Discussions
buergoy
Chapter1-PsychandLaw-CautiousAlliance.pptxPsychology and the Law: A Cautious Alliance
Chapter 1
Psychology and Law: A Cautious Alliance
In this chapter
A Brief History of Psychology and Law
A Clash of Cultures
Roles Played by Psychologists Interested in Law
Five Pathways for Influencing the Legal System
Has Psychology Influenced the Legal System?
The Criminal Justice System: A Flow Chart
362
wrongful convictions to date
What happened to the true perpetrator?
43%
57%
Found
Not found
History of Psychology and the Law
The legal system is saturated with psychological concerns within many areas of psychology.
Developmental psychology
Social psychology
Clinical psychology
Cognitive psychology
6
History of Psychology and the Law
From 1906 to 1930
1906: Sigmund Freud—criminal behavior and Freudian theory
1908: Hugo Munsterberg (student of Wilhelm Wundt)—On the Witness Stand
1908: Muller v. Oregon—Brandeis Brief
1920–1930: Legal realism—psychology influences law; Karl Llewellyn’s core principles
7
Munsterberg’s
“On the Witness Stand” (1908)
“The time for such applied psychology is surely near . .
. all are ready to see that certain chapters of Applied
Psychology are sources of help and strength for them.
The lawyer alone is obdurate. It is surprising and
seems unjustifiable that lawyers and laymen alike
should not have given any attention, so far, to the
many methods of the psychological laboratory—
methods in the study of memory and attention,
feeling and will, perception and judgment, suggestion
and emotion. In every one of these fields, the
psychological experiment could be made helpful to the purposes of court and law”.
History of Psychology and the Law
Muller vs. Oregon (1908) - Brandeis Brief
“Opened the door for the use of social science in the courtroom”
History of Psychology and the Law
From 1930 to 1959
1930 onward: Disillusionment about social science utility
1954: Brown v. Board of Education—research by social scientists, including “The Effect of Segregation and the Consequences of Desegregation: A Social Science Statement”
10
Brown vs. Board of Education
(1954)
School segregation (“separate but equal” doctrine) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
First Supreme Court ruling to make explicit use of social science research
Brown vs. Board of Education
(1954)
Clark & Clark: Doll preference studies
History of Psychology and the Law
From 1960s to present day
1960s: Publications by Kalven and Zeisel (The American Jury); Menninger (The Crime of Punishment)
1969: APLS established
1970s: First APLS journal published—Law and Human Behavior
Currently: Numerous journals and graduate programs in psychology and the law
The Field of Psychology and Law
What is it?
“The application of scientific and professional aspects of psychology to questions and issues related to law and the legal system” (AP-LS website)
What is AP-LS?
American Psychology-Law Society
History of Psychology and the Law
1969 American Psychology-Law Society established
“Give psychology away”
1977 first AP-LS journal published
Law and Human Behavior
Currently-numerous journals and graduate programs in Psychology and the Law
What training can you receive?
JD in law/PhD in Psychology or PsyD
Approximately 7 years
Some have questioned the necessity to make important contributions to the field
PhD with MA in legal studies
PhD or PsyD only specializing in Psych/Law
Clinical
Nonclincal
Culture Clash
Many scholars view psychology and law as fundamentally different cultures.
Challenges in the interaction between psychology and the law can be traced to understanding differences in goals, methods, and styles of inquiry.
Let’s take a closer look.
3 Primary Differences Between Psychology and Law
Goals:Truth versus Justice
Methods: Data vs. Rulings
Styles of Inquiry: Objectivity vs. Advocacy
Culture Clash
Goals: Approximate Truth Versus Approximate Justice
Primary goal of psychological science is provision of full and accurate explanation of human behavior with emphasis on group characteristics; descriptive
Primary goal of law is to regulate behavior with emphasis on individual cases; prescriptive
19
Culture Clash
Methods: Rulings Versus Data
Psychology advances through accumulation of scientific data driven by future-oriented perspective
Law advances through accumulation of court-produced rulings influenced by precedents (stare decisis)
20
Basic Structure of the U.S. Court System
Figure 1.1 shows the hierarchical structure of the U.S. court system.
