Karteikarten
PSY 363 - Midterm Exam
Karten in diesem Stapel (47)
- 1What are the different approaches to the law?- Anthropological - how law differs across societies, looking at past societies
Philosophical - how things should be/normative approach
- Sociological - how law works in society
Psychological - looking through unit of analysis (individual) and how individuals behave - 2History of Psychology and the Law- 1908 - Hugo Munsterberg publishes "On the Witness Stand"
- 1908 - Muller v. Oregon - Brandeis Brief
1920-1930 - Legal Realism - psychology influences law
1959 - Brown v. Board of Education
1960s - Publicans by Kalven, Menninger, Zeisel
1969 - APLS Established
1970 - Law and Human behavior
Currently - Numerous journals and graduate programs - 3Brandeis briefopened door for U.S. Courts to use social scientific evidence
- 4Natural law principlesJudicial decisions were thought to reflect principles found in nature
- 5Differences between psychology and law(1) Psychology is descriptive:
- explains behavior
- emphasizes group characteristics
- future oriented
- objectivity
(2) Law is prescriptive:
- tries to regulate people's behavior
- past oriented - law in court based on precedent
- adversarial - law tries to fight; there are 2 sides of plaintiff and defendant - 6Basic Structure of U.S. Court System
- 7Basic Structure of Legal System- double jeopardy - state cannot appeal in criminal trial where suspect is proven not guilty because cannot be tried twice for the same crime
- Supreme Court has jurisdiction on all constitutional matters
- Criminal laws - crimes against the people
Civil laws - negligence - 8Roles of Psychologists- Trial consultants - can help pick injuries, can do mock trials, show evidence, can work through clinical standpoint
- Evaluators - evaluate programs and practices, and look for things: ex.) patterns of sexual abuse etc.
- Reformers - advocate for change in legal system based on research: ex.) for foster care children, work in government - 9Influencing Legal System1. Expert testimony - assist the court (like decided in Daubert)
- assessibility criteria for expert witness - need to choose only 1 of 4 criteria
2. Cross-Disciplinary Training
3. Amicus Curiae briefs
- "friend of the court" - brief from neutral group not affiliated with case
* for example, if case is about discrimination against individual based on sexual orientation, clinical psychologists would present brief explaining disadvantages of discrimination against group based on certain characteristic
4. Dissemination of Research Findings
5. Legislature and Public Policy
- research used to influence thinking of legislators, lobbying, serving on legislative staff - 10Has Psychology Influenced Legal System?- mixed results
- raises consciousness of judges
- research can be manipulated, as in used for intentions the author did not intent
- judges have little training in social science research
- judges reluctant to use evidence based on social science research - judges like to use social science when it suits them
- social scientists seen as politically liberal
- Courts less likely to look at research that goes against using eye witnesses for reliability and validity - 11Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)Supreme Court held that judges must serve as gatekeepers for scientific testimony
To assist judges, Court listed 4 criteria that should be used when deciding whether to admit scientific testimony:
- Testability/falsifiability of theory/technique - whether technique can be proven false through data collection
- whether scientific findings have been subjected to peer review (generally through publication in peer-reviewed journal)
- whether there is known rate of error (how often a test or technique produces incorrect results)
- whether the conclusions are generally accepted in the relevant scientific community - 12Frye testGeneral acceptance test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence
- 13Daubert trilogy3 cases: Daubert, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Ltd. V. Carmichael collectively known as Daubert trilogy
- this trilogy expanded the gatekeeping role of trial judges - 14General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)Joiner held that appellate courts should not second-guess a trial judge's decision to exclude expert testimony
- Instead, they should defer to trial judge's ruling on whether scientific testimony should be admitted into evidence - 15Kumho Tire Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999)Court made further clarification that court's gatekeeping responsibilities are extended to all expert opinion, not just scientific variety
- in conclusion, trial judge has authority and responsibility to evaluate the validity and relevance of any proposed expert testimony - 16Criticism against role of judges as gatekeepers- Minority opinion in Daubert: decision obliges judges to become amateur scientists - a role they cannot take on because of lack of training/expertise in field of science
- Many judges could not define the criteria/guidelines for admissibility of scientific testimony - 17Psychological dilemmas1. Rights of Individuals v. the Common Good
- ex.) Roe v. Wade - values individual over common good
- Warren court (liberal) v. Burger/Rehnquist court (conservative)
2. Equality v. discretion
- sentence disparity v. determinate sentencing
- discretion - there are biases that come into play (mother, father so should get lighter sentence, etc.)
