forensic psych final study

Recall

Memory is a reconstructive process that involves perceiving an event, encoding information, storing it in your short and long term memories, and then retrieving that information later, it is not like a video recorder that keeps a perfect record of what you have witnessed.

Source misattribution

children might report on an event that they heard about as if it were something they actually experienced

Reporting scripts

children may only provide a general outline of what happened with no details, and will leave out features that vary from incident to incident.

Social compliance

Children trust and want to cooperate with adult interviewers

False memory syndrome

false belief that one was sexually abused as a child

Historic child sexual abuse

allegations of child abuse having occurred several years, often decades, prior to when they are being prosecuted

anatomically detailed doll

A doll that has male or female anatomy (can represent an adult or child depending on the circumstances). They are used during interviews (usually with child victims, but could be witnesses as well) as aids to help them explain what happened to them or what they witnessed.

Problems with anatomically detailed doll

Accurate details comparable using open-ended invitations (with or without doll), Younger children more likely to use dolls when asked a direct question, Younger children more likely to play with dolls in suggestive manner and contradict themselves, Dolls are not “standardized”, Unable to objectively assess child’s behavior with the dolls

Human figure drawings

AKA Human Body Diagrams- a 2D image of a human body, Thought that children can understand 2D better than 3D

Brown et al (2007)

Examined 5–7 year-olds’ ability to use drawings, Introduced drawing after extensive verbal recall, Children provided relatively few new details when using the drawings, Increase in false touch reporting by children

statement validity analysis (SVA)

1. Structured interview with the victim

2. Systematic analysis of the verbal content of victim statements by using CBCA

3. Statement validity checklist (i.e, ruling out alternative explanation

Systematic analysis of the verbal content of victim statements by using CBCA

This is considered to be the most important part of SVA and can be used as a stand-alone protocol

Criterion-based content analysis

Attempts to distinguish between true and fabricated statements, 18 criteria, Assumes difference in quality and content

Logical structure

Is the statement coherent?

Quality of details

Specific descriptions of times, places, people?

Contextual embedding

Is the action connected to other daily routine events?

Unusual details

Are there details that are unusual but meaningful?

Step-wise interview

Children are asked free recall questions, followed by specific questions (from the least leading to the most leading): Open questions → Probing questions → Direct questions; Direct questions sometimes needed because children often do not volunteer much information without prompting

Narrative elaboration

Children learn to organize stories into categories, Taught to use representative cards with categories like people, settings, actions, conversation and feelings, and consequences, Free-recall for event, Cards used to elicit further information, Generally positive research results — but the technique is not often used!

Cognitive interview

Based on memory retrieval techniques, e.g., reinstating context, reporting everything, recalling in different orders; Has been adapted for use with children

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol

Fully structured interview guideline developed by Dr. Michael Lamb, Based on research indicating the best ways to interview children to elicit complete and accurate information, Ask mostly open-ended invitations — taps into free recall, Gold standard of child interviewing

Pre-Substantive Phase NICHD

1. Introduction

2. Rapport Building

3. Training in Episodic Memory

Substantive Phase NICHD

4. Transition to Substantive Issues

5. Investigating the Incident(s)

6. BREAK

7. Eliciting information NOT mentioned by child

8. Probe new information

9. Information about disclosure process

10. Closure

11. Neutral Topic

elimination lineup

All lineup photos are presented, Child picks out the person who looks most like the perpetrator (NOT who is the perpetrator!), Child asked to compare their memory of the perpetrator with chosen photo and decide if it is the perpetrator, Elimination procedure significantly reduces false positives

Competency inquiry

must demonstrate general cognitive ability to communicate (e.g., “What grade are you in?”, “What is your teacher’s name?”)

Screen/shield courtroom accommodation

Separate child and defendant — specifically, the child will not be able to see the defendant (but they can sometimes still see the child)

Closed-circuit television courtroom accommodation

Child and lawyers in separate room (away from defendant, judge, and jury), Testimony televised to courtroom

Support person courtroom accommodation

Can be anyone except another witness who has not yet testified

Hearsay evidence (e.g., what child told their mother about the abuse)

Previous statements made by a witness are typically considered hearsay and are not admissible, but in sexual abuse cases, judges can apply the rules liberally, and statements made by the child during the initial disclosure of the abuse may be allowed as evidence

Physical abuse

application of force to a child to cause injury

Neglect/Failure to provide

a child is not provided with requisite attention to meet their emotional, physical, or psychological needs

Emotional maltreatment

acts or omissions that could cause serious psychological harm to a child

In need of protection

A child’s need to be separated from his/her caregiver because of maltreatment

Incidence

number of new child maltreatment cases in a specific population occurring in a given time period, usually a year

Prevalence

in the study of child abuse, the proportion of a population at a specific point in time that was mistreated during childhood.

