Forensic Psychology (PY 265D) - Flashcards
Second Dilemma: Equality vs. Discretion
Equality:
Derived from the principle that “all men are created equal.”
Advocates that similar crimes should receive similar sentences, promoting uniform application of law.
Discretion:
Actors within the legal system (police, attorneys, judges) possess the authority to make individual decisions regarding whom to stop, prosecute, and the length of sentences.
While intended to allow for consideration of unique circumstances, discretion can lead to significant issues, such as sentencing disparity.
Causes of Sentencing Disparities
Bias from arrest to sentencing:
Racial and ethnic disparities are evident across various stages of the criminal justice system.
Share by race/ethnicity across various categories (2018 for population/prison/police data, 2015-19 for shot by police, 2014/2019 for judges):
Adult population:
Black: 12\%
Hispanic: 16\%
White: 63\%
Other: 9\%
Prison population:
Black: 36\%
Hispanic: 23\%
White: 30\%
Other: 11\%
People shot by police:
Black: 26\%
Hispanic: 19\%
White: 50\%
Other: 5\%
Unarmed people shot by police:
Black: 33\%
Hispanic: 18\%
White: 42\%
Other: 7\%
Police officers:
Black: 13\%
Hispanic: 13\%
White: 72\%
Other: 2\%
State judges:
Black: 7\%
Hispanic: 5\%
White: 80\%
Other: 8\%
Federal judges:
Black: 10\%
Hispanic: 7\%
White: 80\%
Other: 3\%
Example from Baltimore Police Report (August 9, 2016):
A U.S. Justice Department report identified significant racial bias by Baltimore Police.
One black man in his mid-50s was stopped 30 times in less than four years, with none of these stops leading to a citation or criminal charge.
Black residents constituted 95\% of the 410 individuals stopped at least 10 times over five and a half years of data reviewed.
The most pronounced disparities were in arrests for highly discretionary offenses: 91\% of those arrested solely for “failure to obey” or “trespassing” were African-American, even though the city's population was only 63\% Black.
Third Dilemma: Discover the Truth vs. Resolve Conflicts
The criminal justice system processes millions of people.
Goal of the court system:
Ideally, individuals should “have a day in court” and feel that justice has been served.
However, the primary practical goal often becomes efficiency—to resolve conflicts and process everyone going “through the system” quickly.
This efficiency-driven approach may lead to unjust outcomes where the truth is not fully discovered.
Plea Bargaining:
An example of prioritizing conflict resolution over truth discovery, involving “settling before trial.”
A defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge or for a lighter sentence.
This is especially problematic for innocent people who might accept a plea bargain out of fear that the evidence against them will sway a jury, even if they are not guilty.
Approximately 85-90\% of criminal defendants never go to trial, indicating the widespread use of plea bargaining.
Fourth Dilemma: Science vs. Law
How scientists contribute to the legal system:
Amicus brief (friend of the court brief): Scientific information packaged to inform the court of relevant research, aiding in informed decision-making.
A historical example is its use in Brown v. Board of Education.
Unfortunately, courts often choose to ignore social scientific research.
Why there is conflict ('bad blood') between psychology (science) and law:
Psychology strives for objectivity through the scientific method:
Ask a question.
State a hypothesis.
Conduct an experiment.
Analyze the results.
Make a conclusion.
Law is based on precedent/established laws:
When confronted with a case, the legal system looks to old cases for guidance (“Case Law”).
In contrast, psychologists are constantly updating their theories based on new research.
Law deals in absolutes:
Categorical judgments like Guilty vs. Not Guilty, Liable vs. Not Liable, or Competent vs. Not Competent to stand trial.
Psychology deals in probabilities or likelihoods:
Psychologists generally shy away from making definite, absolute conclusions.
Different objectives:
Psychologists aim to collect data and develop theories in search of objective truth.
Lawyers fundamentally aim to win their case.
How Psychologists Influence the Criminal Justice System
Psychologists play several key roles:
Basic Psychological Scientists:
Primary interest: Scientific advances.
Typically academic researchers focused on creating new knowledge.
Applied Psychological Scientists:
Primary interest: Conducting research that can inform and solve real-world problems.
Can be academic researchers or service providers.
Expert Witness (a role for applied scientists):
An individual who possesses knowledge about a particular subject beyond the scope of the average person.
Can come from academic research or service provider backgrounds.
Becoming an expert witness:
Must be retained by either the defense or prosecution.
The judge holds ultimate discretion regarding admissibility, based on the “relevance” of the testimony.
Testimony must also pass federal standards for admitting evidence, such as the Daubert and Frye standards.
Federal Laws Regarding Admissibility of Expert Testimony:
Frye v. United States (1923):
Established the “general acceptance” standard, meaning scientific evidence presented must have general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.
Example: The systolic blood pressure deception test was not deemed to have gained sufficient scientific recognition at the time to justify admitting expert testimony based on it.
The court noted the difficulty in defining when a scientific principle crosses from experimental to demonstrable, requiring that the underlying principle be “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc. (1993):
The Supreme Court ruled that judges’ decisions about expert testimony should be based on “scientific knowledge.”
Judges serve as “gatekeepers,” evaluating potential expert testimony by scientific standards.
Daubert did not create exclusive scientific standards but listed four factors to consider:
Whether the expert’s theory can be, and has been, tested.
Whether the theory or technique has been evaluated by peer review.
The known or potential rate of error and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation.
The extent to which the expert’s claims have been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community (retaining an element of Frye).
Forensic Evaluator / Clinician:
Evaluate individual defendants on various psychological dimensions.
Common evaluations include:
Competence to Stand Trial.
Insanity Evaluations (assessing mental state at the time of the crime).
Risk assessment (e.g., likelihood of future dangerousness).
Rehabilitative qualities.
Can be court-appointed or retained by counsel.
Trial Consultants:
Always retained by counsel.
Roles include:
Jury selection strategies.
Identifying mitigation (evidence that might reduce culpability or sentence).
Developing overall trial strategies.
Evaluating evidence from a psychological perspective.
Ethical Dilemma: Confidentiality vs. Duty to Warn/Protect
Psychologists often face a conflict between their ethical guidelines and legal requirements.
Confidentiality agreement:
Psychologists have an ethical and professional obligation to keep information shared by a client confidential.
Legal requirement (Duty to Warn/Protect):
However, if a client discloses information indicating potential harm to themselves or others (e.g., intent to inflict harm, knowledge of child abuse), psychologists are often legally mandated to notify authorities or the intended victim.
This legal obligation was famously established in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), which created the “Duty to Warn” and “Duty to Protect” principles arising from the case involving Prosenjit Poddar and Tatiana Tarasoff.