Comprehensive Notes on Social Psychology and the Criminal Justice System

The Case of Dmitri "Matti" Baranovski and the Social Psychology of Crime

Event Overview: On the evening of November $14$ , $1999$ , Dmitri "Matti" Baranovski, a $15$ -year-old student, was at Harryetta Gardens playground in Toronto with approximately $6$ friends at around $8:45\,p.m.$
The Incident: They were approached by $10$ to $12$ older teens wearing balaclavas who demanded cigarettes and money. When Matti resisted, three of the attackers punched and kicked him. Matti suffered a torn vertebral artery in his neck when his head rotated and snapped back from a kick.
Outcome: Matti died in the early morning hours of the next day. The attackers were seeking a fight with a different group that failed to show up.
Bystander Reactions: At least $2$ cars passed the scene. One woman stopped with her $2$ sons after hearing Russian words and a cry for help but drove off fearing weapons. No one called $911$ until $9:02\,p.m.$
Theoretical Application: This incident highlights questions regarding criminal nature and bystander response from a social psychological perspective, which integrates the person (P) and the environment (E) using Kurt Lewin’s theorem: $B = f(P, E)$ .

Bystander Intervention and the Bystander Effect

Definition of the Bystander Effect: A phenomenon where people are less likely to help in an emergency when other bystanders are present (Darley & Latan, $1968$ ).
Diffusion of Responsibility: A diminished sense of responsibility felt when an individual believes others will or should intervene.
Factors Increasing Diffusion: * Anonymity: Bystanders remaining in cars or moving quickly. * Few Victims: Only Matti's voice was heard. * Dissimilarity: The victim was heard speaking Russian, and people are more likely to help those perceived as similar to themselves.
Historical and Modern Examples: * Kitty Genovese ( $1964$ ): Killed in Queens, New York; reports suggested neighbors witnessed the attack but failed to intervene. * Yusuf Hizel ( $2010$ ): A $79$ -year-old man robbed on a Toronto subway in view of $24$ passengers; despite cries for help, no one assisted.

Situational Determinants of Aggression

Deindividuation: A diminished sense of self-awareness occurring under anonymity. * Zimbardo’s Experiment ( $1969$ ): Participants in Ku Klux Klan-type hoods delivered shocks twice as long as identified participants. * Application: The balaclavas worn by Matti's attackers provided anonymity likely reducing behavioral inhibitions.
Social Facilitation: Heightened arousal caused by the presence of others increases performance on well-learned or "primed" tasks (Zajonc, $1965$ ).
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Frustration (anything blocking a goal) acts as a trigger for aggression. The failure of the original target group to show up likely heightened the attackers' frustration (Berkowitz, $1989$ ).
Situational Cues: The presence of weapons or aggressive environments triggers behavior (Berkowitz & LePage, $1967$ ). * Aggression Restricted vs. Facilitated: Anderson and Bushman ( $2002$ ) contrast church services (nonaggressive norms) with Country/Western bars (alcohol, aggressive cues, male competition, anonymity).
Variables: * Proximal Variables: Occurring close in time to the event (e.g., deindividuation). * Distal Variables: Occurring in the distant past (e.g., personal history).

The Origins of Criminal Behavior: Theories and Models

Biological Theories: * Genetic links found between criminal fathers and sons (Lytton, $1990$ ). * Aggression linked to higher testosterone and potentially the extra Y chromosome ( $XYY$ ). * Prenatal exposure to toxins (alcohol, lead) or nutrient lack causing cognitive/behavioral deficits.
Sociological Theories (Strain, Anomie, Control, Subculture): * Strain Theory: Crime results from the frustration of social structures preventing people from achieving material success legitimately (Cohen, $1960$ ). * Subculture Theory: Criminal activity is a matter of conforming to deviant values in lower-class cultures.
General Personality and Social Psychological Model (Andrews & Bonta, $2010$ ): * Principle: Likelihood of crime increases with cumulative risk factors. * $8$ Categories of Risk Factors: 1. Early onset of antisocial behavior. 2. Temperamental/personal characteristics (impulsivity, weak problem solving). 3. Antisocial attitudes and beliefs. 4. Association with procriminal peers. 5. Negative parenting/family experiences (low cohesion, harsh discipline). 6. Low school/vocational achievement. 7. Poor use of leisure time. 8. Substance abuse.

