Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
124 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Cleckley 1941 |
Noted lack of distress and mental health issues (no psychosis) in patients visiting him so he started studying psychopathy. Criminal behaviour was the exception - wasn't required |
|
|
Hare Two Factor Model |
Interpersonal/affective symptoms social deviance |
|
|
Hare Four Factor Model |
Interpersonal - manipulating others, interactions Affective - lack of empathy, shallow emotionality Antisocial - behaviour problems, criminal activity, school behaviours Erratic lifestyle - impulsivity |
|
|
Cooke et al |
Three factor model: Took out Antisocial stating that criminal behaviour was often seen as an outcome |
|
|
WHat is psychopathy |
Personality disorder with a cluster of inter personal, affective and behavioural characteristics PCL-R |
|
|
Interpersonal Affective Symptoms |
Superficial Charm Grandiose self worth lying manipulative lack of remorse and empathy shallow affect refuse to take responsibility |
|
|
Lifestyle/antisocial symptoms |
need for stimulation parasitic lifestyle lack of goals impulsivity irresponsibility poor behaviour controls early behaviour problems juvenile delinquency revocation of release criminal versatility |
|
|
Procedure for PCL-R |
Semi-structured interview: can last up to four hours File and collateral information |
|
|
Antisocial Personality Disorder |
Asymmetrical relation between psychopathy and APD: psychopaths often meet the standards for APD but not all inmates that have APD are psychopaths |
|
|
Demographics and how the Change |
Age: goes down Ethnicity: Translates across Gender: Men score higher (male typical behaviours) NonCriminals: Score lower Assessment: Files alone or with interview (factor one, interaction with people) Sex Offenders Substance dependent offenders: Tend to score lower than people who are not |
|
|
Inventories |
Psychopathic personality inventory: splits it into impulsive antisocial (factor two) and fearlessness (map onto factor one but not well) Levensons self report psychopathy: Primary (factor one) Secondary (factor two) Self Report Psychopathy (SRP): Paulhus and hare - four factor model identical to four factor checklist |
|
|
Motives for Violence (homicide) |
Instrumental violence: they want something and they go get it, not necessarily provoked (planned, motivated by external goals) |
|
|
Sexual Violence |
High: sexual homicide offenders Moderate: mixed sex offenders and rapists (multiple offenses) Low: Child molesters
Rapists are opportunistic |
|
|
Recidivism |
risk instruments: violence risk appraisal guide (developed in ontario, used in North America) General: moderately correlated with psychopathy Violent: psychopathy is the best predictor of violent recidivism |
|
|
Treatment |
Does little to help Empathy or interpersonal skills may make them better preditors Less likely to complete treatment Less improvement Lower ratings from staff |
|
|
Rice, Harris and Cromier |
Therapeutic Community: treated psychopaths reoffended more than untreated psychopaths |
|
|
Hare et al. 2000 |
Britain: opposite factor that predicts psychopathy in Britain compared to here |
|
|
Victim selection |
Facial expressions and body language (walking)
|
|
|
Callous Empathy |
They have empathy, they just use a different part of the brain to process it (language centres), so they understand where its coming from and the mental state it may create but they have no emotional reaction to it Cognitive verse automatic |
|
|
Cues to vulnerability: Grayson and Stein; Book, Quinsey and Langford; Wheeler, Book, and Costello |
body language: certain types of walking, anything that was out of the norm and not fluent Facial expressions |
|
|
YOUTH: Assessment |
Antisocial Process Screening Device: Use as young as 6 years old (parent and teacher rated) older kids such as adolescents Psychopathy checklist: youth version 12-18, done by interview and file |
|
|
Finds from youth Psychopathy |
General antisocial behaviour: Academic problems Frequency and versatility Offense severity Juvenile recidivism |
|
|
PCL-R |
over 30 is considered to be a psychopath, inmates are normally around 20 deemed psychopathic prevents people from continuing in treatments or proceeding through prison procedures to get back to community as psychopaths are deemed untreatable therefore it would be a waste of resources |
|
|
Right to a Jury Trial |
Summary Offenses: Right to a judge alone, but no right to judge and jury |
|
|
Hybrid Offences |
the crown decides to pursue the case as a summary (6-15 months) or indictable offence (5 or more years) |
|
|
Characteristics of a Jury |
Representative of community and randomly selected Impartiality: Attitudinal (prejudice) and Behavioural (discrimination) |
|
|
Overcoming Bias in Jury Pool |
