Week 9 Flashcards
The psychology of trials - The Legal Process
The Legal Process
The trier of fact may be:
a judge or a jury.
Information presented at a trial includes:
testimony exhibits opening and closing statements and judicial instructions.
Witnesses are generally questioned through an examination in chief and a cross-examination and special conditions are in place for identified vulnerable populations (i.e., children).
The presentation of evidence is followed by judicial instructions, deliberations, the verdict and sentencing (which in the US, includes the consideration of the death penalty).
Persuading the Jury & Attributions of Causality
Persuading the jury
Once the jury has been selected, the entire trial is dedicated to persuading them. A forensic psychologist understands how psychology can play a role in the way jurors attribute actions.
Attributions of causality
There are three attributions of causality:
Primary attribution—when deciding on the cause for the behaviour of others, we have a tendency to make an immediate dispositional or situational judgment. In the cartoon, Andy has made a snap, dispositional judgment about Jim’s behaviour and attributed his actions to laziness.
Fundamental attribution error—when deciding on the cause of negative behaviour of others, we have a tendency to overemphasise dispositional factors and under-emphasise situational factors. Here, Andy has not considered situational factors that might have affected Jim’s behaviour—instead, Andy simply describes Jim as ‘lazy’.
Actor/observer bias—when deciding on the cause of behaviour of ourselves and others, we have a tendency to view our negative behaviours as situational and our positive behaviours as dispositional while doing the opposite for others. When something works out for us, it is due to our personal characteristics, effort or talent; but when something works out for someone else, they were lucky. Select the arrows to nvigate through the following cartoons for a description of actor/observer bias. Chances are, you’ll remember a time when you may have been guilty of it!
Expert Witness
One way to get rid of biases is to bring in an expert. In some instances, the court or one of the parties will request that evidence be provided to the trier of fact by an expert who may testify on opinion. Select each of the titles below to learn more about how and why an expert witness is chosen and what they contribute and assess.
The Legal Standard:
The qualification of an expert witness generally involves a three-part test:
- the subject matter is so complex or technical that it is beyond the ken of the average person
- the witness must be qualified to speak to the issue at hand
- there must be scientific acceptance of the information presented by the witness.
Psychological Contributions - expert witness
Expert witnesses are often employed to provide detail or clarification on data where there is an indication of a low level of public knowledge (or high levels of confusion) regarding the issue. Expert witnesses are selected to provide testimony based on:
- academic qualifications (e.g. degrees)
- their publication record.
Insanity:
Forensic psychologists may be asked by the court or a defence lawyer to make an assessment of the defendant’s capacity to stand trial and be held to account for their actions. Assessments are based on the identification of psychological disorders.
Modern legal versions of insanity
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the action, as a result of mental disease or defect, he or she lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law.
The legal standard (insanity)
The legal standard is originally based on the McNaughton rule (1843) (Links to an external site.) (Bursztajn, n.d.). It is based on three elements:
- The defendant was suffering from a ‘defect of reason from a disease of the mind’.
- As a result, the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act he or she was doing.
- An inquiry has been carried out to determine whether the defendant knew what he or she was doing was wrong.
Psychological Contributions - Instructions:
Cognitive psychology research indicates that there is a high level of importance in the timing of instructions, including the provision of pre-task instructions. Research also indicates that juror comprehension of instructions can be limited. It has been suggested that jurors are least likely to comprehend definitional instructions followed by charging instructions, and that they are most likely to comprehend cautionary instructions.
The legal standard (instructions)
Instructions are provided by the presiding judge (magistrate) at the conclusion of the presentation of evidence, and are meant to provide the jury with:
- a framework to guide their deliberations and decision (charging instructions)
- clarification of legal terms (substantive law instructions)
- a summary of the evidence (cautionary instructions).
Read Euthanasia on trial: Examining public attitudes toward non-physician assisted death (PDF 583 KB) (Links to an external site.) (Pfeifer, Brigham & Robinson, 1996, pp. 119–129) as they provide a great discussion of a very provocative subject and more on public perception.
- about how respondents analysis and perceive physician assisted death to be passive or active in nature.
- Sugarman (1986) suggested distinction between the two, as physician assisted death is viewed as active.
- examine the roles towards nonphysicians who play a role in the terminally ill
- Hypotheses - subjects will rate the defendant as more guilty if he is accused of killing a family member in what may be perceived as a nontraditional manner (shooting) vs a traditional manner (turning off life support). Mock Jurors will rate the defendant as less guilty if he is portrayed as emotionally distressed and if they are given nullification instructions that will allow them to disregard a standard application of the law.