21
Culture Clash
Style of Inquiry: Advocacy Versus Objectivity
Psychological scientific community strives for objectivity through sustained, collective efforts
Ethical limits; suborning perjury
Lawyers act within the context of adversarial system and advocate for their clients
22
Culture Clash
Law
prescriptive
regulates
emphasizes individual
past oriented
advocacy-based adversarial
Psychology
descriptive
explains behavior
emphasizes group characteristics
future oriented
ideally objective
Why Is It Important to Bridge the Two Cultures?
Law affects people throughout the lifespan.
Many legal issues are inescapably psychological.
24
Forensic Psychology
Forensic psychology: Use of psychological knowledge or research methods to advise, evaluate, or reform the legal system
Let’s review each of these.
Core Components of Forensic Psychology Graduate Training
Substantive psychology
Research design/methodology and statistics
Conducting research
Legal knowledge
Integrative law–psychology knowledge
Ethics and professional issues
Clinical forensic training
See Table 1.1 for additional information
26
Roles of Psychologists in Legal System
Advisors
Trial consultants (jury selection, witness preparation/briefs, strategies)
Evaluators
Evaluate programs and practice (evaluation research)
Reformers
Advocate for change in legal system based on research
27
Scientific American Spotlight: Tough Treatment
Does tough treatment of troubled teens work?
Boot camps or “shock incarceration” for troubled teens
A 2010 study revealed that such programs produced little or no overall improvement in offender recidivism
“Scared Straight”: programs that bring delinquents into prisons to interact with adult inmates
A 2003 meta-analysis showed these treatments backfired: boosting the odds of offending by 60–70%
Many of these type of programs seem to be ineffective and potentially harmful
28
Scientific American Spotlight: Tough Treatment
Psychological literature provides several clues about why punishment-based strategies are less effective than reward-based strategies for lasting behavioral change.
Can you identify these clues?
Punishment-based strategies teach people what not to do but not what to do.
Highly confrontational therapeutic approaches are rarely effective in the long term.
Get-tough program may fuel negative emotions and boost teen propensity to rebel against adults.
Some programs may provide role models for bad behavior.
Learning enduring positive, social skills may help teens to manage future aggression and improve positive parent-child and adult-child interactions.
29
Pathways for Influencing the Legal System
Expert Testimony
Testimony before the courts or legislative bodies in one of three roles
Conduit-educator
Philosopher-advocate
Hired gun
Expert: Person with acquired specialized knowledge through education and experience
Jury: Trier of fact
30
Pathways for Influencing the Legal System
Cross-Disciplinary Education
Exposure of psychology students to law; exposure of law students to psychology; dual training
Training for judges
Expert: Person with acquired specialized knowledge through education and experience
Jury: Trier of fact
31
Scientific American Spotlight: Neuroscience in the Courtroom
Attempts to use brain scans as trial evidence create challenges in deciding when such scans should be admissible
Description of defendant’s mens rea (mental state) in given context affects responsibility ascribed to them.
32
Scientific American Spotlight: Neuroscience in the Courtroom
Personalized “responsibility” ranking scenario
Currently
Most judges, neuroscientists, and legal scholars usually decide that brain scans will be more prejudicial than probative value to juries
Pathways for Influencing the Legal System
Amicus Curiae Briefs
Education for judges about relevant psychological research; advocacy based on research
Broad Dissemination of Research Findings
Use of media; continuing education for legal professions; research data available to public
Legislature and Public Policy
Use of research to influence thinking of legislators, lobbying, serving on legislative staffs
See Table 1.2 for additional information on recent amicus briefs
34
Has Psychology Influenced the Legal System?
Results are mixed
Positive
The consciousness of judges is raised, especially by amicus briefs
Negative
Manipulation of research can occur
Judges have little training in social science research and may be reluctant to use evidence based on social science research
Social scientists are seen as politically liberal
The Sequence of Events in the Criminal Justice System
