Psychology in the Courtroom

9 Key excerpts on "Psychology in the Courtroom"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Psychology and Crime

  An Introduction to Criminological Psychology

  • Clive R. Hollin(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  10 Psychology in the Courtroom When the police have gathered evidence and the decision is made to prosecute the suspect – see the section on the Crown Prosecution Service in the previous chapter – then a new set of actors enter the drama. The courtroom is the stage on which they perform, playing out decisions of guilt and innocence, liberty and custody, and in some instances even life and death. In England and Wales there are a range of courts, with varying levels of responsibility, within the justice system. These courts range from the County Court, which deals with civil cases, to the Magistrates’ Court, the Crown Court, and the High Court, and ultimately to the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords, and finally the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. There are different court systems in place all round the world (including Scotland and Northern Ireland). The involvement of psychologists in courtroom proceedings has a long history, which Bartol and Bartol (1999) have traced to Cattell’s (1895) study of the psychology of testimony. Cattell’s work was the starting point for a number of studies (e.g., Binet, 1900; Bolton, 1896), which in the early 20th century grew to become a substantial body of empirical evidence on witness memory which was reviewed annually by Whipple (1909–15, 1917, 1918). Indeed, even the great Sigmund Freud showed interest in this new application of psychology, with a paper titled Psychoanalysis and the Ascertaining of Truth in Courts of Law (Freud, 1906). Notwithstanding the earlier work of G. F. Arnold (1906; Bornstein & Penrod, 2008), the dominant figure of the period was the American-based German psychologist Hugo Münsterberg who, in 1908, published the book On The Witness Stand in which he proposed that psychology could be beneficially applied to the work of the courts

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Forensic Psychology and Law

  • Ronald Roesch, Patricia A. Zapf, Stephen D. Hart(Authors)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Examples include psychological testimony on legal issues such as the insanity defense or competency to stand trial. It might also address questions such as whether a particular offender is at risk for reoffending. For this type of involvement, psychologists must adapt their knowledge and expertise to the legal questions that the courts or law define. To be admissible in court, psychologists must demonstrate that their evidence is relevant to the legal question. Psychology in the law also refers to the roles that psychologists can provide as expert consultants in various aspects of legal proceedings. Lawyers employ psychologists to consult about the selection of jurors or how jurors might react to certain defense strategies. Psychologists have also been employed to conduct studies of the effect that pretrial publicity may have on a particular case. Such research can be used by lawyers in motions arguing for a change of venue to another community. Haney notes that psychology in the law accounts for the most frequent roles of psychologists in the legal system, and cautions psychologists to “realize that when they are used by the legal system in this way they have little control over the ends to which their expertise is ultimately applied” (p. 154). Psychology and law involves the use of “psychological principles to analyze and examine the legal system” (p. 154). Unlike psychology in the law, the relationship of the two disciplines of law and psychology is one that involves “coequal and conjoint use of psychological principles to analyze and examine the legal system” (p. 154). Research that follows from this relationship examines the assumptions that the law makes about behavior. Examples include research on eyewitness accuracy, coerced and/or false confessions, and judicial decision making. This type of involvement can result in changes in the way in which the legal system operates

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Handbook of Forensic Psychology

  • Irving B. Weiner, Randy K. Otto, Irving B. Weiner, Randy K. Otto(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  According to Ronald Roesch, for example (cited in Brigham, 1999, p. 279), “Most psychologists define the area more narrowly to refer to clinical psychologists who are engaged in clinical practice within the legal system.” A few years later, Brigham and Grisso (2003) modified this somewhat, noting “Many psychologists define forensic psychology more narrowly to refer to clinical psychologists who are engaged in clinical practice within the legal system. The distinction here is between psychologists who bring scientific information to the courts for their consideration in cases and psychologists who evaluate individuals and testify about them in reference to a legal question” (p. 392, emphasis added). In recognizing forensic psychology as a specialty in 2001, the APA itself adopted the narrow approach, to include “the primarily clinical aspects of forensic assessment, treatment, and consultation” (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002, p. 8). However, as noted, the Specialty Guidelines take a broader view. In this chapter, forensic psychology is being viewed broadly. It is both (1) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behavior directly related to the legal process (e.g., eyewitness memory and testimony, jury decision making, and criminal behavior) and (2) the professional practice of psychology within or in consultation with a legal system that encompasses both criminal and civil law and the numerous areas where they intersect. Therefore, the term forensic psychology refers broadly to the production of psychological knowledge and its application to the civil and criminal justice systems. It includes activities as varied as these: courtroom testimony, child custody evaluations, law enforcement candidate screening, treatment of offenders in correctional facilities, assessment of plaintiffs with disability claims, research and theory building in the area of criminal behavior, and the design and implementation of intervention and prevention programs for youthful offenders

