Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
87 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Forensic Psychology
|
is the application of the science and profession of psychology to questions and issues relating to law and the legal system
the word "forensic" comes from the Latin word "forensis," meaning "of the forum," where the law courts of ancient Rome were held today forensic refers to the application of scientific principles and practices to the adversary process where specially knowledgeable scientists play a role |
|
|
The Practice of Forensic Psychology
|
psychological evaluation and expert testimony regarding criminal forensic issues such a trial competency, waiver of Miranda rights, criminal responsibility, death penalty mitigation, battered woman syndrome, domestic violence, drug dependence, and sexual disorders
testimony and evaluation regarding civil issues such as personal injury, child custody, employment discrimination, mental disability, product liability, professional malpractice, civil commitment and guardianship assessment, treatment and consultation regarding individuals with a high risk for aggressive behavior in the community, in the workplace, in treatment settings and in correctional facilities |
|
|
Individual vs. Social Interest
|
gradual shift of legal interpretation to accommodate the necessary interdependence of a complex society
self-incrimination 2nd amendment interpretations interstate commerce clause |
|
|
Due Process Model vs. Crime Control Model
|
also relates to efficiency versus fairness concerns
psychologist often examined deviations from due process, less often deviations from crime control |
|
|
NUDGES Choice Architecture as a Useful Integration of Individual & Social Interest
|
libertarian: preserves individual freedom
paternalist: advance socially optimal ends |
|
|
Equality vs. Discretion
|
psychologist occupy poor rhetorical position in their assessment of legal practice with respect to this tension
criticize judge/juror inconsistencies criticize mandatory sentencing for lack of discretion |
|
|
Truth-Seeking vs. Conflict Resolution
|
adversarial legal structure is presumed to advance inquisitorial (truth-seeking) goals, indirectly, while directly advancing efficiency/expediency goals (conflict resolution)
quasi-inquisitorial research paradigm directly purses truth, but implicitly engenders adversarial approaches legal precedents also put experts in adversarial positions |
|
|
Precedent vs. Empiricism as Authority
|
psycholegal researchers cringe at some of the "wrong" but dominant legal precedents in US jurisprudence
legal practitioners scowl at researchers' meddling back-seat-driverism in trying to change aspects of the legal system (for ends they may not even share) |
|
|
Power of the Situation
|
norms: situations influence our expectations and judgments about others' behaviors
situational factors can: impair perceptual accuracy of eyewitnesses alter memories of witnesses & suspects after the fact affect juror analysis independent of facts |
|
|
Interaction of Person and Situation
|
diathesis-stress model for mental illness
vulnerable persons & powerful situations false confessions: children, low IQ, mental illness powerful enough situations, vulnerable persons |
|
|
Psychology/Research Culture
|
internal competition through theoretical advance
external advocates of innovation & truth-seeking |
|
|
Legal/Practitioner Culture
|
structural competition: adversarial model
external resistance to "meddling" in pursuit of optimal decision-making |
|
|
Social Influence
|
the great danger of our susceptibility to social influence is the legal system's willingness to pretend we're not susceptible to it
confessions from direct & blunt coercion inadmissible; indirect & subtle coercion OK influence by police offers on witnesses relatively ignored cultural dismissal of social influence's power |
|
|
Idiosyncratic Cognitive Processes
|
jury decision-making (dm)
suspect DM under interrogation police DM (enforcement goals) expert DM - just a susceptible to biases, possibly more knowledgeable about bias |
|
|
The Role of Expectation
|
confirmation bias in lie detection, eyewitness perception, interrogation, etc.
|
|
|
The Cognitive Interview
|
the cognitive interview for eyewitnesses
incorporates psychological concepts to improve the quality of information provided by witnesses attends to social dynamics, memory retrieval principles, cognitive limitations, and communication barriers |
|
|
Social Dynamic
|
establishing rapport
get the suspects involved in relating his/her own motivation perspective on the even in question allows rationalization increase detail of truthful accounts |
|
|
Memory & Cognitive Principles
|
engage in repeated memory search: repeated recounting the even from different perspectives
more difficult to maintain false accountant under cognitive load |
|
|
Communication
|
only strategically share privileged investigative details with a suspect
search for critical discrepancies between suspect account under load and privileged info |
|
|
Negotiations PACT Model
|
Power Balance
Accountability to Process Cooperative Mindset (Mild) Time Pressure |
|
|
What is the goal of negotiation in the PACT model?
|
an integrative "win-win" solution
|
|
|
What is the analogous goal interrogation?
|
accurate information about a come
a common assumption about criminal suspects: they have some suppressed motive to confess, to be honest, to openly justify their behavior one possible "negotiation" outcome suspect provides useful/incrimination information, while interrogator empathizes, understands, justifies the action |
|
|
Interrogation Skills
|
Where do interviewers learn their interrogation practices?
