Forensic Psychology – Week 5 Vocabulary Flashcards

Forensic Psychology Notes – Week 5

• Source material: ESPCIE140, Week 5, slides transcript covering definitions, roles, case studies, and concepts in forensic psychology.
• Note: some content indicates fictitious cases or examples (as marked in slides).

What is Forensic Psychology?

• There are lots of definitions; general framing: Forensic psychology is applying psychology to the different areas of the legal system (e.g., criminal and civil systems).
• It looks at:
  • The processes in the justice system
  • The ways people interact with the justice system

What is a Forensic Psychologist?

• Has an academic background in psychology and the law.
• Often works within the sphere of legal proceedings:
  • Using scientifically based principles to assess clients
  • Collecting evidence related to the psychology of clients
  • Preparing and presenting a report that can be used as evidence or policy
• May also work with victims or perpetrators in rehabilitation/counselling contexts

The Criminal Justice System Process

• Begins when someone reports a crime.
• Police investigate and decide:
  • Whether they will investigate at all
  • How to conduct that investigation
• Police may decide whether to charge a person with the crime or not.
• Police make a recommendation to the prosecutor about whether to proceed.
• The Prosecutor decides whether to take the matter to trial, considering:
  • Available evidence
  • Witnesses
  • Briefs
  • Police recommendation
  • Seriousness of the crime
• If the prosecutor moves the case forward, the matter goes to court.
• A jury trial will be used if the matter is serious.
• Defendant and prosecutor plead cases; verdicts:
  • Guilty or not guilty
• If found guilty, there is a sentencing hearing where a judge decides the punishment.
• Sentencing is constrained by sentencing guidelines/precedents.

Where Does Forensic Psychology Fit In?

• Contributes at many points in the process; psychology can answer questions at every stage:
  • Why people commit crimes and how to mitigate this behavior
  • Factors influencing likelihood of committing a crime
  • How people deal with the prison experience
  • Interventions and treatments for reintegration and reducing recidivism
  • Jury decision making
  • Investigative interviewing techniques
  • Eyewitness testimony

The Who of Forensic Psychology…

• Offenders: Why did they commit the crime? Does imprisonment rehabilitate, or are other programs more effective?
• Police: How to support efficient, effective performance; impacts of vicarious trauma; support mechanisms.
• Prosecutors: How to help them interpret evidence (e.g., complex expert witnesses).
• Jurors/Judges: How to support accurate decision-making (convictions, sentencings).
• Victims, correctional officers, witnesses, and others involved in the process.

Case Study: Australian vs Danish Prison System

Australia

• Prisoners wear uniforms; food quality reported as poor; contraband searches are frequent.
• Inmates cannot prepare own meals; labour is common and can pay as little as 0.82 per hour.
• Surroundings include high walls, gun towers, and barbed wire; harsh penalties for attempted escape.
• Conditions may vary across prisons:
  • Some remote facilities (e.g., WA’s Pilbara) only got air-conditioning in all cells in 2022.
  • Some facilities (e.g., Goulburn’s supermax) isolate inmates for up to 16 hours per day.

Denmark

• Prisoners prepare their own meals, wear their own clothes, and have family visits weekly; some can leave daily.
• No barbed wire fences or solid walls/gun towers on the perimeter.
• Emphasizes independence and dignity over harsh polices in response to rule infringements/violent incidents.
• Only 3 ext{ extpercent} violate day releases.
• Violence (e.g., suicide/homicide) is relatively rare; staff generally feel safe.

Would you feel comfortable with a prison system like this in Australia?

• [Slide prompts reflection on personal comfort with Denmark-style, less punitive modelling vs traditional Australian model.]

Which prison system leads to lower rates of recidivism (AKA reoffending)?

• Slide prompt: comparison between Australia and Denmark recidivism rates.
• General finding on slide: Denmark tends to have lower recidivism than Australia in many datasets.

Recidivism Data Across Countries (high-level summary)

• Slide summary indicates differential recidivism across countries and time windows:
  • Australia generally higher recidivism than Denmark in reported periods.
  • Example figures cited:
  • Around 45 ext{ extpercent} in Australia vs 27 ext{ extpercent} in Denmark (varies by jurisdiction) [per slide 18].
• Slide 19 presents a more nuanced breakdown with open vs. closed conditions in Denmark and Australia-specific variations:
  • Australia around 42.5 ext{ extpercent} (2022-23; varies by state)
  • Denmark around 24 ext{ extpercent} (open: 19 ext{ extpercent}; closed: 40 ext{ extpercent})

Table 2: Reconviction, Re-arrest and Reimprisonment Rates (released prisoners)

• The table covers multiple countries, cohort years, follow-up periods, and three outcomes: Re-arrest, Reconviction, Reimprisonment.

