suspect. blame victim, false sense of security.
2 risks of false confessions
2 factors increase false confessions
- may confess merely to escape bad situation (innocent - confession as compliance)
- internalization can lead innocent suspects to believe they might be guilty of a crims (vivid recounts, believed they actually did it)
a. lack of clear memory of the event in question
b. presentation of false evidence.
risk of false confession study 1
pair of college students working with either slow or fast paced game. computer crashed, some told its broken, others told it’s because they hit a button they were told not to.
- all innocent, initially denied charge.
- when confederates in same room said they saw them hit the key (false witness), more ppl complied. more internalized when did task fast.
risk of false confession study 2
confess to cheating, confederates ask participants to help solve problem. even if innocent, interrogating them makes them cooperate.
minimization > promise. both > either alone.
3 interrogation styles
promise = leniency for cooperation
minimization = minimize effect for others = more effective than promise.
both = increase true and false confessions.
- all work in innocent conditions
confessions and the jury - attributional dilemma
jury powerfully influenced by evidence of a confession even if it was coerced.
fundamental attribution error revisited
jurors are supposed to reject all confessions made in response to coercion. but FAE says that people tend to overattribute to person rather than situation.
- jurors still view as guilty even though confession is invalid
FAE and jury study
control - 19% voted guilty
in low-pressure coercion: 62% voted guilty.
in high pressure coercion: 50% voted guilty = confessed out of fear, pain - didn’t actually influence to confess truth, but conviction rate increased.
attributional dilemma: how confession evidence is presented
accuracy for determining whether confession is true or false is low.
- inmate taped confessing to offense they did commit and one they did not commit.
= no one really that good at detecting deception
– variations in camera perspectives significantly influence the perception that confession is coerced.
== confessor ange (less coercive, underestimate pressure), both angle (most coercive)
TRUE or FALSE: eyewitnesses find it relatively difficult to recognize members of a race other than their own
TRUE
eye witness testimony 3 conclusions
- are imperfect
- certain personal situational factors systematically influence eyewitness performance
- judges, juries, lawyers not well informed about these factors
3 stage process of memory
- acquisition
- storage
- retrieval
stage process of memory - acquisition
witness's perceptions at the time of the event question. factors influencing acquisition -- one's emotional state -- weapon-focus effect -- cross-race identification bias:
emotional state and acquisition of memory
high arousal narrows field of attention, impair witness’s memory for less central details.
witnesses are less able to indentify the culprit in the presence of a weapon
weapon-focus effect.
– aroused by sight of arousing stimulus. attention drawn from face/perpetrator
people fin it difficult to recognize members of a race other than their own
cross-race identification bias
stage process of memory - storage
refers to getting the information into memory to avoid forgetting.
- memory for faces and events tends to decline over time.
- memory can be influences: reconstructive memory.
- based on loaded questions, misinformation effect
based on experience and post-event info can be incorporated into own memory and change the purity
reconstructive memory
storage - study
biasing eye witness reports with loaded questions.
- verb change.
- later asked to recall: 32% f ppl who had “smash” said there was glass on the ground from car crash.
2 sources:
- actual event
- post event.
tendency for false post-event information to become integrated into people’s memory of an event
misinformation effect
- eyewitness compromised when told person they ID-ed was the suspect.
interrogating children
- kids came up will silly stories. when prompted, said what they thought adult wanted them to say.
- upon repeating question, changed their answers multiple times.
memory storage: retrieval
- refers to pulling the information out of storage when needed.
- more time retrieving and storing when questioned, view line ups, talk to investigator = increased error
factors affecting identification performance
- line-up construction
- line-up instructions to witness
- format of line up
- familiarity-induced biases
- ID performance: line up construction
if 4-8 innocent in a line, the person who stands out most (feature, outfit) more likely to be picked
ID performance: line up instructions
receive instruction that person IS in line up or MAYBE is in lineup.
- saying IS = more likely to choose when uncertain, increased mistaken ID
ID performance: format of lineup
live ppl = more compelled to make a choice.
best is photos presented one at a time
sequential better than simultaneous
ID performance: familiarity-induced biases
able to remember face but not circumstances in which saw face. ID innocent face that were present in situation. like to choose innocent = perpatrator
TRUE or FALSE: the more confident an eyewitness is about ID the more accurate it is likely to be
FALSE
courtroom testimony of eyewitness
persuasive, not easy to devalue.
- why overestimate accuracy? couldnt distinguish btw correct and incorrect eyewitness.
- lack knowledge about human memory
- base judgements largely on witness’s confidence
biasing effects of post-ID feedback
when questioned about event, more confident =/= more correct.
when told person ID-ed perpetrator - memory altered. more likely to testify