Adjournment Challenge for Cause |
|
|
Adjournment |
Trial is delayed so any biasing effects would dissipate (infrequently granted) |
|
|
Change of Venue |
Changing to a different community (within the same province) because the community is biased against the defendant (not often granted) |
|
|
Challenge of Cause |
Prospective jurors are questioned prior to being accepted as part of the jury (more common) Limits: Potential jurors may provide dishonest answers intentionally or unintentionally |
|
|
Scientific jury selection: US |
Use of predetermined characteristics to identify jurors who would be sympathetic or unsympathetic to the case Broad based and case specific approach |
|
|
Broad Based Approach |
evaluates potential jurors based on general traits or attitudes that are believed to impact the verdict |
|
|
Case specific Approach |
Use of a specific questionnaire about the critical aspects of the case to evaluate potential jurors then used to make profile of ideal juror - jurors are then assessed to fit this profile |
|
|
Voir Dire |
To question potential jurors |
|
|
Purpose of Voir Dire |
To educate and persuade jury get to know the jurors |
|
|
Before Voir Dire |
Mock Trials Focus groups jury consultants |
|
|
Case Analysis: themes |
Major Issues and Law Strengths and weaknesses of case pretrial publicity backgrounds, experiences and opinions of jurors |
|
|
What is Backgrounds |
Demographics Race Gender Occupation Political party |
|
|
Experiences predicting views |
Favourable view of defendant unfavourable view of defendant unfavourable view of witnesses |
|
|
Jury Functions |
Apply the law to the evidence and render a verdict of guilty or innocent regarding the defendant Act as the community conscience Protect against out of date laws |
|
|
Jury Nullification |
Juries may ignore the law and render a verdict based on different criteria - cases where the law is unfair or out of date |
|
|
Studying jurors/jury Behaviours |
Post trial interviews- high external validity Archival records - no control - high external validity Simulation techniques - mock juries, high internal validity but no real life consequences Field research - high external validity but hard to do |
|
|
Note Taking |
Some judges allow it: May improve attention span, understanding and memory of jurors |
|
|
Disregarding Evidence |
Evidence/statements that are inadmissible, juries will be instructed to disregard |
|
|
Decision making models |
Mathematical model and explanation model |
|
|
Mathematical model |
Views jury decision making as a set of mental calculations mathematical weight is assigned to each piece of evidence |
|
|
Explanation model |
evidence is organized into a coherent whole story model: involves imposing a story structure to the evidence for each verdict option |
|
|
predicting verdict variables |
Demographic Personality Attitudes Defendant Characteristics Victim Characteristics Expert Testimony Cross race effect: More likely to convict someone of a different race Attractive defendants are less likely to be convicted women are less likely than men (and lighter sentences) Experts talking in Lament terms will be considered |
|
|
Parole in Canada |
Conditional release into community High degree of supervision Return to prison if conditions are breached |
|
|
Parole decision making |
Canadian National Parole Board Eligible for parole after 1/3 of their sentence or 7 years requires a formal hearing formal risk assessment is conducted |
|
|
Parole Decision Making: Initial Assessment |
Information on current offense Criminal history Mental status Performance on Earlier releases Information from Victims |
|
|
Parole Decision Making: Second Assessment |
Institutional behaviour: infractions/solitary confinement Feasibility of release plan: what you plan to do Risk assessment: Often using VRAG |
|
|
Types of Parole |
Temporary absence: escorted or depending on their security unescorted after 1/6th of their sentence Work Release: minimum and medium security, assists with reintegration of offenders Day Parole: community or family activities they want to go to, prepare them for full parole (about six months prior to parole date) Full parole Statutory releases: after two thirds of your sentence you have to be released unless deemed very violent/dangerous |
|
|
Conditions of Parole |
Abstaining from drugs and alcohol remaining in Canada obeying the law and keeping the peace not having weapons |
|
|
Define Sentencing in Canada |
The judicial determination of a legal sanction upon a person convicted of an offence |
|
|
Purposes of Sentencing |
Specific deterrence: A learning experience for that person General deterrence: everyone else will be deterred from doing that (making an example) Denunciation: making a point about that particular offence Reparation: retribution/ financial - will make others feel better if its longer rehabilitation: having treatment programs, hoping to cure that person |