King Henry II and Pope Innocent III

credited for introducing and implementing the jury system to assist with judging legal disputes

Summary offence

Minor offences (e.g., theft), Sentence fewer than 6 months, Fine: < $2000, Tried by judge alone

Indictable offence

Serious offences (e.g., murder), Can be tried by judge alone OR judge and jury (depending on the situation, the defendant can sometimes choose)

Hybrid

Offences that do not fit clearly into either of the above categories (e.g., impaired driving), Crown decides to pursue the case as summary or indictable offence

The Juries Act

provincial and territorial legislation that outlines who is eligible for jury service, and how prospective jurors must be selected.

Jury Eligibility criteria for NL:

Canadian Citizen, Residing in NL, Be the age of majority (18)

Jury Ineligibility Criteria

Certain professions (e.g., police officer, sheriff, correctional officer, Canadian Forces, lawyer), Language (must understand language of the trial), Religious duties, 65+ years old, Can only serve once every 3-5 years

jury summons

court order that states time and place to go for jury duty

Peremptory Challenge

No reason provided, Limited number allowed- 20 for murder and 12 for other

Challenge for cause

Lawyer must give a reason (E.g., too much pre-trial publicity), Importantly, lawyers know very little about prospective jurors (name, address, occupation, physical demeanor

scientific jury selection

use predetermined characteristics to identify jurors who would be sympathetic to one side of the case (and unsympathetic to the opposing party).

voir dire

the period when prospective jurors are questioned by the crown and defense lawyer

Broad-Based Approach

Certain traits and attitudes believed to impact the verdict, e.g., those high in authoritarianism and dogmatism tend to side with the prosecution; Questions assessing traits are asked during the voir dire; Answers help determine the type of person to challenge

Case-Specific Approach

Case-specific questionnaire developed (e.g., if the death penalty is an option in the case, questions could assess attitudes toward capital punishment), Administered to potential jurors (i.e., individuals in the community where the jury pool will be selected), Develop profile of ideal juror based on responses to questionnaire

“Voir Google”

Unofficial selection approach, Use the internet to vet jurors (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) Can obtain information that cannot be asked about during voir dire (eg. prejudicial attitudes)

Representativeness

composition that represents the community in which the crime occurred

R. v. Nepoose (1991)

successfully challenged for having too few women

R. v. Nahdee (1993)

successfully challenged for improperly excluding people living on a reserve

Impartiality

lack of bias on the part of jurors; Must not have pre-existing biases that could impact their judgement in the case (e.g., prejudicial views); Must ignore inadmissible evidence

publication ban

the media cannot report on a case until the end of the trial process

Change of Venue

moving the trial to a community other than the one where the crime occurred, Can only occur if it can be proven that the community is biased or prejudiced, Usually stays within the same province/territory

Adjournment

delaying the trial until sometime in the future, Allows time to pass so the biasing effect can be softened and memories of bad publicity fade, Can be problematic because memories of the crime may fade too

Challenge for Cause

an option to reject biased jurors, Lawyers argue that certain jurors may be partial

Archival records

Advantage: high external validity

Limitation: no control over data collection, cant go back for more data, inability to determine cause and effect

Simulation techniques

Trial simulated in audio, video, or written format, with participants playing the role of a juror, Variables carefully manipulated to test their impact on verdict decisions (e.g., race of defendant, type of instructions provided by judge), Participants asked to either respond individually (juror research) or as a group (jury research)

Field Research

Studying actual jurors serving jury duty — can study naturally occurring variables or introduce new ones (e.g., note taking)

Post-Trial Interviews

Asking real jurors why they made the decision they did once the trial is over, Importantly, this is illegal in Canada, but does happen in the US

Judge’s Instructions

a set of instructions delivered by a judge that outline how to apply law to facts.

Mathematical Model deliberation

Jury makes a set of mental calculations; Mathematical weight assigned to each piece of evidence (e.g., DNA evidence given strong weight, blurry CCTV footage viewed as weaker); Verdict is a function of calculations on all presented evidence; Little support for this theory

Explanation-Based Models

Evidence organized into a coherent whole; uses story model

Story model

As jury members listen to evidence, they will interpret and elaborate on the evidence and make causal connections, In doing so, jurors create a story-like structure in their head (kind of like a flowchart), The “stories” that the juror creates are then compared against each verdict option presented by the judge

Deliberation

when jury members discuss the evidence privately among themselves to reach a verdict that is then provided to the court; The jury is sequestered until final verdict is reached (i.e., not permitted to talk to anyone in outside world)

Group polarization

the idea that people become more extreme in their initial position after having discussions with other people

Leniency bias

when jurors tend to move toward greater leniency following deliberations

hung jury

non-unanimous verdict, mistrial is declared

Jury Nullification

occurs when a jury ignores the law and the evidence, rendering a verdict based on some other criteria.

