Psych & Law Midterm

Front 1

principle of proportionality

Back 1

punishment should be consistently related to the magnitude of the offense

Front 2

determinate sentencing

Back 2

the offense should determine the sentencing; little discretion for judges (emerged from sentencing disparity due to racial bias)

Front 3

distributive justice

Back 3

perceptions of fairness are about outcomes, and equal distributin of them

Front 4

procedural justice

Back 4

perceptions of fairness are about fair legal procedures, regardless of favorable outcomes

Front 5

amicus curiae brief

Back 5

"friend of the court," formal reports of relevant psych info for trials

Front 6

precedent

Back 6

ruling from a previous case

Front 7

case law

Back 7

law made by judges in individual cases

Front 8

stare decisis

Back 8

"let the decision stand," tendency to follow precedents

Front 9

Rulings of the Tarasoff case

Back 9

1) Psychotherapists must warn potential idenifiable victims of potential danger 2) Psychotherapists must work to protect all third parties from dangerous patients

Front 10

due process model

Back 10

seeks protection of citizens, including criminal suspects, from abuses of legal authorities generally. Values individual rights.

Front 11

crime control model

Back 11

seeks apprehension and punishment of lawbreakers. Values the common good.

Front 12

how psychology perceives legal proceedings

Back 12

- Rely on SCIENTIFIC METHOD
- Use PROBABILITIES
- Work toward REFIND VIEW OF REALITY

Front 13

how law perceives legal proceedings

Back 13

- Rely on PRECEDENTS
- Use ABSOLUTES
- ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM pits two "truths" against each other

Front 14

forensic evaluator

Back 14

health professional who assesses the mental health conditions of a specific individual

Front 15

what constitutes an ethical forensic evaluation? (6)

Back 15

1) CLARITY in purpose 2) COMPETENCE in training 3) RESPECT of relationships 4) CONFIDENTIALITY 5) appropriate METHODS 6) effective COMMUNICATION

Front 16

trial consultant

Back 16

social scientist that promotes more effective performance in litigation ex) by creating better systems of jury selection

Front 17

adversarial approach

Back 17

competitive, partisan, witnesses are for one side or the other, attorneys ask the questions

Front 18

inquisitorial approach

Back 18

witnesses testify for the court, no witness-prepping, judges have more control and ask the questions

Front 19

civil cases

Back 19

resolve disputes between private parties and dispense monetary compensation

Front 20

criminal cases

Back 20

resolve disputes between citizens and the state, dispense guilt and punishment

Front 21

venire

Back 21

a panel of prospective jurors, btw 30 and 200 people

Front 22

voir dire

Back 22

process of questioning and selecting 12 jurors from the venire

Front 23

procedural steps in a trial

Back 23

1) Opening statements 2) Direct examination 3) Cross examintion 4) Redirect 5) Recross 6) Closing statements

Front 24

criminal case standard of proof

Back 24

defendant must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 25

civil case standard of proof

Back 25

preponderance of the evidence (51%)

Front 26

Trial advantages for prosecution (2)

Back 26

1) Governmental resources 2) Primacy and recency effect of opening and closing statements

Front 27

Trial advantages for defense (4)

Back 27

1) Discovery -- sees prosecution's evidence 2) more say in juror removal 3) no burden of proof 4) double jeopardy

Front 28

Blakely v. Washington

Back 28

judges cannot increase a standard sentence based on perceived aggravating factors

Front 29

common characteristics of school shooters

Back 29

- preoccupation with violence and guns
- rejection from classmates
- suffered teasing due to physical appearance
- communicated plans for aggression

Front 30

classical school of criminology

Back 30

emphasizes free will; people choose crime when its gains outweigh its losses; punishment should fit the crime

Front 31

positivist school of criminology

Back 31

focuses on using scientific method to identify factors that predict criminal behavior, including sociological, biological, psychological, and environmental factors; punishment should fit criminal behavior rather than the crime

Front 32

biological factors that influence crime (5)

Back 32

1) low MAO-A combind w/ child maltreatment 2) neuropsychological abnormalities, including EEG irregularities and prefrontal cortex damage 3) slow levels of autonomic arousal 4) physiological differences, incuding high levels of testosterone and low levels of serotonin 5) personality differences

Front 33

theories on psychopathy (3)

Back 33

1) impaired executive function in the left hemisphere 2) stimulation-seeking theory 3) dysfunctional family, including distant parents and parents who are inconsistent w/ rewards and punishments

Front 34

containment theory (Walter Reckless)

Back 34

crime is controled by external containment (a society that encourages discipline and positive accomplishments, and discourages deviance) and some inner containment as well (tolerate frustration, have long-term goals)

Front 35

Eysenck's containment theory

Back 35

innate biological tendencies reinforce by socialization practices. Operant learning encourages crime by making punishments long delayed and satisfaction immediate; classical conditioning must help children develop conscience early on.