Social Learning (a la Bandura & Bobo) Direct Experience & Interpretation Textbooks/Scientific Models |
|
|
Social Learning
|
recall richard thaler (NUDGE author) and his use of the paris subway tickets
observant others can learn the same mistaken belief seeing it work is sufficient reinforcement similarly, interview techniques are learned on-the-job from senior colleagues consequences: nonscientific lay theories of interrogation practice can be perpetuated |
|
|
Direct Experience
|
interviewers can learn by doing
consequence: initial outcomes are more influential than broad patterns the "decision-aid" problem: we prefer using our own judgment, even against superior but standardized approaches that remove human judgment |
|
|
Basis of the Reid Technique
|
controversial: involves coercive interrogation techniques and letter search for "truth" during interrogation
|
|
|
Inbau et. al (1986) - A Controversial Approach
|
isolate: use a private, sound-insulated room
minimize suspect's sense of control: isolation invade personal space keep thermostats, etc beyond reach maximize suspect's tension: isolated, unfamiliar surrounds uncomfortable chairs (armless, etc) sensory deprivation and social isolation |
|
|
Inbau et. al's (1986) Nine Steps
|
1. Confront suspect with guilt
2. Develop "themes" to justify crime 3. Interrupt denials 4. Overcome suspect's objections to charges 5. Prevent suspect from tuning out (but maintain passivity) 6. Show sympathy & understanding; encourage suspect to "tell the truth" 7. Offer explanations for action that save face 8. Get suspect to recount details 9. Convert into written confession |
|
|
2. Develop "themes" to justify crime
|
1. Sympathize
2. Reduce feelings of guilt, minimize 3. Suggest more acceptable motivations 4. Sympathize 5. Appeal to pride 6. Point out possible exaggerations by accuser 7. Point out consequences and futility of continued criminal behavior |
|
|
4. Overcome suspect's objections to charges
|
1. Recognize
2. Reward 3. Turn it around |
|
|
Reid Technique
|
claim that various cues distinguish denials by guilty and innocent suspect
innocent: gives concise & direct answer (no fear of being trapped) sits upright but not stiff, faces interrogator guilty: non-eye contact over polite |
|
|
Maximization/Minimization
|
maximization, aka "Scare Tactics": overstate seriousness of offense, magnitude of charge, weight of evidence
minimizations: aka "Soft Sell": sympathy, tolerance, victim-blaming, face-saving, and downplaying magnitude of charges note: confessions due to threats of harsh punishment or promises of leniency are thrown out confession due to implied harsh punishment or implied leniency are just fine |
|
|
Kassin & McNall (1991)
|
max/min tactics (implied outcomes) change sentencing expectations as much as direct threats or promises
|
|
|
Bad Interrogation Techniques
|
loss of faith in justice system
normalization of bad techniques false confessions |
|
|
3 Dangers with Confession Evidence
|
police regularly use deception and coercion
police methods can lead to innocents confessing juries do not discount coercion as a factor when coerced confessions are presented in court |
|
|
Lie Detection
|
lie detection shows the same failings:
we can have intuitions about what cures signify lying but they aren't very accurate but they affect how we try to display truthfulness to other |
|
|
Confirmation Bias
|
we preferentially seek information that confirms out initial expectations
out expectations also affect our judgments about whether people are lying we've discussed motivation and ability as the two factors necessary to engage in a controlled (versus automatic) process lying can be considered a controlled process |
|
|
Assumptions
|
lying involves a change in physiological state (arousal, brain patterns, etc)
changes in physiological state can be measured objectively alternate causes for physiological change be ruled |
|
|
Lying Involves Changes in Physiological State
|
Sweat
Heart Rate Voice Stress Blood Flow Patterns in Brain (fMRI) |
|
|
Requirements for Physiological Measures
|
cooperative suspect: willing to submit to Polygraph/fMRI (without fudging response)
instrument (consider fMRI operating costs) individual baseline measurements |
|
|
Lie Detections & The Bogus Pipeline
|
social psych historical study:
participants were hooked up to a big machine, described as giving researches a "direct pipeline" into the mind participants told the truth because they believed that any lie would be detected original use: concealed racism |
|
|
Lie Detection as a Prop
|
there are few conditions under which deception ONLY and RELIABLY affects a particular physiological indicator
instead, use physio measures to "encourage" truth-telling |
|
|
Behavioral Lie Detection Techniques
|
lying is correlated with specific behavioral indicators (i.e, "tells")
these behavioral indicators can be observed or otherwise detached alternate causes for such behavior can be ruled out |
|
|
Lay Theories of Behavioral Cues to Lying
|
What people think indicated deception?
