Law and Legal Psychology

• The study guide covers topics for the first exam of CJC 377/PSYC 372, Psychology and Law Course.

Daubert Criteria

• There are four, judges must apply them according to SCOTUS, to discern valid science from junk science.
• These criteria are:
  • Adequacy of reliability and validity of research methods/procedures (test retest)
  • Error rates
  • Peer review and publication
  • General acceptance by experts
• Daubert gives judges flexibility; they do not have to use these criteria and have used others.
• In a sample of 144 judges, 17% admitted fundamentally flawed studies.
• 87% did not find the confound.
• 91% did not note experimenter bias.
• 92% missed the lack of a control group.

Frye Standard

• The Frye standard says expert testimony/scientific evidence must be generally accepted by the scientific community to be admitted in courts.
• Most states use Daubert.

Legal Field vs Psychology Field

• The legal field focuses on history and prescribes regulations, controls, and assesses blame for noncompliance.
• Legal truth is what can be legally proven.
• It advocates based on values/political beliefs and assumes about human behavior.
• The psychology field focuses on the present and future, explaining and predicting to control.
• Facts occur at the group level and are harder to apply individually.
• Facts are more uncertain, evolve through consensus, and scientists limit bias, while providing empirical data.

Three Models of Psychology in the Legal Field

• Social fact: uses social science research to resolve disputes.
• Social framework: uses social science research to provide context.
• Social authority: uses social science research to create/modify legal rules.

Amicus Curiae Brief

• From the APA's perspective, the central purpose of the brief is to inform judges, guided by rules.
• From 1979-1989, the APA filed 52 briefs; the impact is measured by whether the brief helped the court make a more informed decision.

Expert Witnesses

• In some states and the UK, they do not have immunity from civil lawsuits.
• Attorneys who hired experts can sue them for malpractice in some states.

Expert Witness Testimony Models

• Adversarial Model (US and Israel): in Israel, judges are not gatekeepers.
• Appointed by the Court: Brazil follows the Inquisitorial Model where questions are filtered by a judge.
• Panel of Experts: Hot Tubbing Technique in Australia.

Neal et al (2019) Findings

• Pertain to the admission of psychological assessments in court.
• Attorneys rarely challenge junk science in court trials.
• About half of assessments had no evidence of validity, and only 67% of those with evidence were generally accepted.
• Only 5.1% of psychological assessment evidence was challenged and its admission was suppressed in only one-third of the challenges.
• Defense attorneys' challenges to forensic science invalid techniques (e.g., bite mark analysis) are rarely successful.
• Judges lack the training to detect weak and flawed research, and judges use intuitive thinking rather than systematic thinking when judging the validity of scientific evidence.

Defining Racism

• Dr. Phillip Goeff defines racism as behaviors, not feelings.

Kovera Findings

• Pertain to racial disparities in outcomes.
• Black boys are judged as older than White boys in social psychological research.
• You can approach systemic racism at the system level via policies and procedures, not focusing on an individual.

Racial Profiling

• Policies/practices that increase racial profiling include punishment, deterrence, and stereotyping.
• Policies/practices that decrease racial profiling include interacting with members of other races.

Voigt et al (2017) Findings

• Communication theory of respect says certain communications deliver messages that the listener is respected, measured in police comminucation.
• These attributes involve:
  • Apologizing
  • Giving Agency
  • Softening of Commands
  • Formal titles
• Study One: individuals rated 414 unique officers' utterances during traffic stops.
• These were recorded by cameras, randomly sampled from 1,440 stops in April 2014 by the Oakland Police Department, and involved 245 officers.
• Researchers applied these ratings to a total sample of 36,738 useable officer utterances to see whether officers used more respectful language with White drivers than Black drivers.

Injustice

• Systematic Racism: policies/laws facilitate unjust/unfair treatment and outcomes for racial minorities.
• Procedural Justice: disparities in interpersonal treatment, such as disrespectful and rude treatment, not actively listening, and not providing explanations.
• Distributive/substantive Justice: disparities in outcomes.

Deviance

• Goffman says how people are labeled as deviant depends on the context.

Definitions

• Important definitions include:
  • Stigma
  • Stigmatization
  • Dehumanization
  • Power

Power

• Power has three components: control over resources, to influence, and to control other people's time.
• Power has three forms: structural, interpersonal, and individual.

Dehumanization

• People are more likely to dehumanize others when there is power and when someone has high social dominance.

Resisting Authority

• Four strategies to resist authority's orders were used successfully by participants in Milligram's study.
• Strategies used by successful participants involved starting early, diversifying techniques, and sustaining resistance.
• Those strategies involve:
  • Critical thinking and questioning the legitimacy of orders
  • Refusal to participate
  • Seeking social support
  • Appealing to higher moral principles

Supreme Court Cases Conclusions

• Boykin vs. Alabama: Boykin v. Alabama (1969) says a guilty plea must be voluntary to be admissible.
• Bordenkircher vs. Hayes: Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978) says prosecutors can use legitimate discretion during plea bargaining.
• The case also recognized the risks of plea bargaining and the importance of transparency and honesty in negotiations.
• Miranda vs. Arizona: Miranda Rights.

Bias vs. Prejudice

• Implicit bias is subconscious.
• Prejudice is conscious.

Dehumanization vs. Negative Zero Empathy

• Negative zero empathy: individual traits that affect empathy.
• Dehumanization: societal influence.

Personality Disorders

• Personality disorders related to Negative Zero Empathy include psychopath, narcissist, and borderline.

Fessinger and Baker et al (2024)

• Studies pertained to legal advice to juveniles and guilty pleas.
• Only 20 states require a parent's presence during the questioning of their minor child.
• Parents generally advise their children to tell the truth.
• Most parents incorrectly believed that police must tell parents if their children are being seen as witnesses/suspects.
• Over 40% of parents incorrectly believed that people could not leave when a police officer is questioning you.
• Most parents did not know possible consequences of a juvenile adjudication like suspension/expulsion, college record, suspended driver's license, banned from public housing, effect on rental applications, employer inquiries, and military bans.
• Racial minority and White parents similarly advise their children to tell the truth/admit guilt for a reduced sentence.
• Advice given was not predictive, and most youth reported not receiving advice before their plea (72%) and not having a defense attorney (70%).

Stereotype Content Model

• Dehumanization results in varied behaviors.
• High competence and low warmth are usually met with aggression or attacks because of feelings people outside of the group have towards them.

Competence/Warmth

• Hi Warmth/Lo Competence = Older, disabled, Pity = Prescribed behaviors
• Hi Warmth/Hi Competence = Ingroups, allies, reference groups, Pride = Humanize
• Lo Warmth/Lo Competence = Poor, homeless, immigrants, Disgust = Objectify
• Lo Warmth/Hi Competence = Rich, professionals, Envy = resent, harm

Explores parental misconceptions about juvenile interrogations, consequences of juvenile adjudication, and youth experiences with legal representation. Also touches on stereotype content model, admissibility of expert testimony, challenges to forensic science, and definitions of racism.