Forensic Psychology (PY 265D) Lecture Notes the dilemmas
Dilemmas in the Criminal Justice System
Second Dilemma: Equality vs. Discretion
Concept: This dilemma addresses whether all criminals should receive the same sentence for the same crime (equality) or if discretion should be applied, evaluating each situation distinctly.
Equality:
Defined as the notion that “all men are created equal.”
Similar crimes should receive similar sentences to maintain fairness in sentencing.
Discretion:
Refers to the ability of actors in the legal system—such as police, attorneys, and judges—to make decisions regarding whom to stop, prosecute, and determine the length of sentences.
Discretion can lead to sentencing disparities that raise ethical issues within the justice system.
Causes of Sentencing Disparities
Bias:
Bias can be observed from the stages of arrest through to sentencing, leading to disparities based on race/ethnicity.
Statistics from 2018:
Prison population: 26% Black, 33% Hispanic.
2015-2019 police shooting statistics show disproportionate impacts on Black individuals.
Data on police officers and judges indicates a significant racial disparity in those roles and their actions.
Report of Racial Bias
Example from Baltimore Police Department:
A report cited a specific instance of a Black man in his mid-50s being stopped 30 times in less than four years, resulting in no citations or charges against him.
95% of individuals who were stopped at least 10 times were Black, in a city with a 63% Black demographic.
Most pronounced racial disparities were in arrests for discretionary offenses; for instance, 91% of those arrested for “failure to obey” or “trespassing” were African-American.
Third Dilemma: Discover the Truth vs. Resolve Conflicts
Concept:
Millions interact with the criminal justice system; the goal often is to have a day in court and feel that justice has been served, regardless of the actual efficacy of that justice.
Efficiency vs. Justice:
The efficiency of resolving conflicts may lead to unjust outcomes.
Plea Bargaining Explained:
Defined as “settling before trial,” where defendants may take a guilty plea for a lesser sentence.
Particularly concerning for innocent individuals who fear that evidence against them may influence a jury.
Approximately 85-90% of defendants do not go to trial, highlighting the prevalence of plea bargaining in the legal process.
Fourth Dilemma: Science vs. Law
Concept:
This dilemma explores the relationship between scientific methods and legal principles.
Role of Scientists in the Legal System:
Scientists may contribute through amicus briefs, which provide scientific information to help courts make informed decisions.
Example: Brown v. Board of Education, although courts often neglect scientific research findings.
Psychology vs. Law Conflict
Scientific Method in Psychology:
Steps involved:
Ask a question
State a hypothesis
Conduct an experiment
Analyze results
Draw a conclusion
Legal Principles:
Based on established laws and precedents (termed case law), whereby courts look to previous cases for guidance.
Differences in Approach:
Law operates on absolutes (e.g., guilty/not guilty), whereas psychology deals with probabilities and likelihoods, often avoiding definitive conclusions.
Conflict of Goals:
Psychologists aim to gather data and develop theories in the pursuit of truth, while lawyers focus on winning their respective cases.
Roles of Psychologists in the Legal System
Basic Psychological Scientists:
Focus on basic research and scientific advancements applicable to psychology.
Can function as academic researchers or service providers.
Applied Psychological Scientists:
Engage in applied research aimed at tackling real-world problems, also acting as academic researchers or service providers.
Expert Witnesses:
Professionals with specialized knowledge beyond that of the average person, often retained by legal counsel.
Court Procedures for Expert Testimony:
Experts must be retained by either the defense or prosecution.
Judges hold discretion on the relevance of testimony and adherence to standards like Daubert and Frye regarding evidence admissibility.
Federal Laws on Expert Testimony
Frye v. United States (1923):
Establishes that scientific evidence must gain general acceptance within the scientific community.
The case involved a systolic blood pressure deception test that was deemed inadmissible due to lack of acceptance.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993):
Supreme Court ruling that judges are gatekeepers for expert testimony based on scientific knowledge rather than merely general acceptance.
Outlines four factors to assess the admissibility of expert testimony:
Testing of the expert's theory
Peer review of the theory
Reliability and error rates of claims
General acceptance by the relevant scientific community
Concerns exist about every test meeting all four factors thoroughly.
Additional Psychologist Roles in Court
Forensic Evaluator:
Evaluates defendants on various criteria such as competence to stand trial and insanity at the time of the crime.
May perform risk assessments and evaluate rehabilitative qualities.
Trial Consultants:
Assist legal counsel with jury selection, mitigation evidence, trial strategy, and evidence evaluation.
Ethical Considerations in Psychology and Law
Dilemma of Ethical Guidelines vs. Legal Obligations:
Psychologists are obligated by confidentiality agreements to protect client information, yet law dictates that they must report harmful disclosures (e.g., potential harm, child abuse).
Case Reference: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976):
Establishes the concepts of Duty to Warn and Duty to Protect in cases where there is potential harm to others based on information from a client.
Involves the specifics of Prosenjit Poddar's threats against Tatiana Tarasoff.