Psyc317 - Final Study Guide

Front 1

3 kinds of reactions in Rape Trauma Syndrome (RTS)

Back 1

Emotional response (guilt/shame) | Disturbances in functioning (changes in sleep/eat habits, social withdrawal) | Changes in lifestyle (work, city, living, SO)

Front 2

Crisis Phase in RTS

Back 2

Lasts a few weeks and includes severe symptoms (physical, emotional/behavioral i.e. suicide, cognitive i.e. confusion/denial/shock) | Primary needs is to understand what is happening , regain control, predict, and express their feelings

Front 3

Reorganization Phase in RTS

Back 3

Long term process of recovery | Emotional effects - blaming self, shift of anger towards attacker, legal system, or loved ones | Behavioral effects - changes in relationships, social functioning, etc.

Front 4

Rape Myths in court

Back 4

(1) Women don’t mean it when they say no
(2) That the typical rape is committed by a stranger
(3) That it is impossible to rape a woman who is unwilling

Front 5

Advantages in using PTSD over RTS & BWS

Back 5

i) PTSD is already in the DSM-IV
ii) There are tests and structured interviews for assessing PTSD
iii) The use of the word “rape” could be avoided (to avoid implying that the rape did occur)

Front 6

Hypervigilance (BWS)

Back 6

heightened attentiveness to the abuser's subtle behaviors; battered learns to anticipate violent bhvr

Front 7

In order to show self-defense in BWS, the def. needs to show:

Back 7

that he or she was in danger of imminent bodily harm | that the force used to repel the attack was equal to the harm | no escape existed

Front 8

3 phase cycle of abuse

Back 8

tension building - accumulation of emo tension, minor incidents of abuse | battering - serious abuse erupting from small incidents | contrition - calm period, assaulter is remorseful, victim accepts them back

Front 9

learned helplessness (BWS)

Back 9

over time, women who endure long-term abuse become resigned to their suffering and fail to resist or leave their abuser even when they may be able to do so

Front 10

a) What does NOT apply to a Forensic Evaluation?

Back 10

i) Nurturing clients

Front 11

b) Informed Consent must:

Back 11

i) Inform individuals of limitations of confidentiality

Front 12

a) Which one is not a characteristic of police culture?

Back 12

i) Timid

Front 13

b) Which of the following is not a component of strengthening accountability?

Back 13

i) Discipline as a result outcome of mistakes committed by fellow police officers

Front 14

a) Which type of tactic is used when the Attorney presents evidence before their opponent gets the chance?

Back 14

i) Stealing Thunder

Front 15

b) What is a type of visual aid?

Back 15

i) Money/paper trails
ii) Documents with handwriting or fingerprints
iii) Phone Records
iv) All

Front 16

a) What is a common disease a hostage is likely suffers post release?

Back 16

i) PTSD

Front 17

b) What is a component of the Stockholm Syndrome?

Back 17

i) Negative feelings from hostage towards authorities and rescuers

Front 18

a) Diminished capacity is predominantly used to:

Back 18

i) Remove premediation from charges
ii) Remove criminal intent from charges
iii) Establish partial responsibility for a crime
iv) All

Front 19

b) In the Finkel study, which disorder led the highest rate of guilty verdicts for all conditions?

Back 19

i) Alcoholism

Front 20

a) In reality when should a prosecutor be confident in prosecuting their case?

Back 20

i) With probable cause and sufficient evidence

Front 21

b) In reality where does the majority of evidence come from?

Back 21

i) Witnesses and public

Front 22

12) Alternatives to Prison

Back 22

a) Probation
b) House Arrest
c) Shock Incarceration
d) Residential Community Correction Centers

Front 23

7) 4 Goals of Prisons

Back 23

Incapacitation - isolated | Deterrence - dissuading future crimes | Retribution | Rehabilitation

Front 24

(1) Aggravating Factors

Back 24

circumstances of the crime or aspects of the defendant that increase the seriousness of the crime or the culpability of the defendant

Front 25

(2) Mitigating

Back 25

circumstances surrounding a crime or characteristics of a criminal that lessen the degree of guilt or the severity of the crime

Front 26

2) Choosing a Jury (with intent of impartiality)

Back 26

a) Jury Pool—total pool
b) Venire (aka panel)—people randomly drawn from jury pool are summoned to court
c) Voir Dire (“to see and tell”, “to speak the truth”)

Front 27

(1) Challenges for cause

Back 27

(a) When a lawyer claims the jury cannot be impartial because of bias or prejudice
(b) ~ Belief they are racist
(c) ~ Maybe they are a police officer or know one

Front 28

(2) Peremptory challenges

Back 28

(a) Empowers the lawyer with the ability to dismiss a juror without a reason
(b) Power to do so is very limited, only get a handful of chances to do so

