unit 1

Question 1

anthropological

Answer 1

looks at comparisons between different cultures

Question 2

sociological

Answer 2

focuses on specific society and how structures and institutions influence legal system

Question 3

philosophical

Answer 3

jurance prudence – how do laws get created?
Natural human law or Legal positivism

Question 4

Natural human law

Answer 4

there is some objective morality that laws should reflect. True for all humans and not culturally dependent

Question 5

Legal positivism

Answer 5

Laws are created by humans depending on their perspective and that there is not an objectively right law/action – psychology takes the second perspective

Question 6

psychological

Answer 6

B= f(p,e) behavior is a function of the personality and the environment

Looking at individuals as a unit of analysis, individual people influence how the legal system operates (they affect the legal system and the legal system effects them), bidirectional relationship

Question 7

First dilemma: rights of the individual Vs. Rights of the common good

Answer 7

Freedom vs. Security/ safety
Two models of the criminal justice system
- Due process model and crime control model

Question 8

Due process model

Answer 8

“It is better for ten guilty to go free than one innocent man should suffer”
o We should be focused on due processed rights (the rights of the individual against abuses of those in power)
o Innocent till proven guilty

Question 9

Crime control model

Answer 9

if there is enough evidence to go to trial then they’re probably guilty, the punishment needs to be sever that they will go away for a while/not do it
* Three- Strikes law (Lockyer v. Andrade)/ habitual criminal act

Question 10

Lockyer v. Andrade

Answer 10

example of crime control model
convicted of 3 pretty crimes appealed by overturned because disproportionate to crime but supreme court said there is no guarantee to proportionality

Question 11

Megan’s Law/ Sexual predator laws

Answer 11

o Little girl was raped and murdered by sex offender, after someone has served their maximum sentence if it’s a sexual offence then there are additional rules in place
o Falls under crime control model because it infringes on their lives because of where they live and privacy but its helping to ensure safety

Question 12

Second Dilemma: equality Vs. Discretion

Answer 12

Should it be as equal as possible or should person events/situations be taken into account

Question 13

Principle of equality

Answer 13

the law applies the same way to everyone

Question 14

sentencing disparity

Answer 14

tendency of judges to administer different penalties for the same crime because of their circumstances.
 When they can take circumstances into account they often do

Question 15

Determinate sentencing

Answer 15

the offense determines the sentence; discretion is removed from the situation – creates a more equal punishment

Question 16

Ronald Harmelin (Harmelin v. Michigan)

Answer 16

example of determinate sentencing. Got 25 years because, argued it was disproportionate to his crime because it wasn’t that extreme and that there shouldn’t be mandatory sentencing, but they said no 8th amendment doesn’t guarantee proportionality

Question 17

3rd Dilemma: What is the purpose of a trial? - to discover the truth or to resolve conflict

Answer 17

‘Zealous representation’: lawyers should defend their client zealously – do whatever they can to get an output that’s favorable for them: but this goes against discovering the truth
Plea bargaining: plead guilty in a criminal case to reduce their punishment then if they had gone to trial and been guilty. Most criminal cases are resolved this way. It is much more convenient and able to plead guilty and not go jail then to do the trial that’s expensive and time consuming. Doesn’t’ discover the truth but resolves the conflict
- Rot Criner

Question 18

Roy Criner

Answer 18

example of 3rd dilemma. Convicted of Killing Deanna Ogg. Later on they tested the sperm and the DNA evidence did not match and it was clearly not him so he appealed and they denied his appeal because he could have had consensual sex with her or she could have had it with someone else early in the day or he could have worn a condom so it didn’t prove he was innocent

Question 19

Fourth dilemma: science versus the law as a source of decisions

Answer 19

Conflict of psychology as a social science and legal system approach to things
Empirical studies vs. stare decisis, experimental method vs. case method, probabilities vs. absolutes

Question 20

Empirical studies vs. Stare decisis

Answer 20

psychology based their research on empirical studies that are across a lot of different people. On the other hand, the legal system uses case study and precedent and use cases that are used before them (stare decisis means let the decision stand) to decide the right course of action.