Covering mouth/nose, scratching neck Extra blinking, averted gaze Putting objects between self and other Evasion, changing subject, non responses Nervousness, stuttering, hesitations |
|
|
Some Validated Behavioral Cues to Lying
|
speech errors: fewer for easy lies, more difficult lies
nervousness: depends on stakes & expectancy of being caught narrative descriptions: more pallid, more logical and structured more restrained behavioral cues |
|
|
Accuracy in Detecting Deception
|
everyone is generally inaccurate
laypeople tend to perceive truthfulness police are more confident and perceive more deception |
|
|
Elkman: Basic Emotion and Micro-Expressions
|
theory that humans tend to display about six basic emotions, which are essentially universal to the species
attempts to conceal these emotions are not fully effective "micro-expressions" are detectable with training |
|
|
Cognitive Lie Detection Techniques
|
assumptions:
lying (convincingly) is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth liars will also expend more resources on appearing to be honest, and on monitoring the investigator's reactions for suspicion when cognitive resources are taxed, performance suffered for demanding tasks cognitive resources can be reliably taxed in order to more easily detect lies via behavioral or physiological indicators |
|
|
Impose Cognitive Load to Detect Deception
|
ask for story to be told in reverse order
ask to maintain eye contact (it's distracting) generally, make additional demands on the interviewee's cognitive processes |
|
|
Strategic Questions Approach
|
try to ask unanticipated questions to elicit more spontaneous lies containing more cues to deceit
ask those questions again: spontaneous lies will be poorly recalled, less consistent ask for spatial detail & sketches, both are often unanticipated by liars, so may be pallid and inconsistent |
|
|
SUE: Strategic Use of Evidence
|
guilty suspects have unique knowledge of crime and crime scene; they need to avoid sharing it
ask questions about evidence known to police guilty suspects will attempt avoidance or deception regarding guilty knowledge avoidance is a sue; deception is detectable innocents will be more forthcoming |
|
|
False Confessions
|
attribution: we try to explain the causes of observed behavior
memory: it's mushy and it tends to change rational cognition: we don't always use it social influence: we're strongly influenced by behavior, testimony, & expectations of others each of these is a potential reason why people might confess to crimes they didn't commit |
|
|
Norms and Social Influence
|
three types of social influence:
conformity compliance obedience two types of norms: injunctive descriptive |
|
|
Norm
|
the expected behavior in a particular setting or circumstance
|
|
|
Descriptive Norm
|
what people commonly do
information about likely effective behavior |
|
|
Injunctive Norm
|
what people should do, what they approve/disapprove
information about social sanctions on behavior |
|
|
Norms & PSA
|
social influence is more powerful when the norms are aligned
interrogation context: we know what happened all the evidence says you're guilty (like a descriptive norm) your family wants you to come clean (like an injunctive norm) memory errors & compliance both bend toward confession |
|
|
3 Dangers with Confession Evidence
|
police regularly use deception & coercion
police methods can lead to innocents confessing juries do not discount coercion as a factor when coerced confessions are presented in court |
|
|
Voluntary False Confession
|
self-incrimination statement offered without external pressure by police
|
|
|
Coerced-Complaint False Confession
|
confession to escape interrogation or get a promised reward
mere compliance, perceived evidentiary strength is a promised reward |
|
|
Coerced-Internalize False Confession
|
confession due to a change in beliefs
"private acceptance" suspects' memories are altered because of the coercive interrogation practices suggestibility is a factor in memory fallibility dispositional factors - related to youth, low intelligence, low assertiveness, high anxiety situation factors - sleep deprivation, stress, drug use, repeated & directed memory undermining, false evidence two factors commonly found with coerced-internalize confessions: vulnerable suspect presentation of false evidence - rigged polygraph, fake forensic tests, fake accomplice statements, staged lineup ID by fake eyewitness |
|
|
Kassin & Keichel (1996) - Pace & Evidence
|
Evidence accused of hitting "ALT" key
Vulnerable Suspect: Fast Pace Fake Evidence: (Fake) Eyewitness DV: Internalize Guilty (unobtrusive recording) |
|
|
Frazier v. Cupp, 1969
|
using false evidence is allowed by the supreme court case
a confessing followed after: 1. false info that accomplice had confessed and, 2. additional question after Frazier indicated desire to see a lawyer court reasoning: trial judge instructed jury to disregard, and prosecution did not represent that confession as "crucial" to the case Frazier did not formally request an attorney as required by Escobedo v. Illinois; and the interview was pre-Miranda |
|
|
Arizona v. Fulminante, 1991
|
coerced confession evidence is not automatically inadmissible
Fulminante was suspected of murdering his stepdaughter, and later arrested for an unrelated crime in prison, an inmate offered Fulminante "protection" in exchange for a confession that he killed his stepdaughter inmate was an FBI informant, Fulminante was convicted & sentenced to death based on the confession supreme court held that the threat of violence was credible enough to constitute coercion but ALSO held that a "harmless error" analysis should be applied to any claims of coerced confessions |
|
|
FRE & Similar "Harmless Errors"
|
those that would probably not have changed the ultimate ruling
some jurisdiction distinguish between "reversible" and "harmless" errors |
|
|
Law
|
admitting coerced confessions as evidence may be considered a "harmless error"
appeals court must decide "harmlessness" based on totality of evidence & circumstances |
|
|
Research
|
confession evidence is inherently prejudicial
even if the jurors think they can ignore it, conviction rates ruse |
|
|
Record All Police Interrogation
|
offers fuller context for juries, discourages police misconduct & coercion
recap bias: juries may only see the final "recap" confession, not the hours preceding it |
|
|
Multiple Camera Angles
|
point-of-view bias in coercion judgments
|
|
|
Revisit Use of Deception
|
rational factors, memory factors & ultimate effect on jury decisions
|
|
|
Jones vs. U.S.