Front 29

c) Similarity Leniency Hypothesis

Back 29

i) Similarity helps but only if crime wasn’t shameful; we tend to give similar defendants the benefit of a doubt
(1) If shameful, we distance ourselves from people who appear similar to us; if minority jurors are outnumbers, they seem to treat the defendant harsher to disassociate themselves and save face

Front 30

e) Personality Traits with actual associations to verdicts (3)

Back 30

i) Locus of Control – How people explain what happens to them
ii) Belief in a Just World – How strongly you believe that the world in just
Authoritarianism
(a) Conventional vales and rigid beliefs
(b) Identify with and submit to authority
(c) Suspicious of those who violate norms

Front 31

1) Four decision-making models

Back 31

i) Mathematical Models
(1) Probabilistic approach
(2) Algebraic approach
(3) Stochastic process model
ii) Cognitive Based
(1) Story Model

Front 32

2) Story Model

Back 32

i) evaluate evidence through story construction,
ii) learn verdict category attributes,
iii) Reach decision by matching story to best verdict category.

Front 33

c) The story is based on:

Back 33

i) evidence presented at trial
ii) personal knowledge about the event
iii) Knowledge about story structures.

Front 34

d) A story will be accepted when it has:

Back 34

i) Coverage
(1) All of the evidence fits into the story |
ii) coherence
(1) story is consistent, complete, and plausible |
iii) uniqueness
(1) no other story fits |
iv) goodness of fit
(1) refers to the idea that the story matches one of the verdict options

Front 35

a) Liberation hypothesis

Back 35

i) When evidence is not convincing jurors, they are liberated from the constraints of evidence

Front 36

i) Ironic Processes

Back 36

white bear” phenomenon. Avoiding thinking about something is too difficult for humans
(2) ~Don’t think about white bears. Whatcha thinking about? White bears.
(3) Sometimes amplifies impact on jurors

Front 37

ii) Hearsay

Back 37

(1) Easy to disregard, unless prior conviction evidence is shown

Front 38

iii) Reactance Theory

Back 38

(1) Jurors do not like to be told what to do, especially when not told why
(2) Jurors want to retain freedom as a juror

Front 39

c) Pretrial Publicity

Back 39

i) Pro prosecution bias
ii) Venue change helps with smaller cases
iii) More exposure, more likely to presume guilt

Front 40

i) leniency bias

Back 40

(1) if no clear majority, you tend to lead to the defense
(2) conformity

Front 41

(1) Unanimous juries tend to

Back 41

(a) deliberate for a longer amount of time
(b) spend more time discussing evidence and the law
(c) require a greater number of polls to reach a verdict
(d) Be more likely to agree that justice occurred
(e) More likely to be certain of defendant’s guilt (if convicted)

Front 42

d) Jury Size

Back 42

(1) 12-person juries (contrary to conventional wisdom, more is better)
(a) deliberate longer, recall evidence more accurately, generate more arguments, agree more on their ratings of jury performance, are more representative of the community, and produce more consistent verdicts
(2) 6-person juries
(a) kind of set up a majority to occur

Front 43

i) Verdict-driven

Back 43

(1) Leads jurors to sort the evidence into categories supporting conviction or acquittal.
(2) Focus on obtaining votes
(3) Spend more time voting and less time discussing evidence. Also, jurors are less satisfied with verdict-driven
(4) Also, groupthink is more likely to happen
(a) Groupthink occurs when members share strong motivation to achieve consensus that they lose the ability to evaluate alternative points of view critically

Front 44

ii) Evidence-driven

Back 44

(1) first vote is postponed until after there has been careful, systematic discussion of evidence
(2) Focus on evidence first, then discuss verdict

Front 45

g) Normative Social Influence

Back 45

i) Conform because you want to be liked
ii) More common in 6-person juries, non-unanimous juries, and verdict driven juries

Front 46

h) Informational Social Influence

Back 46

i) Conform because you want to be correct
ii) More common in 12-person, unanimous, and evidence driven juries

Front 47

i) Research on Norm/Informational

Back 47

i) Mock juries asked to make a more fact-based decision tended to rely on informational influence in the form of factual arguments; when asked to make a more subjective, value-laden decision, they tended to rely on normative influence

Front 48

b) Allowing Jury Discussions

Back 48

i) Jurors said it helped them understand evidence
ii) No observable differences in understanding, verdicts, etc.
iii) More conflict and less unanimity in discussion juries than no-discussion.

Front 49

a) Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993)

Back 49

(1) Falsifiability
(a) Is it possible to be proven false? Is it refutable?
(2) Error rate
(a) Must know the probability of being wrong
(b) What are the known percentages of wrong
(3) Peer review
(a) Doing so establishes credibility
(4) General acceptance
(a) Are the findings generally accepted by the scientific community?

Front 50

4) Ultimate Issue Testimony

Back 50

a) An expert can testify what they know generally, cannot apply it to the defendant or witness.

Front 51

6) What Impact do Experts have on Jurors?