Antisocial Attitudes and Peer Groups

Five Elements of Antisocial Attitudes (Andrews & Bonta, $2002$ ): 1. High tolerance for deviance. 2. Rejection of legal authority. 3. Use of cognitive distortions (denial/rationalization). 4. Interpreting stimuli as reasons for anger. 5. Generally antisocial thinking style.
Correlation: Antisocial attitudes correlate with criminal behavior between $0.35$ and $0.40$ .
Peer Influence Categories (Moffitt, $1993$ ): * Adolescence-Limited Group: Antisocial behavior is limited to teen years, often driven by the "maturity gap" (striving for autonomy). Comprises the majority of youth. * Life-Course-Persistent Group: Comprises fewer than $10\%$ of adolescents; early onset (before age $12$ ), high versatility in crimes, often linked to childhood deficits.
Deviancy Training: Socialization process where deviant peer groups reinforce rule-breaking through approval and laughter (Dishion et al., $1996$ ).

The Police Investigation: Interviews and Confessions

Investigative Interview vs. Interrogation: Interrogations specifically aim for confessions and are typically conducted with those the police already believe are guilty.
Interactional Synchrony: The tendency to coordinate body movements during conversation. Officers may misinterpret an interviewee's fidgeting (mimicking the officer) as lying.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: An interviewer's preconceived notion of guilt can influence the suspect's responses, leading observers to perceive guilt (Hill, Memon, & McGeorge, $2008$ ).
False Confessions - The Kassin and Kiechel Study ( $1996$ ): * Method: $75$ students accused of crashing a computer by pressing the "ALT" key. * Variables: Vulnerability (pace of task) and False Incriminating Witness. * Results: In high-vulnerability/incriminating witness condition, $100\%$ signed confessions, $65\%$ internalized belief in guilt, and $35\%$ confabulated details. * Minimization: Interrogation technique providing implicit promises of leniency ("You didn't mean it") which increases false confessions.
Cognitive Interview (CI): Developed by Fisher & Geiselman ( $1992$ ). Involves open-ended questions, strategic silence, and mnemonic instructions (returning to the scene psychologically). Increases accurate recall by $20\%$ to $50\%$ .

Witness Identification and Lineup Procedures

Mistaken Identification: Contributing factor in over $75\%$ of cases later exonerated by DNA evidence (Innocence Project, $2010$ ).
Cases: * Ronald Cotton: Served $11$ years for rape; Jennifer Thompson positively identified him twice until DNA proved Bobby Poole was the culprit. * Ivan Henry ( $1983$ ): Forced into a lineup by $3$ officers; only red-headed man in the array. Acquitted in $2010$ after $26$ years in prison.
Optimization Strategies: * Foils: Using people known to be innocent who match the description (at least $5$ per lineup). * Sequential Lineup: Presenting individuals one at a time (rather than simultaneous) to prevent relative judgment. * Double-Blind Procedures: Ensuring the officer conducting the lineup doesn't know who the suspect is. * Cross-Race Effect: Tendency to better identify faces of one's own race compared to other races (Sporer, $2001$ ).

The Courtroom: Juries and Decisions

Adversarial Model: North American/British system where two sets of lawyers present to an impartial judge/jury.
Inquisitorial Model: Common in Europe (e.g., France); court takes active role in investigation.
Jury Size: * Williams v. Florida ( $1070$ ): Supreme Court erroneously ruled $6$ and $12$ -person juries are functionally equivalent. * Saks & Marti Meta-Analysis ( $1997$ ): $12$ -person juries deliberate longer, recall more details, and are twice as likely to result in hung verdicts (split pressure is different in $10$ -to- $2$ vs $5$ -to- $1$ ).
Juror Prejudice: * Interest: Stake in trial outcome. * Specific: Attitudes toward a specific case ( pretrial publicity). * Generic: General attitudes (e.g., racism). * Normative: Perceived community pressure.
Inadmissible Evidence: * Steblay et al. ( $2006$ ): Mock jurors instructed to disregard evidence gave guilty verdicts $46\%$ of the time vs $37\%$ for those never hearing it. * Theories: Belief perseverance, hindsight bias, and reactance.

The Prison Setting and Rehabilitation

Goals of Incarceration: Incapacitation, specific/general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and retribution.
Social Climate: Measured by the Correctional Institutions Environment Scale (CIES) across $3$ dimensions: Relationship-Oriented, Personal Development, and System Maintenance.
Stanford Prison Simulation ( $1973$ ): Demonstrated power of social roles; mock guards became abusive and the experiment was halted after $6$ days instead of $14$ .
Therapeutic Communities (Stay’n Out Program): Focused on "living learning," self-governance, and peer modeling. Stay’n Out recidivism rate after $3$ years was $26.9\%$ compared to $40.9\%$ for no treatment.
Boot Camps (Shock Incarceration): Highly regimented and punitive. Meta-analysis of $43$ reports by Wilson et al. ( $2008$ ) showed no difference in recidivism rates ( $1.02$ odds ratio) compared to standard programs.
Restorative Justice - Sentencing Circles: Aboriginal approach focusing on healing victims, offenders, and community. Requires consensus and respectful dialogue to formulate sanctions (e.g., community work, apologies, banishment).