Front 36

differential association approach (Sutherland)

Back 36

people learn to be criminals by becoming integrated into a system that values law-breaking and by forming definitions that favor law violation. **Explains how crime appears in unlikely places

Front 37

social learning theory (Bandura...3 models)

Back 37

people become criminals through vicarious learning, in which they model 1) familial influences 2) subcultural influences 3) symbols, as in violent TV shows **but little empirical evidence

Front 38

self-reinforcement

Back 38

form of regulating behavior in which individuals derive pleasure, pride, revenge, etc. from crime and so are motivated to continue

Front 39

self-exoneration

Back 39

form of regulating behavior in which individuals exempt themselves from their own conscience, often by blaming victims for misfortune or justifying their aggression

Front 40

multiple component learning theory (6)

Back 40

1) net ratio of gains and losses for criminal vs. noncriminal behavior 2) time discounting, resulting in inability to delay gratification 3) constituional factors 4) familial influences such as poor parenting styles 5) conduct problems such as ADD 6) biological tendencies

Front 41

social labeling theory

Back 41

states that stigma of being labeled as a deviant can create self-fulfilling prophecies **but does not really explain causes of crime

Front 42

examples of antecedent conditions to crime

Back 42

Criminal parents, brain damage

Front 43

examples of early indicators of crime

Back 43

Conduct disorders, ineffective parental discipline

Front 44

examples of development processes that contribute to crime

Back 44

Media influence, school failure

Front 45

examples of maintenance variables for crime

Back 45

Deviant peers, social labeling

Front 46

criteria for admissible evidence

Back 46

probative value (relevance, trustworthiness) must outweigh any potential prejudicial effects.

Front 47

Neil v. Biggers standard

Back 47

eyewitness must be sufficiently reliable given the toality of the circumstances

Front 48

Frye standard

Back 48

expert testinomy must be based on methods that have gained general acceptance in the relevant field

Front 49

Daubert standard

Back 49

scientific knowledge must assist the trier of fact, and only SCIENTIFICALLY VALID knowledge would do so. Criteria: testable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed, accepted. **Does not need to meet ALL critera; trial judge serves as "gatekeeper" of evidence

Front 50

pros and cons of experimental studies on eyewitnesses

Back 50

ground truth helps establish cause-and-effect relations because experimenter knows exactly what eyewitness saw. But may not apply to real world circumstances.

Front 51

pros and cons of archival analysis on eyewitnesses

Back 51

uses real life situations, unlike experimental studies. But it cannot explain WHY misidentifications hapen.

Front 52

pros and cons of field studies of eyewitnesses

Back 52

studies real life procedures, so more ecologically valid. But cannot distinguish correct from incorrect identifications because doesn't know whether suspect is guilty or not.

Front 53

system variables

Back 53

factors under control of the criminal justice system. Ex) lineup procedures

Front 54

estimator variables

Back 54

factors outside control of the CJS, and whose impact can only be estimated. Ex) lighting conditions at the crime scene.

Front 55

postdiction variables

Back 55

factors that measure some process correlated with reliability. Ex) witness confidence

Front 56

cue-utilization theory

Back 56

high arousal leads to narrowing of attention to the most salient or relevant features **explains weapon focus

Front 57

unconscious transference

Back 57

when accurate memories from a prior experience intrude on the memory of the crime. Ex) A bank teller who witnessed a robbery might identify an innocent client at the bank whom he has seen before.

Front 58

physiognomic variability

Back 58

the tendency for members of different races to be physically distinct in different ways. Ex) more variation in hair color among whites

Front 59

In-group/out-group differences

Back 59

we are so concerned with categorizing someone of a different race that we miss the opportunity to properly encode their most distinguishing features

Front 60

characteristics of a standard police interview

Back 60

relies on pre-established questions with no room for flexibility or follow-up, operates w/ repeated interruptions and time constraints.

Front 61

characteristics of a cognitive interview

Back 61

develops rapport, lets witness speak first, and finally probes with more specific questions about event. Relies on witness mentally reconstructing the event.

Front 62

simultaneous lineups

Back 62

forces witnesses to make relative judgments, results in more mistaken identifications (or false positives)

Front 63

sequential lineups

Back 63

forces witnesses to make absolute judgments, results in fewer identifications altogether (decreases false positives and false negatives)

Front 64

why do jurors tend to overestimate the accuracy of eyewitnesses? (3)

Back 64

1) positive stereotypes about memory credibility in general 2) fundamental attribution error assumes that testimony reflects memory quality, and has nothing to do with lineup administration 3) overreliance on eyewitness confidence.

Front 65

PRO expert testimony arguments (3)

Back 65

1) a lot of good, reliable science 2) could help jury distinguish between accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses 3) experts are still subject to cross examination

Front 66

CON expert testimony arguments (3)

Back 66

1) not all science is ecologically valid 2) could make jury doubt all eyewitnesses 3) lawyers may not know how to cross examine such an expert

Front 67

ACE study methodology and conclusions (2)

Back 67

survey to 17,000 middle-aged middle-class Americans, self-reports of how many adverse childhood experiences (0-9) and how many health risks / negative health outcomes. Concluded that: 1) ACEs are very common 2) More ACEs = more health problems, especially suicide.

