PSYC 3120: Forensic Psychology - Module 1 (Intro & History)

• Comes from the Latin word “forensis” which means “of the forum”.

• The Forum was where the law courts of ancient Rome were held → indicates forensics is related to law

What is the origin of the word “forensic”?

Narrow definition of forensic psychology

Only consider those directly involved in providing advice/services in the legal system as forensic psychologists; Clinical practice in the legal system (e.g., assessments & treatments)

Broad definition of forensic psychology

• Consider both researchers/practitioners as forensic psychologists (e.g., research related to human behaviour and legal processes).

Forensic Psychology

A field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human behavior as it relates to the law or legal system.

• Providing courtroom testimony

• Doing shield custody evaluations

• Screening candidates who apply for law enforcement positions

• Determining best practices for police interrogations

What research/practice activities fall under the broad definition of forensic psychology?

I) Clinician

II) Researcher

III) Legal Scholar

What are the three types of forensic psychologists?

Clinical Forensic Psychologists

A type of forensic psychologists that are concerned with mental health issues as they pertain to the legal system; may include both research & practice in schools, prisons, hospitals, police forces, etc.

• Run offender treatment programs

• Provide expert testimony

• Risk assessment

Experimental Forensic Psychologist

A type of forensic psychologist that is interested in mental health and any additional research issue that relates to human behaviour and the law/legal system; research-based career

• Testing assumptions that the legal system has about human behaviour

Legal Scholars

A type of forensic psychologist that analyze mental health law and legal movements.

• Policy analysis

• Consultation on legislation and law making

Psychology and the Law

The use of psychology to study the operation of the legal system (e.g., eyewitness lineups)

Psychology in the Law

The use of psychology within the legal system as it currently operates (e.g., expert testimony)

Psychology of the Law

The use of psychology to study the law itself

Daniel McNaughton

• Attempted assassination of British PM Robert Peel

• Found not guilty by reason of insanity

• Established McNaughton rule → outlined standard for defining insanity in the context of criminal cases

Alfred Binet

• Studied suggestibility in children

• Showed children objects and asked probing/leading questions about the objects

  • First to demonstrate that children are susceptible to learning questions

  • Show that asking open-ended questions result in the most accurate responses

Louis William Stern

• Eyewitness “reality” experiment

• Staged an event:

  • Students fighting in the classroom

  • One student pulls a gun

  • Interviewed about witnessed event

• Found that high emotional arousal can have a negative impact on accuracy of details

Albert von Schrenck-Notzing

• One of the first psychologists in court (a murder trial → defendant accused of killing 3 women)

• Extensive pre-trial press coverage

• Testified about retroactive memory falsification: confusion about what is witnessed vs. what is heard/seen later (e.g., in the media)

• Conducted research that supported his court testimony

• Led to increased interest in psychologists acting as expert witnesses

Expert witness

a person with specialized knowledge, skills, or experience in a technical or complex field (like medicine, engineering, or forensics) who provides objective, independent opinions to help a court (judge or jury) understand evidence and make informed decisions, unlike fact witnesses who only testify to what they saw or heard.

Julian Varendonck

• Expert witness in the murder trial of a young girl

  • Victim’s friends suggestively interviewed

  • Changed original testimony

  • Provided details about perpetrator

• Conducted research on inaccurate recall:

  • Asked children to describe a non-existent person

  • Demonstrated inaccurate recall in children

  • Against the use of children as witnesses in court

Hugo Munsterberg

• Worked at Harvard & provided case analysis for lawyers (e.g., truthfulness of confessions)

• Resistance from legal scholars and the press → “Psychology is a scientific fad”

• Book, On the Witness Stand, claimed that lawyers needed help from psychologists to sort out legal issues

  • Pushed psychology into legal arena

• Father of Forensic Psychology (brought law & psychology together)

William Marston

• First professor of legal psychology

• Research on lie detection & the jury system

• Discovered a significant positive correlation between systolic blood pressure and lying (became basis of modern-day polygraph test)

Jenkins v. United States

A Landmark Court Case:

• Involved breaking & entering, assault, and intent to rape

• Clinical psychologists argued that defendant was NOT guilty due to insanity (schizophrenia)

• Testimony provided by clinical psychologists → but judge instructed jury to ignore the psychologists, claiming they were “unqualified to provide expert testimony on the issue of mental disease”

• Defendant was convicted

• Ruling appealed — conviction reversed

  • Some psychologists are qualified to provide testimony

Amicus Brief

A document that is filed in a court by someone or a group of people who are not directly related to the case under consideration. The goal of providing such a document is to advise the court on the matter of law or policy that is directly affecting the litigation.

