Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psyc 175- Psyc and Law > Week 4 > Flashcards

Week 4 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Interview

A

Purpose: to gain info

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Interrogation

A

Purpose: to obtain a confession

  • > admission: “I was there” -> suspected more
  • > confession: “I did it”

Interrogate the person suspected of the crime
Police can use deception and lie about evidence against you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Confession

A

“I did it”

Most probative and damaging evidence against

  • more impact than eyewitnesses and character testimonies
  • > FALSE confession more damaging than evidence

Not always indicative of guilt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Miranda Rights

A

Miranda shown in biased lineup

Arizona v. Miranda- criminal case against Miranda (convicted and sentenced)

Miranda v. Arizona- Miranda’s appeal case
Az supreme court upheld conviction based on Escobedo v Illinois
-> US Supreme Court overturned conviction (later retried and convicted, creation of Miranda Rights)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Limitations to Miranda Rights

A

Must be CLEAR that you want to lawyer
-no ambiguity (Davis v. US)

Parent who wished to involve Rights for child must not be ambiguous (Ricky Mitchell v. New York)

Silence in and of itself does not mean that you’ve invoked you Rights (Berghuis v. Tompkins)

Police use specific interrogation techniques to get around Miranda

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Making an informed waiver of rights rests on three abilities

A

Understanding the words/phrases
An accurate perception of what these Rights allow (Rights supersede police power)
Capacity to reason about the likely consequences of waiving or invoking rights

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Individuals with difficulty understanding their rights

A

Juveniles (particularly under age 14)
-> 9% invoked Rights, 91% talked to police

Mentally challenged or of lower intelligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

% waive Rights and talk to police?

A

75-80 %

Innocent suspects waiver Rights more often (81%) than guilty suspects (36%)

Sympathetic strategy by police is most effective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Why they waive their Rights

A

Guilty
-to appear innocent

Innocent
-believe truth will set them free

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Interrogation techniques: Reid technique

A

Isolated, about 4 hours

small, bare, soundproof room
invade personal space during
one-way mirror

Steps (custody and isolation, confrontation, minimization/maximization- good cop/bad cop)

  • confront
  • justify or excuse crime
  • interrupt denial
  • overcome suspects objections
  • ensure they do not tune you out
  • show sympathy and understanding
  • offer face-saving alternatives
  • have suspect recount details
  • have suspect give full, written confession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Presumption of guilt

A

“You did it. We know you did it. We have overwhelming evidence to prove you did it. But the reason makes a difference, so why don’t you tell me about it?”

Appeal to suspects self interests is #1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Intentional errors for correction by suspect in written confession

A

To prevent suspect from coming back later and claiming something about it was inaccurate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Exaggerated/manufactured evidence

A

Police can legally lie about evidence they supposedly have against suspect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Martha Puebla

A

Used her as fake eyewitness, and told suspect all about her.

He put a hit out on her -> murdered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

False confessions: Voluntary

A

Fake self-incriminating statement given to police, with NO external pressure to do so from police

Example- Kidnapping of Lindbergh’s baby

Reasons:
fame and notoriety
aid and protect actual perp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

False confessions: Coerced-compliant

A

Confession induced through police interrogation, but don’t believe they have done crime

Example- Central Park jogger

Reasons:
Escape an aversive situation
Avoid an implicit threat
Gain an implied reward

17
Q

False confessions: Coerced-internalized

A

Confess and come to believe they ACTUALLY committed the crime

Example- Paul Ingram (possessed by devil), Crowe

Reasons:
Anxious, tired, confused, subject to highly suggestive methods of interrogation

18
Q

Interrogating minors

A

Use same techniques as with adults

  • assume they are qualitatively different than other minors (monsters)
  • > more vulnerable (increased risk of false confession)
19
Q

Four ways to know it is a false confession

A

1) No crime actually occurred
2) Physically impossible for suspect to have committed the crime (in jail, proof somewhere else, out of state)
3) Actual perp is ID (most common for exonerations)
4) Scientific evidence that definitively establishes innocence (DNA most common)