Front 68

Widom study methodology and conclusions (3)

Back 68

followed 900 individuals who had been abused/neglected as children, then matched them with about 700 children in comparison group. Concluded that: 1) A/N group more likely to have been arrested, and for violent crime 2) A/N group more likely to suffer emotional issues like dysthymia 3) Differences no longer significant when stressful life events were controlled

Front 69

4 reasons for growing victims' rights movement

Back 69

1) emergence of victimology as a field 2) more victims services 3) more opportunities for victims to partake in victimizers’ trials 4) new focus due to journals and commissions.

Front 70

PTSD symptoms (4)

Back 70

1) frequent re-experiencing of event 2) avoidance of stimuli associated with trauma 3) deadening of emotions 4) increased physiological arousal

Front 71

prevalence rate of PTSD for men and women

Back 71

Men: 3.6%
Women: 9.7%

Front 72

PTSD rate for women whose trauma was related / unrelated to crime

Back 72

Related: 26%
Unrelated: 9%

Front 73

competence

Back 73

witness meets qualifications to be a witness, determined by the judge

Front 74

credibility

Back 74

weight given to a competent witness’s testimony, determined by the jury

Front 75

criteria determining competence of witness (4)

Back 75

1) understand the oath 2) perceive events accurately 3) encode events accurately 4) verbalize memory and answer questions

Front 76

procedure of the investigative interview used with children (4)

Back 76

1) build rapport 2) have children tell the story in their own words 3) use open-ended questions to promote free recall 4) use more specific questions based on responses

Front 77

reminiscence effect

Back 77

tendency to recall more information with repeated recall attempts

Front 78

types of memory content that are more or less vulnerable to suggestion (in children)

Back 78

more: details of the scene
less: temporal order of events, events about which they have greater knowledge

Front 79

what is the purpose of Miranda?

Back 79

avoid he-said she-said conflict by securing suspect’s right against self-incrimination

Front 80

why can waivers of Miranda rights be problematic?

Back 80

interrogators may assume their guilt, ask guilt-presumptive questions, and use evidence ploys to trick innocent suspects into confessing

Front 81

evidence of Miranda being "whittled away" (3)

Back 81

1) some confessions that violate Miranda may still be used at trial 2) Miranda does not apply unless the suspect is in custody 3) Miranda does not apply unless the suspect is being interrogated

Front 82

4 ways to be sure that a false confession is a true false confession

Back 82

1) suspect confesses to a crime that didn’t occur 2) suspect confesses to a crime that it was physically impossible for her to have committed 3) the actual perpetrator is apprehended, and his guilt is objectively established 4) scientific DNA that establishes confessor’s innocence

Front 83

pre-interrogation police strategies (4)

Back 83

1) Disarm the suspect by acting kindly 2) physically and socially isolate suspect 3) soften up suspect by using flattery, rapport building, etc. 4) minimize importance of Miranda

Front 84

What is minimization? 5 examples

Back 84

help the subject save face by 1) justifying his actions 2) decreasing his guilt 3) expressing empathy 4) minimizing seriousness of the crime 5) appealing to his honor

Front 85

What is maximization? 4 examples.

Back 85

intimidate subjects into confession by 1) confronting them with real or false evidence 2) accusing them of lying 3) identifying inconsistencies in their stories 4) emphasizing the seriousness of the crime

Front 86

Feld's statistics on maximization / minimization in juvenile interrogations

Back 86

Minimization: 45%
Maximization: 89%

Front 87

Frazier v. Cupp confession standard

Back 87

jvoluntariness of confession must be judged by the totality of the circumstances…fabricated evidence does not necessarily violate due process

Front 88

police use of fabricated evidence

Back 88

most powerful interrogation tool. Police may: lie about fingerprints and video cameras, state that other accomplices have turned them in, and point to signs of nonverbal behavior that indicate guilt

Front 89

three types of false confessions

Back 89

1) voluntary - people want notoriety, want to protect someone else, or can’t distinguish fact from fiction. Lindbergh kidnapping. 2) Compliant: confessor believes that short-term benefits of confessing outweigh long-term consequences. Central park jogger. 3) Internalized: suspect distrusts his own memory as a result of manipulative interrogation techniques. Michael Crowe.

Front 90

fundamental attribution error w/ regard to confessions

Back 90

juries attribute confessions to stable, internal factors of the individual rather than out-of-control outside forces like the interrogation

Front 91

interrogation recording's effect on perception

Back 91

when just suspect’s face is recorded, he seems guiltier due to ILLUSORY CAUSATION. Back-and-forth between suspect and interrogator forces people to perceive external factors of the situation.

Front 92

UK interrogations

Back 92

Goal is to obtain information about the crime, rather than a confession. Not allowed to lie about evidence. Some studies say that this setup produces more true confessions and fewer false confessions than American way.