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Handbook of Psychology, History of Psychology

  • (Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 19 Forensic Psychology Thomas Grisso and John C. Brigham Early Attempts to Apply Psychological or Psychiatric Knowledge to the Legal System Maturation of Forensic Psychology as a Recognized Subfield Historical Perspective on Forensic Psychological Science Forensic Psychology's Development in the 21st Century References

  There are two ways to ask the question, “What is forensic psychology?” One is to inquire about its current boundaries, and the other is to ask when it began. Both questions can be answered with a broad or a narrow perspective. Concerning what forensic psychology is now, one perspective takes a broad view, equating the field roughly with what is often termed psychology and law. Consistent with this broad perspective, we can note that forensic comes from the Latin forum (a place of assembly, a court of law) and is defined as “pertaining to or employed in legal proceedings or argumentation” (American Heritage Dictionary, 1982).

  This broad definition is contained in the newly revised Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists (www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/SGFP_Final_Approved_2011 ):

  Forensic psychology refers to professional practice by any psychologist working within any sub-discipline of psychology (e.g., clinical, developmental, social, cognitive) when applying the scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, and administrative matters.

  The second definition of forensic psychology is more circumscribed and more focused on regulating applications of psychology in clinical forensic practice. Many psychologists define forensic psychology more narrowly to refer to clinical psychologists who are engaged in clinical practice within the legal system. The distinction here is between psychologists who bring scientific information to the courts for their consideration in cases and psychologists who evaluate individuals and testify about them in reference to a legal question. The American Psychological Association's (APA) Committee on Specialties uses a definition of forensic psychology that employs this clinical emphasis (APA Committee on Specialties: http://cospp.org/specialties/forensic-psychology

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Applying Psychology to Criminal Justice

  • David Carson, Rebecca Milne, Francis Pakes, Karen Shalev, Andrea Shawyer, David Carson, Rebecca Milne, Francis Pakes, Karen Shalev, Andrea Shawyer(Authors)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Interscience

    (Publisher)

  Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 7 , 205. Wolf, S. and Montgomery, D.A. (1977b) Effect of inadmissable evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: a moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 3 , 213. Yarmey, A.D. and Matthys, E. (1992) Voice evidence of an abductor. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 6 , 367–77. Young, W., Cameron, N. and Tinsley, Y. (1999) Juries in Criminal Trials: Part II , New Zealand Law Commission Preliminary Paper 37, Wellington, New Zealand. CASES Andrews [1987] 1 All ER 513. Borawick v Shay (1994) 842 F Supp 1501 (D Conn 1994). Cannings [2004] 1 All ER 725, 768. Chard (1971) 56 Cr App R 268. Cherry v Borsman (1991) 75 DLR 4th 668. 114 APPLYING PSYCHOLOGY TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE Clark (No 1) 2 (October 2000) www.lexis-nexis.com/professional. Court of Appeal (CD). Clark (No 2) [ 2003] 2 FCR 44. Davies [1962] 3 All ER 97. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) 113 S Ct 2786. Farrell v Snell (1990) 72 DLR 4th 289. Frye v US (1923) 293 F 1013 (DC Cir 1923). G [2003] 4 All ER 765. George (Barry Michael) (2002) The Times August 30. Gilfoyle [2001] Crim LR 312. Kay (2001) The Daily Telegraph , October 6. Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] 1 WLR 1452 (HC); [2006] EWCA Civ 1390 (CA). Mowatt [1968] 1 QB 421. Reay and Hope v British Nuclear Fuels (1994) 5 Med LR 1. Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766. State v Cressey 628 A 2d 696, 700 (NH 1993). State v Foret 628 So 2d 1116 (La) 1993. Turnbull [1977] 2 QB 871. Weeder (1980) 71 Cr App R 228. Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82. CHAPTER 7 A Psychology and Law of Fact finding? David Carson University of Portsmouth The field of evidence is no other than the field of knowledge. (Jeremy Bentham, 1810). [P]sychology . . . is a study of how we do think and is irrelevant to logic, which is a study of how we ought to think. (Burks, 1946, at 302, referring to the work of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914)).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law

  • Michael J Saks, Barbara A Spellman, Michael J. Saks, Barbara A. Spellman(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • NYU Press

    (Publisher)

  This book focuses on the psychological beliefs reflected in the rules of evidence—beliefs about witnesses, about factfinders, and about the trial process—and how those beliefs have informed the development of the rules of evidence. It explores a number of important practices from evidence law about which psychology does, or could, have a lot to say to illuminate the underlying assumptions, and evaluates whether those assumptions are consistent with the psychological research or whether the law’s goals for evidence doctrine could be achieved more successfully with a modified rule or a different rule or no rule at all.

  This is a useful place to pause for a moment to address legal terminology. In this book, the noun “rule” refers to a rule of evidence: a directive to judges concerning how to treat a proffered type of evidence. Evidence “doctrine” is a widely adhered to body of principles concerning the law of a topic, in the present context how evidence is to be viewed and treated by courts. Evidence “law” is the broadest term. To borrow from Black’s Law Dictionary, it refers to: “The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action; esp., the body of rules, standards, and principles that the courts of a particular jurisdiction apply in deciding controversies brought before them.”

  The Psychology of Evidence Rules

  Let’s look at some concrete examples that illustrate the rulemakers’ concerns with different psychological processes and how those concerns are reflected in several rules.

  An example of a rule that makes assumptions about the cognitive capacities of people is the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows hearsay statements when the out-of-court statement is made under the influence of a stressful event. This rule is rooted in the belief that people have limited cognitive capacity and that the stress of an arousing event consumes so much of their available cognitive resources that people lack sufficient residual capacity to invent falsehoods. Thus, an out-of-court statement made by someone exclaiming something in response to such an event was thought unlikely to be fabricated due to the very stress of the occasion, and therefore was dependable enough to be exempted from exclusion as hearsay.9

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  Available until 4 Dec |Learn more

  Forensic Psychology

  • Joanna Adler, Joanna R. Adler(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Willan

    (Publisher)

  The potential problems with evidence and the reliability of eyewitness testimony is a good case in point. What is common to all factions of the eyewitness reliability disagreements is that they are concerned with producing justice from the criminal courts. To concatenate it somewhat, the people involved differ in terms of their research frame of reference and their preferred means of analyses of data. Whilst a different methodology may sound inconsequential, the net effect can, and has resulted, in polar opposite conclusions and very public differences of opinion as to the best advice to give the courts (Egeth 1993; Loftus 1983a; Loftus 1983b; Loftus 1993; McCloskey and Egeth 1983; McCloskey, Egeth and McKenna 1986). The first round of the debate was conducted largely in 1983, the second in 1993. At the time of writing, this author, for one, is looking forward to seeing if 20 year reappraisals are to be published.

  With this emphasis on recent debates and the problems of self definition, it would be understandable to think of forensic psychology as a social scientific neophyte. Yet, for as long as psychology has been dealt with as a separate area of endeavour, the enterprise has encompassed the forensic realm. For well over 100 years, psychological practice and research have been directed at ways of improving the implementation of justice, explaining and minimising criminal behaviour and the ramifications of crime (Gudjonsson 1991). The courts’ uses of evidence that we might now classify as psychological, and/or criminological, goes back somewhat further than the turn of the last century. Beccaria and Lombroso had been working on explanations for crime and criminal behaviour for several years before the end of the nineteenth century. Similarly, insanity rules have been a feature of various jurisdictions for generations. A broad reaching excuse to culpability was introduced to France in 1810. In England, the later, more narrow rules based on the case of Daniel M'Naghten, have been largely unchanged for 150 years, although they have been supplemented.

