• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/29

Click to flip

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;

29 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

SIRR

Suggestive questions


Social influences


Reinforcement


Removal from direct experience

Us vs burr

The law does not require a jury without any prepossessions whatever respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused

Patton v. Yount

Passage of time does not wash memories clean. Time can even enlarge and further distort memories

MuMin v. Virginia

The constitution does not allow defendants to question prospective jurors about the specifics of pretrial publicity

Remedies of pretrial publicity

Continuance


Expanded voir dire


Judicial instruction


Imported jurors


Change of venue


Sequestering

Dusky v.us

Affirmed right to a pretrial competency evaluation

Riggins v. Nevada

Cannot force antipsychotics but state has right to otherwise treat for competency

Sell v. Us

Can forcibly medicate for competency if medically appropriate

Logan v. Us

Permitted exclusion of jurors who voiced scruples against the death penalty

Witherspoon v. Illinois

Defined scruples as voting against death penalty without considering evidence and those who's beliefs would prevent impartiality about the defendant's guilt

Tort

A wrongful act that causes harm to an individual

Proving a tort

1. One must owe another


2. One must breach a duty


3. Violation must be proximate cause of harm


4. Harm or lose must involve a legally protected right

Factors of juror tort decisions

Age and gender of plaintiffs


Fault of the plaintiff


Characteristics of defendant (companies pay more)


Reprehensibility of defendant


Amount of award requested

Disparities in sentencing

Some due to differences in laws across states


Some due to experience and attitudes of judges

Difference in black and white judges

Black judges 1.7 times more likely to incarcerate


But for slightly shorter periods of time


More similarities than differences

Do judges know the difference between good studies evidence

No. Did not take peer review into account


Judges with science backgrounds admitted the better one more


12 percent could find problems

Kansas v. Hendricks

Requires need to assess whether offender is sufficient risk to warrant civil committment



Approaches to risk assessment

Adjusted actuarial


Pure actuarial


Empirically guided clinical

Sex offender laws may

Decrease employability


Decrease likelihood of finding housing


Cause setbacks for those trying to improve


Increase stress and isolation


May increase likelihood of recidivism

Concerns with registry and notifications

Creates a community pariah


Invasion of privacy more than any other criminal act


Makes reintergration to society more difficult

Megan's Law

Sexual offenders recidivate at a uniquely high rate


Notifications will arm and inform citizens


Notifications deters sex offenders because they know others are watching

Parental risk factors for criminal behavior

1. Poor problem solving


2. Ineffective discipline


3. Lack of positive reinforcement


4. Inept monitoring

3 types of false confession

Voluntary


Coerced compliant


Coerced internalized

2 Ingredients found in Coerced internalized

A vulnerable suspect


Presentation of false incriminating evidence

Frazier v. cupp

Case that allowed deceptive tactics used by police

Mcmartin technique

Suggestive questions


Other people


Postive consequences


Negative consequences


Asked and answered


Inviting speculation



Daubert criteria

Falsifiability and empirical supported


Peer review


Reliable and accurate


Widely accepted

Critisizms of vis

Inconsistant with crime being against the state, not the individual


Contribute to inconsistant sentencing


Diverts jurors and judges from facts


Inflammatory and prejudicial

Limits of vis should be

the scope of vis


vis regarding the value of different peoples lives


Inferences about the defendant and your appropriate sentencing