|
length of time for confinement to treat a mental disorder and the underlying length of time for punishment
burden of proving one is no longer a danger to self or others, or safe to release falls upon the defendant hospitalized for purpose of treatment - until we believe you are no longer a danger to yourself or to others |
|
|
Hinckley Verdict
|
defense has to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person was insane
guilty but mentally ill, been criticized, sends them to prison even through mentally ill (most states didn't adopt it) |
|
|
Durham Rule
|
insanity as a mental disease or defect
|
|
|
Irresistible Impulse Test
|
add on the the m'naughten rule which allowed insanity to include any impulse control situation where a personality who knew the difference between right and wrong could simply not resist a temptation or emotion-based impulse
|
|
|
Mens Rea
|
is it murder if you run over a child?
not going to be found criminally responsibly because didn't intend to do it |
|
|
M'Naughten Rule
|
if you don't know your actions, then you can't be held responsible for them
an unsound mind, not knowing what they are doing inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act |
|
|
U.S. vs. Wilson
|
man develop amnesia after robbing a bank and getting in a car crash
found competent because he was able to learn the facts of the trial and understand them |
|
|
Juvenile Competence
|
1990's change in juvenile law
response to violent youthful crime many states changed waiver or bind-over by lowering ages and mandating creation case issues of juvenile competence in adult court far different than adult in adult court maturity - adolescent brains are immature ADHD juvenile standard, don't know what average juvenile knows HB 86 - Juvenile Competence does juvenile comprehend and appreciate the charges against them understand adversarial nature of the system assist in their own defense and communication with counsel in juvenile system - developmentally immature is a way to be dismissed |
|
|
Jackson vs. Indiana
|
individual stole five dollars of items from a store
hospitalized for 20 years said their has to be a time frame for person to be hospitalized, dismissed with prejudice |
|
|
Characteristics of those found Incompetent
|
single males
minorities low levels of eduction |
|
|
Evaluating Competency
|
after competence examination is ordered by a judge
a psychologist or psychiatrist typically conducts the evaluation is concerned with the legal definition of competence, not the psychological definition pivotal question is if mental illness is present, does it impair the defendant's ability.. depends on case |
|
|
Forensic v. Clinical Assessment
|
scope (therapist) - need to know enough about them to help them
evaluator - need to know as much about them as possible confidentiality - if you see a person for therapy; they can't say anything - can only break confidentiality if you think they will hurt people examinee's perspective - they aren't viewing you as someone who can help them voluntariness threats to validity - malingering (people don't always tell the truth) pace and setting - forensic evaluation take as much time as you need to get what you need (different pace and setting) informed assent - things they say are not confidential, will go to judge and prosecutor; will be public record |
|
|
Ohio System
|
certified forensic centers
ohio department of mental health ohio department of rehabilitation and correction - sued by the federal government for inadequate care for mentally ill inmates (state wanted to be sued) ohio department of youth services - 32% of the kids had serious mental illnesses, majority had symptoms before they were incarcerated and 1% were suicidal. |
|
|
Competence
|
most commonly asked question
have to be compete to stand trial |
|
|
Mental State at the Time of Offense
|
did they not understand the wrongfulness of their actions because they were so mentally ill
less than one percent of all cases that go to trial enter an insanity plea, of the less than than one quarter are found to be insane majority of those are agreed upon by both prosecution and defense |
|
|
Risk Assessment
|
is a person safe to be treated in the community
|
|
|
Competence (Usually deciphered pre-trial)
|
defendant's capactiy to function meaningfully and knowingly in a legal proceeding
idea is that if someone cannot understand the nature and purpose of criminal proceedings, they should not come competence applied at every stage in the criminal justice process, but is most often raised in pretrial hearings a defendant can be found competent and still please not guilty by reason of insanity (could have been insane at time of offense but is now competent) |