• Australia (2014-2015): follow-up 2 years; Re-arrest 53 ext{ extpercent}; Reconviction 45 ext{ extpercent}.

• Austria (year 2013 cohort, 7,185 individuals): follow-up periods listed as 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years with:

  • 1 year: 15 ext{ extpercent} Re-arrest
  • 2 years: 26 ext{ extpercent} Re-arrest; Reconviction: ?
  • 3 years: 32 ext{ extpercent}; 4 years: 36 ext{ extpercent}

• Canada (2014-2015): 2,610 individuals; 2-year follow-up; Re-arrest 35 ext{ extpercent}; Ontario data referenced (Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2017).

• Canada (2007-2008): 9,483 individuals; 2-year follow-up; Re-arrest 55 ext{ extpercent}; Reconviction 43 ext{ extpercent} (Quebec data referenced; Ministère de la Sécurité publique, 2015).

• Chile (2010): 20,625 individuals; 2-year follow-up; Re-arrest 39 ext{ extpercent}; Denomination for other columns provided referencing Chilean and Danish sources (Statistics Denmark, 2018).

• Denmark (2013): 3,904 individuals; 6-month follow-up; Re-arrest 36 ext{ extpercent}; Other entries: 1 year 51 ext{ extpercent}; 2 years 63 ext{ extpercent} (Statistics Denmark, 2018).

• Note: The table aggregates across different cohorts and follow-up windows; values reflect different national reporting standards and definitions of outcomes.

Case Study: Angel Gonzalez

• At age 20, Angel was convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping; sentenced to 55 ext{ years} in prison.
• After 20 years in prison, Angel was exonerated.
• Contributing psychological factors to wrongful conviction:
  • Misidentification by eyewitness
  • False confession from Angel
• Understanding these factors helps improve the justice system by reducing wrongful convictions.
• Angel at age 40 (caption on slide).

Misidentification by Witness (Angel Gonzalez case)

• Leading contributing factor to wrongful convictions in the US.
• Victim did not match the original description; Angel identified as perpetrator (no other suspects shown; lineup not presented).
• Victim’s partner noted Angel’s car in the neighborhood; police picked him up and he was singled out.
• Witness viewed Angel handcuffed in the back of a police car; dark lighting; cross-traffic from across the road; context may have implied guilt.

False Confession (Angel Gonzalez case)

• False confession rate cited as 29 ext{ extpercent}.
• Contributing factors:
  • Angel spoke limited English (only in the U.S. for about 1 year) and could not read the police-written confession he signed.
  • Sleep deprivation during interrogation (overnight, ~28–30 hours without sleep).
  • He was 20 years old; false confessions are more likely among juveniles/young adults due to social pressure and decision-making processes.
  • No video recording of the interview (no evidence of how the interrogation was conducted).

Lessons to Prevent Wrongful Convictions in Interrogations and Identifications

• Conduct evidence-based lineups following correct procedures.
• Use ethical interrogation practices (e.g., allow sleep, avoid coercion).
• Video record entire interrogation to evaluate potential psychological factors in confessions and wrongful convictions.

Eyewitness Memory

• Eyewitness memory is one of the most common forms of evidence used in charges.
• Research shows eyewitness memory is highly susceptible to bias and error.
• Errors in eyewitness testimony are a leading contributing factor for wrongful convictions in the United States, accounting for 69 ext{ extpercent} of such convictions.
• Research from Dr. Hayley Cullen focuses on how police interviewing techniques impact eyewitness accuracy.