• Textbooks

• Academic Journals

• Professional associations (AP-LS)

• Specialized training opportunities

• APA formally recognized forensic psychology as a specialty

What are the 5 indicators that forensic psychology is a distinct and accepted discipline?

Brown v. Board of Education

Landmark court case:

• Psychologists submitted a court brief outlining the detrimental effects of segregation (amicus brief)

• US Supreme Court referenced amicus brief - first time psychological research was acknowledged in the courtroom

State v. Driver

A Landmark Court Case with the first use of testimony in the US

• Attempted sexual assault of a young girl

• Psychological test data suggested that the victim was vulnerable and could not be believed

• Testimony of psychologist rejected due to lack of trust in psychological instruments

  • Ruled that psychological tests cannot yet detect lies

Partial victory for forensic psychology → psychologists allowed to serve as expert witnesses but not believed

James Cattell

• One of first to study eyewitness testimony

• Relationship b/w confidence and accuracy → weak relationship

• Believed his research could help the courts

I) Trial consultant

II) Expert Witness

What are the two main roles psychologists play in the courtroom?

Trial consultant

One way that a psychologist can be involved in a court case; involves using psychological knowledge to help with tasks and solve problems during a case.

• Hired by lawyer/legal client

• Responsible for many tasks to hep prepare for and carry out trial → work typically done bts

• Various ethical responsibilities associated with the role

  • E.g., asked to help improve witness credibility when witness is lying

  • Moral obligation not to break the law

• Help identify major issues in a case before the trial starts

• Prepare witnesses for trial (e.g., advising them on what to say/what not to see)

• Advise defense lawyers on how to cross examine a witness

• Look at the quality of psychological evidence from the opposing side

What are the roles/tasks of a trial consultant?

• Aid in understanding a topic

• Provide an opinion (supported by evidence in their area of expertise

• Be involved in court process (i.e., take the stand in court

What is the role of an expert witness in a court trial?

True

T/F: a trial consultant can serve as an expert witness but the roles are separate

• Expert witnesses are required to know so much about their own area of of expertise as well as the court proceedings and their role within the process

• The fields of psychology and law are inherently different in a number of ways

What are the key challenges of expert testimony?

7

On how many different dimensions do the fields of psychology and law differ?

• Psychology: Believe in empiricism

  • Collect data to answer questions

  • Observations must be measurable, reliable, and replicable

• Law: Rely on intuition

  • Willing to rely on their own experience, views of life, and ‘gut feelings’

How do the ways in which evidence is obtained to answer questions in Law and Psychology differ?

R. V. N.S.

Recent case in Canada in which it was decided that a Muslim woman had to remove her religious veil while testifying because the court claimed they couldn’t evaluate her truthfulness without seeing her face

→ This assumption is not supported by science and was based on beliefs of members of the court

Forcing the woman to remove her religious veil stripped her of her right to religious freedom, which demonstrates the problems with making unfounded assumptions based on intuition and beliefs

Epistemology

The theory of knowledge → a person or discipline’s approach to obtaining knowledge

Nature of Law

The goal of the discipline

Criterion

Each of the criteria required to accept something as being true

• Epistemology (Experiments vs Adversarial)

• Nature of Law (Descriptive vs Prescriptive)

• Knowledge (Research vs Stare desisis/legal precedent)

• Methodology (Nomothetic vs Idiographic)

• Criterion (Strict vs Lenient)

• Principles (Multiple vs Single)

• Latitude in the Courtroom (Limited vs Unlimited)

What are the 7 distinct differences between the fields of psychology and law?

Frye v. United States

• The old standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in court:

  • Polygraph exam passed

  • Results inadmissible

  • On appeal, request fir expert witness rejected

• General Acceptance Test: scientific evidence must have gained general acceptance in the field which it belongs

• Criticism: ‘General acceptance’ is vague — how do we know if something is generally accepted? Would the decision be the same across judges? Subjective.

Daubert Criteria

What is the current standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in the USA?

• Peer reviewed

• Testable

• Recognized rate of error

• Meet professional standards

What are the 4 steps of the Daubert criteria?

Mohan Criteria

What is the current standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in Canada?

• Qualified expert

• Relevant (helps establish facts)

• Necessary to educate court (beyond common knowledge)

• Absence of any exclusionary rule

What are the four steps in the Mohan Criteria?