|
|
Principles of Sentencing |
Proportionate to gravity of offense proportionate to degree of responsibility (age, provoked, mental illness, didn't know what they were doing, less responsibility)
|
|
|
Principles of Sentencing: Judges |
Consider aggravation and mitigating factors use similar sentences for similar offenders/crimes use alternatives to incarceration if at all possible |
|
|
Sentencing Options in Canada |
Absolute or Conditional Discharge: release with or without conditions (minor crime) Probation: Good behaviour, appear in court, notify probation officer of any changes Fines: money or community service Conditional sentence: Served in the community and if you break the rules you go to prison Imprisonment: Last resort |
|
|
Dangerous Offender Application |
Application can be made for any offender convicted of a serious personal injury offence who constitutes a danger to others |
|
|
Faint Hope Clause |
Apply for juditial review of their dangerous offenders status to then be able to apply for parole |
|
|
Eligibility for Faint Hope Clause |
Served at least 15 years from time of arrest and (one of the two): convicted of high treason or first degree murder, or have been convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for a period greater than 15 years |
|
|
Long Term Offender Criteria |
Two or more years (followed by a period of supervision) risk of reoffending possible to eventually control that risk
|
|
|
Sentencing Disparity |
Unwarrented sentencing disparity: reliance on extra-legal factors (i.e. irrelevant) Systematic factors and unsystematic factors |
|
|
Systematic factors |
How lenient judges believe sentences should be |
|
|
Unsystematic Factors |
the mood of the judge on any particular day |
|
|
Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention |
Need Principle: focus on things that actually relate to criminal behaviour - impulsivity, case based, anger management, risk taking |
|
|
Millhaven: where to put them |
Treatment needs flight risk type of crime severity of crime criminal history mental illness |
|
|
Security levels |
Max: high risk, impulsive, protective custody and psychopaths Med: moderate Risk Min: low risk or on their way out soon (parole or release) |
|
|
Risk Assessment |
Risk viewed as a range probabilities change across time interactions among offender characteristics and situation Prediction and Management |
|
|
Civil Settings |
Civil Commitment: Submission to hospital Child protection: Assessment of risk to Children Immigration |
|
|
Types of Prediction Outcomes |
True Positive: they actually are at true risk to reoffend/correctly predicting that they will reoffend True negative: when you say they wont reoffend and they do not False Positive: when you say they will be violent and they arent False Negative: when you say they will not be violent and they are |
|
|
Base Rates |
Represent the percentage of people within a given population who commit a criminal act prediction difficult when base rates are to high or low false positives tend to occur with low base rates |
|
|
Base Rates Chart |
Sample size: N Test Accuracy: T% Base Rate: BR% Reoffend Dont Reoffend (BR% of N=n) (left overs=n) Reoffend (T% of n) (Leftovers = X ) Dont Reoffend (Leftovers) (T% of n) False positive rate: X/N=FPR |
|
|
Methodological Issues: Weaknesses |
Limited number of risk factors How criterion variable is measured (history/arrests) How criterion variable is defined (type, motivation) |
|
|
Measuring predictive accuracy |
Survival analysis Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) |
|
|
Survival Analysis |
Background: Epidemiology: What factors predict how long someone will survive with cancer Dichotomous: start off surviving and end up dead, start off not offending and end up offending |
|
|
Examples of transitions |
Single to married employed to unemployed out of jail to in jail alive to dead |
|
|
Functions: Survivor and Hazard |
Survivor: how long everyone survives (not reoffends) Hazard: Nobody failing and then end up with how ever many do fail at the end |
|
|
Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves |
Classifying individuals as likely to reoffend or not reoffend |
|
|
Classifier |
Assigns an object to one of predefined set of categories or classes |
|
|
Types of Error (Roc) |
False positive (false alarm False negative (miss) |
|
|
ROC plot |
Diagonal line is if you were accurate 50% on chance levels (coin toss) Curve falls in a straight line at the top then its 100% accurate and 100% area under the curve If curve is 3/4ths the way up its 75% under the curve |
|
|
Limits to ROC Curves |
no confidence intervals - not significant |
|
|
Judgment Error and Biases |
