exam 1 - forensic psych.docx.pdf

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY Study Guide for test 1 There will be multiple choice questions and short answer questions on the test. To study, use your class notes, textbook and any assignments we did. As well there will be questions on the fi...

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY Study Guide for test 1 There will be multiple choice questions and short answer questions on the test. To study, use your class notes, textbook and any assignments we did. As well there will be questions on the films we watched in class. The following are some questions and topics to guide your studying. Introduction 1. What is forensic psychology? 2. Narrow and Broad definition 3. Psychology in the Law, Psychology and the Law, Psychology of the Law 4. Describe the Clash of cultures between the law and psychology. 5. What are the various roles of forensic psychologists? Police Interrogations: Topics to focus on: 1. The Reid Model (3 stages & 9 steps) 2. Maximization & minimization techniques 3. Problems with the Reid Model 4. Types of False Confessions 5. The Mr. Big Technique 1. What is the goal of the Reid Model? 2. Name and describe all the stages and steps of the Reid Model. 3. Name and describe the different types of false confessions. 4. Give examples of maximization & minimization techniques and what steps in the Reid Model they are used. 5. What is the Mr. Big Technique Eyewitness Testimony: Topics to Focus on: 1. Processes (3) and Stages of Memory (3) 2. Mis-information Effect (3 theories to explain why this happens) 3. Recall & Recognition memory 4. The Cognitive Interview & the Enhanced Cognitive Interview Vs Standard Interview 5. Line-Ups (Getting the Best Results) 6. 5 Factors court looks at to evaluate if reliable eyewitness testimony 1. What is the difference between recall and recognition memory? 2. Name and describe the 3 Processes and Stages of Memory. 3. What errors can occur in memory that would lead to the mis-information effect? 4. What theories explain the mis-information effect?  5. Describe the 4 steps in the Cognitive interview. How do these steps stimulate memory recall? 6. Describe different types of line-ups that can be used to identify culprits. 7. Describe the 5 factors the courts look at to evaluate if an eyewitness has reliable information. Videos on the test include; The Mr. Big Technique https://[email protected] walletmom/watch?v=z3Pv4kSN5pg The Confession (Russell Williams) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj7QRP37Wn0 Elizabeth Loftus Ted Talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI The Memory Mirage https://gem.cbc.ca/the-nature-of-things/s58e06 ***you have to create an account to view this. The account is free  CHAPTER 1: introduction to forensic psychology [1.0] General background a) forensic psychology defined: psychological field that deals with all aspects of human behaviour as it relates to the law or the legal system. role: forensic psychologists, like others, aim to understand the mechanism behind people's thoughts, feelings, and actions. However they participate in activities unlike others because they work in a particular context; the legal field. b) media interpretation: many shows base their plots and synopses on the legal system, cops, lawyers and crime but a majority of this information is wrong. The interpretation of Hollywood of these shows is false; i.e. the show COPS, it claims to be true and unfiltered but it's simply hours of footage edited to show a falsified action pace. [1.1] history of forensic psychology relatively short history as it is quite a new topic of research only dating back to the 19th century (compared to other psychological field) Those in the field did not even formally name themselves forensic psychologists but their contributions were huge to today's field. a) Early research on testimony: ↳ began in EUR and USA. 1. 1895 - James Cattell (Columbia Uni - NY): first experiments; after expertise of cognitive process w Wilhem Wundt in Germany. He conducted experiments that would later be called psych of eyewitness testimony where he tested university students (56) on things they had witnessed and noticed that his students were inaccurate and the correlation between their accuracy vs their confidence was far off. 2. 1900 - Alfred Binet (France): proved that testimonies by children were very susceptible to leading questioning techniques. a. study: children were shown objects i.e. a button glued to a board; they were or asked to write about it or asked questions about it; some normal,  some very leading. (1. how was the button attached 2. waste it attached by a string 3. what color was the string) b. results: those asked to write down observations were much more accurate than those interrogated, those asked leading questions were most wrong. 3. 