Back 51

(a) When it is complex, we are more likely to rely on heuristics
(b) Technical jargon over complexity tends to lead jurors to heuristics

Front 52

c) Dusky v. United States (1960)

Back 52

ii) ~ Has to be able to interact with the attorney rationally & has to know how the court processes work

Front 53

e) Presumption of CST

Back 53

i) Defendants are presumed to be competent unless proven otherwise, defense bears the burden of proof

Front 54

i) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Second Edition (MMPI-2)

Back 54

(1) Widely used psychological test in CST evaluations, 567 true/false questions
(2) Examines psychological distress, symptoms, and possible diagnosis; but does not examine understanding of the legal system or ability to consult with attorneys
(3) Can be used to compare past results with precedent results

Front 55

ii) Competency Screening Test

Back 55

(1) 22 item sentence completion task
(2) LEADS TO A LOT OF FALSE POSITIVES
(a) Perhaps due to anxiety

Front 56

c) Adjudicative Competence

Back 56

i) A term used to capture the various types of abilities needed to participate effectively in all stages of the legal process

Front 57

(1) Foundational competence

Back 57

the capacity to assist counsel, essential for ensuring the fairness, dinity, and accuracy of the criminal justice system

Front 58

(2) Decisional competence

Back 58

capacity to make informed, independent decisions

Front 59

7) MacArthur Structured Assessment of Competencies of Criminal Defendants (MacSAC-CD)

Back 59

a) Hypothetical vignettes which test foundational and decisional competence
i) Defendant is given a scenario and asked how he/she would assist the counsel

Front 60

a) Mc’Naughton Rule (cognitive focus)

Back 60

i) A cognitive test to determine whether the suspect knew what he did or didn’t; burden of responsibility
(1) Assumes sanity at start
(2) At the moment of crime, defective reason must have been present
(3) Defendant has to know what they did was right/wrong

Front 61

iii) Irresistible impulse (added component) (elbow rule)

Back 61

(1) Right/wrong not understood, crime would have been committed if cop held suspect by elbow

Front 62

iv) Volitional Capacity

Back 62

(1) Inability to control his/her behavior

Front 63

b) Durham Standard

Back 63

i) One cannot be held responsible if an unlawful action is the product of mental disease or defect
(1) Observes mental illness as a possible cause of criminal behavior
(2) Did the illness cause the behavior?

Front 64

(1) ALI Standard (Brawner Rule)

Back 64

(a) Have to prove disease directly influences the crime
(i) Allowed a stricter evaluation, prevented people (serial killers with antisocial behavior) from abusing the Durham Standard
(b) a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

Front 65

c) Hinckley Case (Taxi Driver)(tried to assassinate Reagan for girl)

Back 65

i) NGRI
(1) Even prosecution stated that he was mentally disturbed
ii) Public outrage bc he was from a rich family
iii) Burden of Proof shift
(1) The prosecution had to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the defendant was sane

Front 66

d) Insanity Defense Reform Act

Back 66

i) Made it more difficult to acquit defendants using the insanity defense
ii) Affirmative Defense
(1) Shifted the burden of proof to the defense to prove insanity
iii) Experts no longer allowed to give “ultimate issue testimony”
(1) Ultimate testimony – can disclose research, but cannot apply to defendant/plaintiff
(2) They would not be allowed to state whether the defendant was sane at the time of the crime
iv) Removed irresistible impulse test

Front 67

GBMI

Back 67

i) Sent to a mental hospital until judged to be sane; Then transferred to prison to serve the rest of their sentence
ii) No guarantee of effective treatment
(1) Can regress in prison and treatment difficult if regression occurs
b) Gives jurors an alternative to NGRI verdict

Front 68

6) Mens Rea Defenses

Back 68

a) Diminished Capacity (getting convicted of a lesser offense) because …
i) First degree murder requires acknowledgement of murder, premeditation; thus…
ii) Second degree murder/involuntary manslaughter is a more likely conviction because these crimes require a lesser intent on the part of the defendant
b) Prosecution has the burden of proving mens rea
i) Can argue that the defendant lacked the mental capacity to form the specific intent to kill

Front 69

a) Research comparing the different legal standards(Rita Simon)

Back 69

i) Jurors translated the language of the instructions into whatever was consistent with their own understanding of insanity
ii) This is why the different kinds of insanity defense have different results

Front 70

8) Frequency of the Defense

Back 70

a) It is used in less than 1% of felony trials
i) When it is used, it fails 74% of the time!
b) The public believes it is most commonly used in murder cases
i) Less than 1/3 of insanity pleas involve the death of a victim!
c) When defendants plead NGRI, if they are found guilty, they often serve longer sentences than people who committed similar crimes but did not plead insanity

Front 71

c) Non Compos Mentis (without mastery of mind)

Back 71

i) Mens Rea (mastery of mind)
(1) Guilty mind that accompanies wrongful behavior
ii) Actus Rea
(1) Committing a criminal act