20
Q

False confession age and length of interrogation

A

35% false confessions from minors

18-24; 27%
25-39; 30%

Most confessions obtained between 6 to 24 hours

21
Q

Recording interrogations

A

Most states do not require

Provide

  • objective and accurate account
  • can prevent coercive tactics
  • can protect police against defense claims of coercion
  • less time taking notes for police
22
Q

Child witnesses

A

May be only witness to crime (sexual abuse case)

Reluctant to report (<50% when first suspected because external evidence)

23
Q

Reliability of Child’s testimony

A

McMartin preschool case

-> false allegations called reliability into question

24
Q

Age related differences

A

Clear developmental trend

  • Preschoolers (3-5) less accurate than older children (school aged) and adults
  • Children under 6 most suggestible

Compared with older children (7-12), younger children (3-5):

  • provide less detailed, complete and consistent reports of emotional and stressful events
  • more prone to forgetting over time
  • more susceptible to suggestion
25
Q

Factors than increase susceptibility

A

Younger age
Interviewer bias (demeanor, confirmation bias)
Reinforcing responses
Use of specific and/or misleading questions
Repeated questioning
Forensic props (anatomical dolls & drawings)
-use end of interview, after free recall

26
Q

Interviewer bias

A

Confirmation bias

  • gather only confirmatory evidence and ignore info that is inconsistent with original hypotheses
  • elicit false reports

Bruck et al.
-interviewed kids (3 party, 1 colored)
4th produced twice as many errors
Even when denied attending party, 84% interviewers reported all 4 went to party

27
Q

Reinforcing responses

A

Reinforcement can lead to agreement with misleading information (mundane 35% fantastical 52%)

28
Q

Ideal interview

A

Neutral and friendly interviewer

First interview with neutral interviewer tends to be most accurate

29
Q

Type of questions

A

Free-recall/ open-ended (most likely to be accurate)
Leading questions introduce info that was never previously mentioned by the child
-specific (yes-no or forced choice)
-misleading (contain inaccurate info)
-> false reports tend to be elicited by misleading questions repeated within and across the interviews

30
Q

Repeated questioning

A

Common for children to be interviewed over long delays

Formal interview (police, CPS, etc.)
Informal interview (siblings, therapists, non offending parents, etc.)

Risks:

  • prior suggestions from previous interviews can become incorporated into later reports
  • demand characteristics: may feel interviewer did not like or agree with first report
31
Q

Forensic props (anatomical dolls & drawings)

A

Children younger than 3.5 have trouble using dolls as symbols of themselves (preschoolers more accurate when using own bodies than dolls)

Same problems with drawing that you get from using dolls

32
Q

General guidelines for interviewing children

A

Adapt interview to child’s developmental level
Build rapport (build relationship)
Videotape interview
Private environment with minimal distractions
Start with free recall and open-ended questions
-only use specific questions after free recall has been exhausted
Give children practice telling about an event (before discussing allegation)
Give example of lying vs telling the truth
Clear ground rules
-OK to say I don’t know or don’t remember
-correct interviewer if say something wrong
-ask for clarification is needed
-tell truth
Remain objective and neutral
Avoid suggestive techniques
Avoid reinforcement
Take time for closure (debrief)
-need because more distress -> worse functioning

33
Q

Factors associated with resistance to suggestion

A

Higher intelligence (better language ability)
Event knowledge (if know what will happen in interview/event, will do better)
Less creative and imaginative children
Cultures that do not emphasize deference to adults
Higher socioeconomic status (SES)
Children of sensitive and responsive parents

34
Q

Children in courts

A

Developmentally age-inappropriate techniques

  • legalese
  • -> Accuracy is higher when more simplified versions of questions are asked (for everyone)

Rights of accused vs victim

  • right of accused to face witness
  • -> without, jury biased toward guilt of defendant
  • -> may be distressing event for child witness
CCTV
-less believable
-less accurate
-less attractive
-less intelligent
-less confident
BUT not more likely to convict or acquit

Heresay witness
evidence admitted on behalf of child victim
-less credible
-jury less likely to convict defendant

35
Q

Coy v. Iowa

A

Overturned conviction because not able to confront witness face-to-face

Visual separation violated defendant’s 6th amend right

36
Q

Maryland v. Craig

A

Right to face-to-face confrontation should be evaluated on case-to-case basis

Psyc 175- Psyc and Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions