Psychology and Law Exam 3

Plea Bargaining

A defendant agrees to plea guilty to a less serious charge in exchange for a more lenient sentence.

• Or pleas guilty to a single charge in exchange of dropping other charges.

• Over 90% of criminal cases end in plea bargains

• Nolo contendere ( no contest) and Alford Plea

• Benefits- avoids time and cost of a trial

  • The defense avoids an uncertain trial outcome

Controversies of Plea Bargains

prosecutors are incentivized to charge more serious crimes as leverage in a plea negotiation

Difficult to access whether accepting a plea bargain is truly better or worse than going to trial

No US constitution guarantee about plea bargain.

Forfeits ones right to a trial. 6^th amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial and public trial by an impartial jury

Also forfeited right to confront and cross examine accusers and to present evidence in one’s defense

Largely unregulated, hidden from public view and not recorded

Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968

Jurors must be fair cross section of the community

• Potential jurors are selected from voter registration lists, some states add drivers licenses and telephone directories

• Jury Pool

• Full accounting of potential jurors often not achieved

Venire

Random sample of potential jurors summoned to appear at a specific courthouse at a specific date and time.

• About 20% are no shows

• Large variations in the size, depending on location, judge and characteristics of the case

• Many excuses to eliminate people (blind, non English speaker, police officers, please of “undue hardship, or extreme inconvenience”

One -Day or One Trial

System widely adopted to make jury service less burdensome

• Potential jurors make themselves available for one day

• If selected they serve on one trial

Voir Dire

Attorneys and Judge ask potential jurors questions

• Conducted by judges and more limited scope in federal courts

• Sort of a Pretrial interview in open court. Used to educate and ask for commitment from jurors.

• Lawyers can challenge jurors to get rid of them

Challenges for Cause

Potential juror would be unable to be fair and impartial due to bias or prejudice.

• Judges will not always agree to dismiss the potential juror

Peremptory Challenge

Potential juror can be dismissed without reason and without approval from the judge

• limited number of these

• May be used to stack juries

Cognizable Groups

Members are recognized as sharing a distinguishing characteristic or attitude

• Peremptory challenges can’t be used to eliminate members of a cognizable group (race or gender)

Batson Ruling (Batson v. Kentucky)

Required lawyers to provide a race-neutral explanation for the challenge.

• Judges often accept the most implausible reasons (she’s too young). This ruling hasn’t made that many changes.

Trial Consultant

• assist in jury selection based on social science research

• Data driven approach

• Analyze supplemental juror questionnaires filled out by potential jurors prior to Voir dire

• Use of mock jurors of shadow jury

• Can also get a clearer sense of the strength and weaknesses of a case by present information to mock juries

• Consultants can also aid in trial presentation and strategy

Internal Locus of Control

Outcomes in life are due to ones ability or effort

External Locus of Control

Outcomes in life are due to forces outside oneself (luck or other people)

Belief in a Just World

How strongly one believes that “people get what they deserve and deserve what they get” in life

• jurors with a higher belief in a just world tend to belittle victims (victim blaming- “brought it on themselves”)

Authoritarianism

Rigid conventional beliefs, intolerant of weaknesses, identify with and submit to authority figures, suspicious of and punitive towards people who violate rules.

• people high in this are more likely to convict and hand down harder sentences (except police officers)

Similarity- Leniency Hypothesis

belief that jurors who are similar to the defendant empathize and identify with the defendant (Less likely to convict).

Civil Trials

a plaintiff sues a defendant for alleged harm

• If the defendant is found liable, the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff for monetary damages.

• Compensatory Damages- meant to compensate the plaintiff for losses

  Punitive Damages- meant to punish the defendant and discourage others from behaving similarly

Direct examination

When a lawyer questions the witness they called to testify

Cross Examination

Opposing lawyers questions the witness

Insanity

refers to the criminals state of mind at the time of the crime

Due to mental illness, a defendant lacks moral responsibility and culpability for their crime

A legal judgment not a scientific concept

The Insanity Defense

Built on the principle that people who commit crimes without full awareness should not be fully responsible for their actions

Retribution (Just deserts)

punishment should be proportionate to harm committed

Intended to make the harmed party feel that justice has been served

requires the offender to have exercise free will and understand what they were doing.

Deterrence Perspective

Punishment should be used to teach the consequences of crimes

A severely mentally ill person will not be deterred because the crimes are often not rational.

Specific Deterrence

individual offender learning the consequences of crime (Prison)

General Deterrence

similar people vicariously learning consequences of crime

The M’Naghten Case (England, 1843)

suffered from paranoid delusions

Shot and killed the prime minsters secretary

Was found NGRI

Queen Victoria and the general public were displeased with the ruling. Demanded new laws on insanity

M’Naghten Rule

presumed that defendants are sane and responsible

Defendants had to prove that they suffered from a mental illness that affected their understanding of what they were doing or understanding that it was wrong

The M’Naghten Rule imported into American Law as the cognitive test of insanity

The Durham Case (Durham v. US, 1954)

was found guilty for breaking and entering, but conviction was overturned on appeal

Had history of mental illness

Court found the previous standards of insanity obsolete and misguided

Durham Standard

the defendant is not responsible for their crime if the act was the product of mental disease or defect

Opposition felt that this gave too much weight to mental health professionals.

Removed from the same set of courts 18 years later

American Law Institute (ALI) Standard

Proposed in 1985 response to dissatisfaction from M’Naghten and Durham rules

Defendant not responsible if they lacked the ability to recognize the wrongfulness of the act or could not conform their conduct to the requirements of law

Included both a cognitive test and an irresistible impulse- like volitional aspect

Hinckley Case (U.S. v. Hinckley, 1982)

Attempted to assassinate President Reagan in order to win the love of Jodie Foster

NGRI verdict

ALI standard used

Burden of proof to prove that the defendant was sane was placed on the prosecution

Insanity Defense Reform Act 1984 (IRDA)

Presumption of sanity

Burden of proof placed on the defense (affirmative defense)

Volitional prong dropped from the definition of insanity

Experts barred from ultimate issue testimony

Experts still allowed to testify but deciding the ultimate issue of insanity was left up to juries

The resulting insanity law was very similarly to the 140 M’Naghten rule

Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI)

Sent to prison for their crimes but are supposed to receive treatment for their mental health issues

Effective treatment not guaranteed

Permitted in 20 states, is an additional verdict to guilty, not guilty and NGRI

Men’s Rea Defense

Pleading diminished capacity if capacity or the “guilty mind” for certain crimes is lacking

Only available for particular crimes that require the defendant to possess a specific mental state

ex: 1^st degree murder required premeditated killing and the specific intent to kill another person. Could still be convicted of 2^nd degree murder of involuntary manslaughter

This defense and insanity defense can often be used together

The “Twinkie Defense”

In 1978 Dan White shot and killed San Fran city mayor Geoff Moscone and city supervisor Harvey Milk

Defense claimed that a diminished capacity due to heavy intake of junk food

Found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder

Challenges for Assessing Insanity

Retrospective evaluation is difficult

Elements of insanity are nebulous

States use different insanity standards

Public/juror perception of insanity is nebulous

Malingering- possible, but does not lead to release

- NGRI defendants spend equal or more time in secure psychiatric hospitals

Mathematical Model

A jurors mental meter moves towards “guilty” or “not guilty” based on the weight of the evidence.

Story Model

Jurors construct stories to make sense of the evidence presented at trial.

A causal chain of events which includes psychological responses and goals that motivate actions

Select the verdict that best fits with their story

- Useful in describing jurors decision-making process

Liberation Hypothesis

When evidence is ambiguous jurors are liberated from constraints of evidence

- Decisions become more heavily influences by prior beliefs, past experiences and other biases.

Impeachable Evidence

Evidence meant to damage the credibility of a witness’s statements

-ex: prior dishonest conduct

Ironic Processes

trying not to think about something inadvertently causes one to dwell on that very thing.

Reactance Theory

People are motivated to maintain their freedom.

Jurors may feel as if judges are trying to limit their freedom

Jurors rely on broad common sense notions of justice

Leniency Bias

In criminal cases, deliberations that start tied or close votes are more likely to end in acquittals

Orientation

Jurors elect a foreperson, discuss procedures and raise general issues

Verdict Driven Style

Take an initial vote to see where everyone stands

• Orient discussion around verdict options

Evidence Driven Style

Postpone vote until after a careful, systematic discussion of the evidence

• tend to produce a richer, more probing discussion

Open Conflict

differences in opinion become apparent and coalitions may form

Tone of discussion often becomes contentious

Informational Influence

change in opinion because of compelling arguments

Normative Influence

change of vote because of group pressure

Reconciliation

Jurors reach a common verdict and or one side capitulates

Attempts to soothe feelings and for everyone to be satisfied with the verdict

Williams v. Florida (1970)

Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutionally permissible to reduce the jury to 6 in noncapital cases

Based the decision on “social science evidence” but got the science wrong!

Dynamite Charge

judges instructions to a hung jury to seriously reexamine their position

• Likely shifts jury to normative influences. Causes jurors to feel coerced. May mislead jurors into thinking that a hung jury is not a viable option

Jury Nullification

Juries may reject the law if their moral conscious leads them to a different conclusion than the law prescribes

• Juries are rarely informed of this option

Physical Custody

How much time spent with each parent

Sole Custody

one parent has custody, while the other parent has regular visiting rights

Legal Custody

the rights and responsibilities of parents

• ex: making decisions about schooling and medial care

• Even in cases of joint legal custody, the supervising parent makes everyday decisions

Best Interest of the Child Standard (BICS)

currently, all state laws require that custody arrangement serve the best interests of the child

• Limitations: Vaguness

  At the discretion of judges

  Allows room for bias

  Escalation of conflict and litigation among parents

  One parent is more likely to gain custody if they highlight every moral failing of the other parent

  Expectation that courts can predict the future

The Tender Years Doctrine (1889)

All young kids and female kids should be in custody of the mother

Primary Caretaker Rule

custody to the parent who was primary responsible for raising the child prior to the divorce

Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (1976)

1. The parents wishes

2. The child’s wishes

3. Relationships within family

4. Child adjustment to home and school

5. Physical and mental health of all participants

Unclear how to balance these criteria

- May also include moral standings of the parents and economic stability

Preferred Custody Arrangements

 de facto rule unless otherwise demonstrated

• usually joint custody or sole physical custody

Approximation rule

custody allocations should mirror pre-divorce care taking and time spent with child

Equal Custody Presumption

equal time spent with each parent unless impracticality is demonstrated.

Positive Outcomes in Childs Response to Divorce

•Economic Security: Often declines after divorce

•Good relations with siblings and extended family

-A child’s psychological family is defined more in terms of emotional ties rather than biological ties.

•Certain personality traits in kids (ex: resilience)

•Certain parenting behaviors

-High levels of support

-Appropriate boundaries

•Minimal parental conflict

- Good relations with noncustodial parent

APA Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations

•The psychological best interest of child

•Strengths and Weaknesses of the parents

•The child’s needs

Fit of the parental attributes and child’s needs

Mandatory Mediation Laws

required couples seeking divorce to first attempt to reach a settlement with help of a mediator

Mediator

a neutral 3rd party who brings the couple together in non adversarial seeing

Parent Coordination

v 8-15% of couples continue to engage in extreme and intense hostility

• High conflict custody disputes and arrangements are the most damaging to the child

• Parent coordination interventions occur after other methods have failed

Goals of Parent Coordination

Ø1. Help parents create and comply with court orders and parenting plans

•Make decisions about custody and visitation that are consistent with the child’s developmental needs

•Reduce the intense conflict between parents

Reduce re-litigation of child custody issues