  The first person generally acknowledged to have written specifically about the use of expert evidence in court is Münsterberg, whose book has become a classic text (Münsterberg 1908). As such, he should be credited with much of the establishment and popularising of the use of psychology in courts. Even at the start of the twentieth century though, the use of psychological evidence was not without controversy, and had its detractors (Wigmore 1909). We can also see that, from the start, psychological tools were being utilised to bring about justice way beyond the confines of the courtroom. By 1916, Terman had revised Binet's and Simon's intelligence test (Binet and Simon 1905) and was advocating its use in the selection of police (and fire) officers. He also gathered together studies on potential relationships between criminal behaviour and intelligence, thereby applying psychology to criminal behaviour itself.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Forensic Psychology For Dummies

  • David V. Canter(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • For Dummies

    (Publisher)

  8.The judge instructs the jury on what it needs to consider. This stage often includes a recounting of the key points in the evidence and, for example, whether the jury needs to decide whether a key witness was telling the truth or not. The judge also draws the jury’s attention to key points of law, such as the need for the defendant to have intended to commit the crime, especially for a verdict of murder.

  9.The jury is sent to the private jury room, where the members deliberate on what they’ve heard without any contact with people outside. When they’ve reached a decision, they return to the court and the person chosen by the jury to represent its view, the foreman, reports the jury’s conclusion to the judge.

  At every stage of this unfolding process, the lawyers have to determine how best to present the information and arguments to the judge and especially to the jury (if there’s one). The jury in turn has to make sense of all that’s going on and come to an informed decision. Psychological factors are relevant at every stage, and I explore some of the key ones in the following sections.

  Delving Into Jury Psychology

  A joke goes as follows: a jury is a group of 12 men and women who have to decide whether the defence or prosecution has the best lawyer! This somewhat cynical take on court procedures is useful in drawing attention to the huge power of how evidence is presented in court, and the significance of the skills of the lawyers in laying the case before the jury.

  People used to assume that judges were able to ensure that jury members knew what they were doing, how to respond to the legal processes and make sense of the legal arguments with only limited guidance. Over the last 50 years or so, however, various studies show that juries don’t necessarily act in the logical, informed way that the law assumed. For this reason, psychologists started demonstrating to lawyers and judges the problems that members of the jury face and how best to inform them. I discuss some of these psychological issues in this section.

  Facing decision time: How juries act and make decisions

  In the legal systems that put great store by jury decisions, the jury members are kept protected from any outside influence. Their deliberations are secret and they aren’t allowed to tell anyone what went on in the jury room. This secrecy makes it extremely difficult to study jury decision-making in real trials or to determine how individual members reach their conclusions. From necessity, what’s known about jury decision-making comes from indirect sources (which has to be treated with some caution) and from more general examinations of the relationships between personal characteristics and legally relevant decisions.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Criminal Psychology

  • Francis Pakes, Suzanne Pakes(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Willan

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 4

  Courtroom psychology

  The nature of the criminal trial

  When we think of a criminal trial we tend to think of trial by jury. In a jury trial in England and Wales, defendants are tried in front of a jury of twelve ordinary people in a Crown Court. A crown prosecutor presents the evidence for the prosecution. Defence counsel operates on behalf of the defendant. Witnesses are called to give their evidence in person and are under oath. The judge, wearing a robe and a wig acts as referee. The judge decides which pieces of evidence are admissible and instructs the jury on the law and on their role. It is for the jury to decide upon a defendant's guilt. In case of a not guilty verdict the defendant walks free. In case of a guilty verdict the judge decides on the sentence.

  Most Crown Courts have the same layout. The judge sits on an elevated platform. In front of the judge is space for recorders and clerks. On the judge's right is the witness box. This is where witnesses appear to give their evidence. The jury is seated to the left of the judge. Behind the recorders is the area for both prosecution and defence lawyers. The defence sit to the left of the judge, closer to the jury and the prosecution, next to the defence closer to the gallery. At the back in the dock is where the defendant or defendants sit. The public gallery is opposite the jury.

  A Crown Court can be an intimidating place. Crown Courts are characterised by decorum and deference to authority. The judges as well as the prosecuting and defending lawyers wear wigs. When the judge enters the courtroom all rise. When any individual leaves the courtroom while the court is in session, it is customary to bow to the judge when leaving.

  The Crown Court is the ultimate decision making platform. It is here where defendants learn their fate: until the jury have reached a verdict, no one knows whether any defendant will walk out a free person, or whether they will be sent to prison for many years. The jury must only return a guilty verdict when they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. Jury decisions are meant to be unanimous. Where a jury cannot decide that is called a ‘hung jury’ which might result in a retrial in front of a new jury. It is also possible for the judge to allow the jury to return a so-called majority verdict. That verdict must be supported by at least ten of the twelve jurors.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book