1. Illusory correlation: people believe that two events are correlated but they are actually not 2. Ignorance of base rates: ignore it or don't use it in decision making when thinking about risk 3. Reliance on salient or unique cues: From media for example: a certain type of person being violent and you notice they share those characteristics you might be more likely to say they are violent 4. Overconfidence in judgements: more experience= more overconfidence 5. Gender: Females are less likely to view women as high risk |
|
|
Risk Factor Definition |
measurable feature of an individual that predicts the behaviour of interest (violence) |
|
|
Types of risk factors |
Static Risk factors: (i.e. age at first arrest) Historical, Factors that can not be changed Dynamic Risk Factors: Changeable (antisocial attitude) Fluctuate over time |
|
|
Unstructured clinical judgment |
Subjective no specific risk factors risk decision rules unclear |
|
|
actuarial prediction |
Objective, empirically derived risk factors same risk factors used risk decision rules clear |
|
|
Structured professional judgment |
Compromise between Unstructured and actuarial- Risk factors derived from research literature, specific risk factors, risk decision decided by professionals |
|
|
Risk Assessment Instrument: GSIR |
Routinely used in Canada Static Risk factors Five risk categories Nature of criminal involvement how much if they have been married employment history
|
|
|
Risk Assessment Instrument: VRAG |
Developed in Ontario works under the assumption that its reactive not predatorily psychopathic checklist is most highly rated scare (up to 12 points on this one) elementary school maladjustment personality disorder age at index offence (offence they are in for now/younger=more risky) Separation from parents before age 16 failure on prior conditional release prior non-violent offenses (more types of crime = more likely to reoffend) never married schizophrenia (Negatively related NR) - less likely to offend violently victim injury (NR) more likely someone in their life (spouse, family) female victim (NR) more likely after a specific person (Wife, family member) alcohol problem
|
|
|
VRAG verse GSIR |
VRAG= best for violent GSIR= best for general |
|
|
Protective factors: that reduce or mitigate the likelihood of violence |
1. Prosocial involvement: volunteer work, spend time with family and friends 2. strong social support: it doesn't work if its a formal social network 3. Positive social orientation: teach them to be more pro-social generally and not see the world as hostile 4. Strong attachments: difficult to induce in people 5. Intelligence |
|
|
Factors of Desistance from Crime |
(why offenders stop committing crime) Age Employment Marital relationships
|
|
|
Coping-Relapse Model of Criminal Recidivism |
Precipitating event (external/dynamic: You get in trouble here, do put yourself in those situations) Cognitive and emotional appraisal (internal, dynamic or static) LEFT: Individual influences (internal, static: IQ, Physiological arousal, psychopathy score for the most part/if its treatable it wont be here) RIGHT: Response mechanisms (Internal and dynamic: how impulsive you are, addiction, anxiety disorders, they way you view the world/treatable things) BOTTOM (Previous three things all connect to it): Criminal Behaviour |
|
|
Stages of Memory |
Perception/attention Encoding short term memory long term memory retrieval |
|
|
Memory |
Recall memory - reporting details of a previous witnessed event or person Recognition memory - determining whether a perviously seen item or person is the same as what is currently being viewed (line up procedures) |
|
|
Study eye witness in the lab |
Independent: Estimator variables: present at the time of crime/ Are things that cannot be changed (age, weapon present, alcohol levels or person) System variables: can be manipulated to increase or decrease accuracy: Interview techniques police use, type of line up procedures used Dependent: event/crime recall, perpetrator recall, perpetrator recognition |
|
|
Problems with police techniques |
Interruption during open-ended recall short, specific questions questions asked in pre-determined/random order leading question |
|
|
contamination of co-witness |
Memory Conformity: when what one witness reports influences what another witness reports |
|
|
Leading Questions |
can influence witness memory and recall Loftus and Palmer (1974) variation on the question How fast cars were travelling when they (Hit) each other? later: broken glass: words impacted answer |
|
|
Misinformation effect |
When given inaccurate information after an event, a witness will incorporate that information into a subsequent recall task Misinformation acceptance hypothesis (guessing what they want to hear) source misattribution hypothesis ( two memories of event, chooses incorrect memory when asked to recall) memory impairment hypothesis (original memory replaced and no longer accessible) |