- Method - 161 uni students, randomly assigned to 12 conditions where they watched video and manipulated the variables by 1. means of death, 2. presences or absence of emotion by the defendant, 3. type of jury instruction provided. Then rated 1 - 7 on a scale of guilt and confidence
- Discussion - type of instructions plays an important role, rated the defendant more guilty when provided with 1 instruction than with 2 forms of nullification instructions and were more influenced by means of death. Limited research on the definitions of passive vs active. Gunshot was less acceptable than turning off life support. Emotion of the defendant did not change the rating of guilt but when paired with means of death and type of instruction it did.
To read about ethical concerns regarding expert witnesses, read Ethical concerns of non-clinical forensic witnesses and consultants (PDF 788 KB) (Links to an external site.) (Pfeifer & Brigham, 1993, pp. 329–343).
What is actor/observer bias?
when deciding on the cause of behaviour of ourselves and others, we have a tendency to view our negative behaviours as situational and our positive behaviours as dispositional while doing the opposite for others. When something works out for us, it is due to our personal characteristics, effort or talent; but when something works out for someone else, they were lucky.
Functional Attribution Error
when deciding on the cause of negative behaviour of others, we have a tendency to overemphasise dispositional factors and under-emphasise situational factors. Here, Andy has not considered situational factors that might have affected Jim’s behaviour—instead, Andy simply describes Jim as ‘lazy’.
Primary attribution
when deciding on the cause for the behaviour of others, we have a tendency to make an immediate dispositional or situational judgment. In the cartoon, Andy has made a snap, dispositional judgment about Jim’s behaviour and attributed his actions to laziness.
What is meant by situational and causality attributions?
Situational - The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some situation or event outside a person’s control rather than to some internal characteristic.
Causality - Causal attribution is the process of trying to determine the causes of people’s behavior. Attributions are made to personal or situational causes. It is easier to make personal attributions when a behavior is unusual or unexpected and when people are perceived to have chosen to engage in it.
Describe the McNaughton Rule (on insanity)
- The defendant was suffering from a ‘defect of reason from a disease of the mind’.
- As a result, the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act he or she was doing.
- An inquiry has been carried out to determine whether the defendant knew what he or she was doing was wrong.
Insanity Rulings here and abroad
Forensic psychologists may be asked by the court or a defence lawyer to make an assessment of the defendant’s capacity to stand trial and be held to account for their actions. Assessments are based on the identification of psychological disorders.
Modern legal versions of insanity
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the action, as a result of mental disease or defect, he or she lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law.
Examples from the DB: Breivik Trial VIDEO: Ruled Sane, Sentenced to 21 years (2012)
International definitions of insanity:
India- In India a distinction is made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, and not with medical insanity. Any kind of mental illness is called “medical insanity,” however “legal insanity” means that the person suffering from mental illness has also lost his/her power of reasoning. Legal insanity refers to the “mental state” of a person at the time of committing crime and this is purely a legal concept unrelated to psychiatric diagnoses. So, at the time of committing the crime, the person should be suffering from mental illness and also have a loss of reasoning power. According to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, the person is incapable of knowing:
The nature of the act, or That he is doing what is either wrong or Contrary to law.
Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 IPC.
France – According to the first paragraph of Article 122-1 of the French Penal Code, “[a] person who, at the time of the acts, was having a mental disorder or neuropsychiatric disorder that eliminated his or her discernment or the control of his or her actions is not penally responsible,”. The second paragraph provides that a defendant whose discernment was altered rather than eliminated could be held criminally liable.
In a 2020 decision, the Cour de cassation, France’s highest court for civil and criminal matters, confirmed that defendants could not be judged under criminal law if they committed murder while in a state of delirium that eliminated (aboli) their discernment. This decision was made in a case where a 65-year-old Jewish woman was murdered by her neighbour, who was in a state of delirium in which he believed the victim was a “demon” because of her religion, after he had consumed high amounts of cannabis shortly before the crime.
Anders Breivik – In India, Breivik’s fate would have depended upon proving whether he was legally insane at the time he committed the crimes and in France, he would not have been tried in a criminal court if proven that his discernment was eliminated and not altered at the time and would be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
Is the following statement true or false?
Research indicates that juror comprehension of instructions are advanced. It has been suggested that jurors are more likely to comprehend definitional instructions followed by charging instructions and that they are least likely to comprehend cautionary instructions.
False
Expert witnesses are often employed to provide detail or clarification on data where there is an indication of a low level of public knowledge (or high levels of confusion) regarding the issue. Expert witnesses are selected to provide testimony based on:
academic qualifications and their publication record.
A forensic psychologist understands how psychology can play a role in the way jurors attribute actions. There are three attributions of causality. Which of the following is NOT an attribution of causality?
secondary attribution
The legal standard associated with qualification of an expert witness generally involves a three-part test. Which of the following is NOT a consideration in this three-part test?
the witness must have experienced a similar situation to the case at hand