Question 21

Experimental method vs. case method

Answer 21

psychologist use experiments while legal system uses case studies

Question 22

Probabilities vs. Absolutes

Answer 22

psychologists talk about things in terms of likelihoods and probabilities when we try to predict things, but it’s rarely that something is 100%). Lawyers want a yes or no and talk in absolutes

Question 23

Law conflicting with fourth dilemma

Answer 23

Lockhard v. McCree (1986) - Death qualification: If the death penalty is an option, any juror that hears the case has to be known as death qualifying (must be able to consider the death penalty). There were dozens of cases that those who were death qualifying were more likely to judge someone as guilty compared to those who are not death qualified and so created a Pro prosecution bias. This will shift things in favor of the person being found guilty. Tried to appeal it siting these studies and the APA agreed and filed a brief on it but it was denied by the supreme court because you are not guaranteed a jury based on attitudes

McClesky v. Kemp (1987) – death penalty based on race
Black man was convicted of killing a white man and there was a lot of psychology studies showing that people were more likely to give someone a death penalty if the victim was white. Appeal was based on systematic bias and so the death penalty punishment is unfair but supreme court did not agree because of case method vs. Experimental method and the bias shows up across a lot of people but the supreme court said in order for it to be overturned you’d have to prove that your jury was racist, it doesn’t matter that systematic racist is a thing.

Question 24

Basic scientist

Answer 24

looking for pursuit of knowledge to further knowledge
need not lead to anything applicable at all
basic scientist knowledge/research can still be applied in legal system

Question 25

Applied scientist

Answer 25

knowledge gained to solve real life problems
both could be expert witness
Dauber test and frye test are used to figure out if expert witness should testify

Question 26

Policy evaluator

Answer 26

Looking at how well an intervention has worked
ex. D.A.R.E

Question 27

Forensic evaluator

Answer 27

Evaluates individuals involved in civil and criminal cases, to report their findings to a judge, and at times, to testify about the results in court

Question 28

consultant in litigation

Answer 28

Trial consultant
 Like an attorney: advocating for a specific side
 Use scientific jury selection procedures
 Conduct community attitude surveys
 Prepare witnesses to testify
 Advise lawyers on their presentation strategies, and conduct mock trials

Question 29

Ethics to consider as trial consultants and expert witnesses

Answer 29

Bad trial consultant is Dr. James Grigson as he would testify about people he never actually met
One concern is that expert witnesses are just hired guns
American society of trial consultants: try to hold people accountable

Question 30

Ethics of clinical psychologist

Answer 30

Tanya Tarasoff (Tarasoff v. Regents of the university of California, 1976): case in which a clinical psychologist who had a child who was obsessed with Tanya and talked about kidnapping her and so he contacted police who ended up getting contact with the patient and he went in a mental hospital and when he was released, he killed Tanya. The parents sued the psychologist since he didn’t do enough. The case was decided in favor of the parents as the psychologist should have told Tanya. This was controversial due to client, patient privilege
o Ethical dilemmas of psychologists even when not In the legal system

Question 31

Legailty vs. Morality

Answer 31

Inconsistent when don’t match social behavior
Jack Kevorkian: Assists terminally ill patients but didn’t actually kill them but gave them access to the machine and drugs. Charges were brought against him and dismissed 7 times, acquitted 4 times in trials, shown on 60 minutes giving pills and finally convicted for second-degree murder
* Hard to convict him because he was assisting those who were terminally ill in a fairy humane way and so juries were sympathetic to him
o Oregon’s death with dignity law
 First assisted suicide law

Question 32

Good Samaritan and Duty to Assist Laws

Answer 32

Good Samaritan laws: if you try to help someone and you end up doing harm, you can’t be sued
Duty to assist laws – ed. Minnesota, Wisconsin – Why is this not the prevailing standard?
It is illegal not to help - this is not the prevailing standard because it can sometimes put others at risk by helping, hard to collect evidence on if they helped, ability, etc.
 No one prosecuted for them

Question 33

Legal and psychological intent

Answer 33

Legal intent: deliberately, willfully and knowingly committed an action; mens rea (guilty mind)
- Attribution theories for intent
Internality (is the cause internal or external), stability (is this cause temporary or consistent), globalness (does this affect across situations or just this specific situation)
 High in all of these = more intentional
o Fundamental attribution error: look at causes for behavior, people assume that internal things cause the behavior more then it really does, external factors play a bigger part then people think