- equality - everyone gets the same prison time, regardless of individual circumstances
3. To discover truth v. resolve conflict
- procedural justice - justice or fairness based on the process - the outcome is the same but the process looks fair and people are happy
- distributive justice - based on outcome
4. science v. the law as source of decisions - 18Principle of Proportionalityused as criterion of fairness and justice, as a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act
- under criminal law, used to convey idea that punishment of offender should fit the crime - 19Morality v. Legality: Should the law reflect morality?- Morality has tendency to be subjective
- Legality has tendency to be objective
- US laws based on Judeo-Christian morality
- Law has groundwork based on past legal issues whereas morality usually has religious basis - 20Common sense justiceOrdinary citizens' basic notions of what is fair and just
- 21Power of Confessions- The goal of questioning is to elicit confession
- 39% - 48% of suspects make full confessions
- Confessions save time
- Trials avoided, convictions almost guaranteed
IMPORTANT: RESEARCH SHOWS MOCK JURORS DO NOT DISCOUNT CONFESSION EVEN IF FALSE
- False confessions may bolster credibility of otherwise unpersuasive evidence and corrupt other evidence forms
* Fundamental attribution bias - usually people believe that if suspect confessed, it is because they are guilty, not because of the terrible interrogation process they went through - 22Confessions- police must warn suspects of certain rights before starting a custodial interrogation - Miranda (1966)
- custodial interrogation - when person is in custody
- before Jackson, didn't matter if confession was voluntary or involuntary
- given the context of the trial, juries tend to dismiss promise of leniency as coercion - 23Evolution of Interrogation techniques- before 1930 - use of direct physical violence
- report on lawlessness and law enforcement 1931 - led to covert and psychological coercion
- Miranda rights of 1966 - right to remain silent and request attorney
- 80% of suspects waive rights and subject to interrogation - 24Modern interrogations- Mostly psychological (good cop/bad cop)
- Environment is controlled by officer
- Place individual away from door to make them feel trapped
- Police familiar with interrogation manuals
- Reid technique - 9 step technique based on 4 influence strategies:
* loss of control
* social isolation
* certainty of guilt
* exculpatory scenarios - 25Interrogation Methods: Information-Gathering- Establish rapport
- Use direct, positive confrontation
- Employ open-ended, exploratory questions
- Primary goal is to elicit information
- Focus on cognitive cues to deception - 26Interrogation Methods: Accusatorial methods- Establish control
- Use psychological manipulation
- Employ closed-ended, confirmatory questions
- Primary goal is to obtain a confession
- Focus on anxiety cues to deception - 27Problems of False Confessions- Prompted by lying, intimidation, deception, fatigue, abuse
- 25% of wrongful conviction due to false confessions
- Suspect vulnerable, suggestible, compliant
- Most vulnerable are youth: psychological immaturity, brain immaturity
- False confessions occur most often in murder cases (80% of proven false confessions in murder cases)
- Are caused most by police interrogations, especially when adult techniques used on juveniles
- May be related to mindset of innocent suspects - 28Types of False Confessions- Instrumental-Coerced - long, intense interrogation; confess to stop
- Instrumental-voluntary - confess to achieve goal (ex. in Jon Benet Ramsey case, man false confessed for fame)
- Authentic-coerced - suspect convinced they committed crime
- Authentic voluntary - confesses because of mental illness (confess and have mental issue or mental illness of some kind)
The big 2 types that are exonerated later -- Instrumental-coerced and authentic-coerced - 29Should interrogators be allowed to lie during interrogation?- US - interrogators allowed to use false evidence ploys
- England and Wales:
* PACE Act makes it illegal to lie
* witness must be present
* must be audio-recorded
* intimation is not permitted - 30Solutions to false confessions- Video recording:
* creates permanent record
* improves interrogation methods
* can be manipulated - if the whole video isn't shown
Time limits:
- Lengthy interrogations common in false confessions
- 4 hours or less is recommended
Expert testimony - role would be to explain what kind of factors would lead to false confessions
Adult witness - could be parent, therapist, adult when juvenile is on trial
* basically an advocate of suspect's integrity or confession - 31Limiting Miranda Rights- Confessions that violate Miranda may still be used at trial
- confessions by defendants who don't fully understand the warnings may still be used at trial
- Miranda doesn't apply unless the suspect is in police custody
- Miranda doesn't apply unless the defendant is being interrogated - 32Detecting DeceptionHow accurately can people detect deception? - people are correct only 54% of the time
- trained observers are more confident, cite more reasons, which is most likely to sway the jury/judge
- truth bias - more likely to think something is true
- question: is 54% statistically significant?
Conclusion: people are very poor at detecting lying, because (a) cues are complex and hard to detect and (b) people look for the wrong cues
- Experts are no better than the general public
- Police training programs emphasize wrong cues
- Lay people may have truth bias, people have a lie bias
Problems with studying deception:
- in lab settings, lying is condoned, so no guilt
- low stakes, even in studies with financial rewards for successful lying and penalties for failure - 33Polygraph/Techniques- theory - lying will cause physiological changes
- controversial technique
- polygraph must be used with questioning:
* relevant-irrelevant test (RIT) - asking irrelevant question, then relevant
* control question test (CQT) - socially desirable questions (ex. do you vote every election?)