|
|
Police interview techniques |
Hypnosis -no better accuracy The cognitive interview - reinstating the context: surrounding incident, Reporting everything they can recall, reverse order, different perspective The enhanced cognitive interview - rapport building, supportive interview behaviour, transfer of control, focused retrieval, witness-compatible questioning |
|
|
supportive interview behaviours |
Supporting them, not talking over them retrieval: open ended questions, focused memory techniques asking questions that coincide with what the witness is saying at the time |
|
|
Line ups: Foils |
Foils/distractors: known to not have committed the crime similarity to suspect: similar appearance to the suspect Match to description: match the description provided by the witness |
|
|
Line up: Types |
Target present: perpetrator or suspect is included in the line up target absent: they are not included in the line up |
|
|
Photo Arrays |
less time consuming portable suspect does not have right to counsel photos are static less anxiety for witness |
|
|
Line up: Biases |
Fair Lineup: one that suggests/they dont let the suspect stand out Biased Lineup: where the suspect stands out and indicates to the witness who they should be choosing or identifying
Foil Bias: when the suspect is the only one who matches the description Clothing bias: if the suspect is the only one wearing clothing that is similar to the perpetrator instruction Bias: when the police do not tell the witness that the perp may not be present (implying he's part of the line up) |
|
|
Judgement |
Relative: Compare to each other and typically identify the one that looks most like the perpetrator Absolute: can often be done with photo arrays, make a decision on each one before seeing the next one and they do not know how many they see and can not go back - comparing photos to the memory they have |
|
|
Recognition Memory: Estimator Variables |
Age: Older people tend to make fewer correct rejections Race: Better able to remember faces of same race verse other race Weapon Focus: witness tends to focus on weapon so they remember less about perpetrator |
|
|
Childrens Recall of Events |
Accuracy of their accounts depends largely on how they are asked to recall |
|
|
factors influencing child recal |
Age Yes and no Questions |
|
|
Anatomically detailed dolls |
Would allow children to give information they would not provide orally Problems: interpretation of what they do with them is not standardized and no research |
|
|
Criterion Based Content Analysis |
Evaluates children's statements (true or fabricated) structured interview systematic analysis of child's statements application of the Statement Validity Analysis checklist |
|
|
Step wise interview |
Free recall more specific questions as needed (witness lead) consistent with what we know about their recall abilities and get accurate information (not suggestive questioning) |
|
|
Culprit descriptions |
Age: older = more details Features: will mention exterior (hair) more then they will internal features such as nose shape Height, weight, and age are frequently given but not very accurate |
|
|
Childrens Lineup identification |
Target present: just as good as adults Target absent: more likely to identify someone in this line up than adults (false identification) sequential line up: not good for children (false identification) |
|
|
Elimination Lineup |
All pictures are presented to the child and they are asked to select the one that looks most like the culprit (Relative judgement) the child is then asked to compare his or her memory to that of the photograph and determine if the person in the photograph is the culprit (absolute judgement) helps reduce the number of false identifications |
|
|
testifying in court |
demonstrate in general ability to perceive, recall and communicate Demonstrate the ability to distinguish between truth and a lie and understand the term oath (promise) |
|
|
Competency Inquiry |
Under 14 must complete for court testifying understand differences between truth and lie feel compelled to tell the truth communicate the appropriate information |
|
|
Bills |
Bill C-15: possible to convict on basis of unsworn evidence of a child, allows child witnesses and created new sex offence categories Bill C-127: evidentary rules changed (rape shield laws) |
|
|
Effects of testifying on children |
testifing could exacerbate emotional distress, prolong symptoms and create additional stresses improvements: not seeing accused, court prep, not open to public, simple language, and emotional support |
|
|
predictors of well being in children |
mothers belief in disclosure (greatest predictor) mothers actions (significant) testifying (not significant) |