Chaos theory

when jurors are guided by their emotions and personal biases rather than by the law, chaos in judgement ensues

Racial bias

disparate treatment of racial outgroups

Black sheep effect

strength of evidence interacts with race in determining severity of punishment; When evidence is weak, racial similarity to defendant leads to leniency, When evidence is strong, racial similarity to defendant leads to punitiveness

Authoritarianism

right-wing political views, rigid thinkers, comply with authority, Pro-prosecution bias, More guilty verdicts

personality/attractiveness conviction

Those who process things emotionally are more likely to convict an unattractive defendant vs. an attractive defendant; rational thinkers show no differences based on attractiveness

CSI effect

The education of jurors whereby they are more likely to convict a suspect if the procedures and techniques from television are used in real life, Jurors want physical evidence and fancy technology

Grand juries

Used to determine whether criminal charges should be brought, No judge present — just jury and prosecutor, A unanimous decision is not needed — instead, a supermajority of 2/3 or ¾ agreement is needed depending on the jurisdiction, 16-23 members

actus reus

means a crime was committed “the wrongful deed”

mens rea

means there was criminal intent

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. It has been defined as proof so convincing that you would be willing to rely on it without hesitation. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

Fit to stand trial

Understands the charges and proceedings, Able to help prepare their defense

Unfit to stand trial

Unable to conduct a defense at any stage of the proceedings due to a mental disorder, e.g., someone with schizophrenia who is currently unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality would not be able to understand their situation, thus would be considered unfit to stand trial

mute of malice

they refusing to co-operate with the normal working of the court by choosing not to speak

Bill C-30

was enacted in the Canadian Criminal Code; outlined a new fitness standard. Clarified fitness standard from R. v. Prichard and set a time limit for fitness evaluations

R. V. Prichard

key case for determining fitness standard

R. V. Taylor

clarified ‘communicate with counsel’

Fitness Interview Test Revised (FIT-R)

the most common screening instrument; Semi-structured interview, Assesses the psychological abilities outlined in Bill C-30, Responses rated from 0 (little to no impairment) to 2 (severe impairment); Overall FIT-R score, past mental disorder diagnosis, past involvement with the legal system, history in therapy

Competency Screening Test (CST)

Contains 22 incomplete sentences that the respondent has to complete (e.g., the lawyer told Bill that…”), and responses are scored using a 3-point scale and used to determine the respondents’ understanding of the court process, relationship with their lawyer, and emotional stability.

Competency to Stand Trial Assessment Instrument (CAI)

Semi structured interview that was designed to complement the CST, and assesses the defendant's ability to participate in the court process.

MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – Criminal Adjudication (MACCAT-CA)

A structured interview that assesses factual understanding of the legal system, reasoning ability, and understanding of one’s own legal situation. These are assessed by presenting hypothetical scenarios, having defendants respond to specific questions about the scenarios, and rating their responses on a 3-point scale

Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)

Semi structured interview used to assess competency in three areas: functional memory, relationship with lawyer, and understanding of the justice system. Responses are rated on a 3-point scale and are combined with information from prior contacts, reports, and history to inform a final decision about fitness.

Demographic Variables - unfit defendants are more likely to be:

unemployed and living alone, currently single, never married, older minority-group females

prima facie case

in cases where a defendant is found unfit repeatedly, the Crown must prove every two years that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial

Insanity

is the impairment of mental or emotional functioning that impacts perceptions, beliefs, and motivations.

Psychological impairment

means that someone cannot rely on their mind to function normally, Just as serious as a physical impairment! Acts may be performed due to uncontrollable impulses or delusions

James Hadfield (1800)

Established insanity standard of the time; James Hadfield attempted assassination of King George III. Suffered a brain injury while fighting at war, His lawyer successfully argued that Hadfield was “out of touch with reality”, Found not guilty

R. V. McNaughton (1843)

Basis for current insanity standard, Daniel McNaughton attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister of Britain, Robert Peel. He accidentally shot Peel’s secretary, Edward Drummond, instead. McNaughton was found not guilty due to insanity.

NCRMD

“not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder”

Winko v. British Columbia (1999)

The Supreme Court established that NCRMD defendants should only be detained if they pose a criminal threat to society. If not, defendants should receive an absolute discharge, meaning they will be free to live their life without restrictions.