* positive-control test (PCT) - asking question twice
control-question test is better than the other two - 34Validity of polygraphweaknesses of polygraph:
- with person being tested (person could be emotionally non-reactive)
- lack of standardization
- use of countermeasures
- rejected on purely ethical grounds - 35Use of Polygraph as Coercion- used to induce confessions
- presented as opportunity to prove innocence
- attempts to avoid viewed as guilt
- not avoiding viewed as innocence
- results sometimes manipulated by polygrapher to coerce suspect - 36Jurors and the Polygraph- Jurors find results persuasive
- Results can change outcome of a trial
- Effectiveness of results based on:
* persuasiveness of polygrapher testimony
* sophistication of jurors
* instructions from judge - 37Alternative Polygraph MethodGuilty Knowledge Test: trying to see if you have guilty knowledge v. polygraph trying to detect lies
Guilty Knowledge test:
- uses polygraph
- does not attempt to detect lies
- detects criminal knowledge
- promising technique
- some limitations
Limitations: guilty person may not have the information that might make him/her seem guilty
(what color was the victim's dress?) - asking the murderer - may not know - 38Trace Evidence- Forensic identification usually rests on comparison of two samples
- trace evidence: fragments of physical evidence
- forensic identification: linking physical evidence to a suspect
- biometrics: identifying suspects based on anatomical traits - 39Measures and meanings in forensic identificationevidence from crime scene matched to evidence from suspect
- source attribution - common source match
inclusion - substantially similar match; include suspect
- individuation - match excludes all other possibilities
* it can only be suspect so excludes all other possibilities
- exclusion - matches substantially inconsistent; remove suspect
- inconclusive - evidence incomplete or contaminated
* don't have a conclusion you can rely upon
Most common when conducting research in lab but least common in the real world - 40Communicating nature and Certainty of a match- Qualitative statement - subjective statement - high, medium, low
* subjective because cannot be sure what exactly high, medium, and low are
- simple match - match shares characteristics
- match plus statistics - statement includes statistics to determine how rare or common
individuation - statement indicating a detailed and perfect match
- ideal people to pick up the evidence - neutral party and people who examine data also neutral but this doesn't happen
- people tend to be afraid of frequency format rather than probability
* the way evidence is presented matters because it sways the jury one way or the other
DNA evidence - most powerful in court; regardless of how you present DNA evidence, most likely to convict - 41Scientific Foundations of Forensic Identification- Measures must be reliable and valid
- DNA identification
*most objective
* reliable and valid method
* solid scientific foundation
- fingerprint identification
* less objective
* based on judgment of examiner
* influenced by cognitive biases
* confirmation bias
In research setting, DNA evidence is highly valid and reliable - but usually not in lab
- in the real world, limitations: contamination, bias, risk of matching trace evidence and sample
From scientific standpoint: multiple samples (which makes probability of matching lower) and makes examiner blind as to who the suspect is removes bias - more objective - 42Reducing Error and Bias in Forensic Identification- proper handling of trace evidence
- routine retesting of trace evidence
- blind and double blind testing
- evidence should be property of legal system
- forensic scientists should have extensive experience and graduate training in science
Currently, evidence is property of police department but being property of court would allow neutrality - 43Jurors and Trace Evidence- Jurors have difficulty interpreting probability/statistical statements
- Exemplar cuing theory - some statements cue more exemplars
- limited understanding of scientific foundation on forensic identification
- jurors most persuaded by fingerprint evidence - which they believe is a science
Jurors like as simple techniques as possible - 44Jurors and DNA evidence- Jurors do not distinguish between strong and weak DNA evidence
- DNA evidence yields more verdicts in favor of party presenting it
- Jurors are insensitive to error rates
- person who has previous criminal record - that crime cannot enter the courtroom because it is prejudicial - 45Process of Memory- encoding - gathering
- storage - holding
- retrieval - accessing
how to keep short-term memory in storage? - keep thinking about it
short-term memory - 30 seconds
Error can occur - drunk memory for example in encoding which could alter your memory
- storage - mixing up with prior memories or make up different memories
- retrieval - could relate to bias, stress when relating to errors in retrieval - 46Eyewitness Testimony and Legal System- eyewitness testimony the most compelling evidence in court
- most persuasive to jury
- leads to more wrongful convictions than any other evidence
- Manson Criteria - used to evaluate accuracy:
* opportunity - length of time witness saw suspect
* accuracy - more accurate the initial description - the more likely to recognize it later on
* level of attention - how close/far did witness see suspect
* degree of certainty - weakest evidence we have, myth is that the more certain it is, the more accurate they are
* time between witnessing and identification - 47Eyewitness in the Courtroom
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am PSY 363 - Midterm Exam, erstellt von Shambhabi Paudyal am 26/10/2018.
- Erstellt von
- Shambhabi Paudyal
- Aufrufe
- 2
- Bewertung