Memory, Misinformation, and Related Issues

• Memory is susceptible to:
  • Biases and errors
  • Mixing details across time and space
  • False memories
  • Misinformation
• Example reference: a notable 9/11-like scenario used to illustrate susceptibility to misinformation.
• Perpetrator identification issues are influenced by:
  • Poor eyesight
  • Poor viewing conditions (e.g., as seen in Angel Gonzalez’s case)
  • Stress during event or during police interrogation
  • Racial bias in identification (identifying someone from a different race)

Memory and Misinformation: Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978)

• Study setup: slideshow depicts a small red car driving and hitting a pedestrian.
• Afterwards, participants were asked leading questions (e.g., how fast was the car traveling when it passed the yield sign?)
• The original slide showed a Stop sign, not a Yield sign.
• Later, participants were shown the original slide and a new slide with the yield sign.
• Result: those asked leading questions were more likely to pick the slide with the yield sign, demonstrating misinformation effects on memory.

Jury Decision Making

• Evidence presented can be ambiguous and technically difficult for lay jurors to understand.
• High responsibility: jurors decide on convictions and sentences; mistakes have serious consequences.
• Jurors often rely heavily on eyewitness testimony, which can be inaccurate.

Traumatized Witness Perception by Jurors

• Question: How would you expect a traumatized witness to behave?
  • A) Distressed, shaky, not talking calmly
  • B) More emotionless
• Implication: jurors often expect traumatized witnesses to show distress (a bias).
• Research by Dr. Faye Nitschke (University of Newcastle) investigated two conditions:
  • Condition 1: A judge told the jury how traumatized witnesses might appear.
  • Condition 2: No explanation given to the jury.
• Result: When the judge spoke about traumatized witnesses, juries rated the witness as less honest/credible and made less accurate decisions.
• Conclusion: Interventions or guidance for jurors should be tested before implementation to avoid unintended bias.

Jury Decision Making – You Be The Jury

• Case reference: ALLISON BADEN-CLAY (TC) — slide prompts audience discussion or activity.

A. Hayley Cullen – Profile and Content Notes

• Hayley Cullen is presented as an Associate Lecturer in slides.
• Slide content includes personal details:
  • Favourite colour: red
  • Fan of the show 'The Mentalist'
  • Boxer
  • Born in Sweden
  • Routinely unemployed (note: slide may be fictitious)
  • Has never had pets
  • Diagnosed with conduct disorder in early teen years
  • Educational background: Bachelor of Arts and PhD at USyd
• Content marked with “Content noted may be fictitious.”

Additional Case Note: Recurrent Mention of Hayley Cullen in Class Context

• Slide: You notice Hayley is frequently absent from classes across the 3 classes you share together.
• She has been told to leave classes for smoking inside numerous times and seen littering and driving erratically.
• Rumors suggest incarceration for violent brawls.
• An incident where you tripped leaving class and Hayley could not stop laughing and did not offer help.
• Content marked as fictitious.

Case Study: Angel Gonzalez — Recap and Implications

• Wrongful conviction factors highlighted: eyewitness misidentification, false confession.
• Emphasizes reform measures in lineups, interrogation ethics, and recording practices.

Practical Implications and Real-World Relevance

• Forensic psychology informs:
  • Police interviewing and eyewitness evidence collection practices.
  • Judicial decision-making processes and jury instructions.
  • Policies related to prison environments and rehabilitation programs.
  • Evaluation of risk, dangerousness, and potential for rehabilitation in offenders.
• Ethical considerations: avoid coercive interrogations, minimize bias in lineups, ensure fair treatment of witnesses and defendants.
• Interdisciplinary connections: law, criminology, statistics, cognitive psychology, mental health.

Formulas and Key Numbers (LaTeX notation)

• Recidivism rates (example figures):
  • 45\% vs 27\% (Australia vs Denmark, as cited on slide 18)
  • 42.5\% (Australia, 2022-23) and 24\% (Denmark; open 19\%; closed 40\%) as per slide 19
• Table 2: Reconviction, re-arrest and reimprisonment rates (selected entries):
  • Australia 2014-2015: follow-up 2 years; Re-arrest 53\%; Reconviction 45\%
  • Austria 2013 cohort (n = 7,185): 1 year 15\%; 2 years 26\%; 3 years 32\%; 4 years 36\%
  • Canada 2014-2015 (n = 2,610): 2 years 35\%; Ontario data referenced
  • Canada 2007-2008 (n = 9,483): 2 years 55\%; Reconviction 43\%; Quebec data referenced
  • Chile 2010 (n = 20,625): 2 years 39\%
  • Denmark 2013 (n = 3,904): 6 months 36\%; 1 year 51\%; 2 years 63\%
• Note: All percentages are presented as provided in the source; these figures are subject to measurement definitions and follow-up periods.

End of Notes