1901 - William Stern: reality experiment now used by eyewitness researches for recall and recognition. (after Binets suggestibility of witness) a. study: (one of his first w criminologist Franz von Lizst) law students exposed to a fight in the classroom, ending with one of them pulling out a revolver; students were interrogated. b. results: students testimony were often inaccurate & recall was the worst part for the interesting parts // conclusion: excitement has a negative impact on accuracy. b. Court cases; Europe ↳ At the same time as these experiments, psychologists started testifying in court as experts → about the accuracy of testimony. ↳ 1896- Albert Von Schrenk-Notzing: german physician & one of the first expert witnesses on a triple sexual murder case ↳ Ceciles case: c. Advocates for forensic in North America d. Landmark court cases USA e. Canadian Progress f. Legitimate field of Psychology [1.2] Modern Day roles & Activities there are debates on how forensic psychology should be defined (ntg generally accepted) and what fields qualify as forensic psychologists a. Narrow vs Broad Psychology Narrow 1. def: focuses on certain aspects of the field while ignoring others.  2. ie. focusing on clinical aspects (assessment, treatment, consults) & ignoring experimental research → APA petition classified forensic psychology as a aspecilization Broad 3. does not restrict forensic psychology to just its application 4. def: research examining human behaviour to the legal system // professional psychological practice within the legal system embracing both criminal & civil law [book takes this approach; research frequently originates in areas of psychology that are often not obviously connected with the forensic area, such as social, personality, cognitive, organizational, and developmental psychology.] b. Roles of forensic Psychologists ↳ various roles for forensic psychologists → 3 mains 1. clinician: concerned w mental health pertaining to the legal system that usually work in private practices, prisons and hospitals. Sometimes asses whether an offenderposes a risk if released or; Conducting divorce and child custody mediation Providing expert testimony on questions of a psychological nature Carrying out personnel selection (e.g., for law enforcement agencies) Running critical incident stress debriefings with police officers Facilitating treatment programs for offenders etc…. In Canada to be a clinician you must be specialized in the forensic field and depending on the province you require a PHD or Masters. (very supervised and includes a final exam) forensic psychiatry: a field of medicine relating to human behaviour and its correlation to the legal system. → while there are differences, they are quite similar in canada and often work side by side but psychiatry requires med school and allows clinicians to prescribe medication. there's also various forensic science fields; ○ forensic anthro. examining remains to determine their identity and how they died.  ○ forensic bio. apply knowledge to legal investigations; determining when someone died ○ forensic ondotology examining dental aspects of crime; who it is based on dental records. ○ forensic pathology analyze injury to understand cause & time of death (med) ○ forensic toxicology effects of drugs/chemicals on people in legal contexts 2. Researcher: psychologists concerned with the study of human behaviour pertaining to the legal system. research i.e.; Examining the effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies Determining what factors influence jury decision making Developing and testing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups Evaluating offender and victim treatment programs Studying the effect of stress management interventions on police officers etc…. PHD required 3. legal scholar: less common, some universities provide both legal & psych studies Forensic psychologists in this role typically focus on scholarly analysis of mental health law and contribute to policy analysis and legislative consultation. c. Activities by forensic psychologists 1. Psychology and the law: use of psychology to examine the operation of the legal system → viewed as 2 separate disciplines; examining law from a psych perspective. i.e. are eye witnesses accurate do certain interrogation techniques cause false confessions are judges fair with sentencing 2. Psychology in the law: use of psychology in the legal system as it operates examples are psychologists in court providing expert testimony; how factors can influence identifications in lineups.  or helping police in a hostage negotiation 3. Psychology of the law: use of psychology to examine the law itself Does the law reduce crime in society? What impact do court rulings have on forensic psych? legal scholars are of much assistance in this field (still growing) d. influential court cases in canada → 1975-2018; page 2 grey notebook. [1.3] Psychological experts in court The rate at which psychological experts are used, particularly in the forensics field, varies from country to country + they need more knowledge of the legal system to grow more. a. function of expert witness: providing help to triers of fact (judge/jury) in form of an opinion based on specialized knowledge, training or education. (that's the difference between them and regular witnesses) → the information must be helpful in court and used as an educative tool for judge and jury not advocating for the defence/prosecutor. b. Challenges: the mainly focuses on the fact that there are differences between the law and psychology there's much too much info about both the case and their role in court inherent conflicts in law; 1. Epistemology: psychologists assume they can uncover the truth but the law is about who provides the best convincing story. 2. Nature of law: psychology describes how people behave while the law tells people how to behave and provides the means to punish them. 3. Knowledge: data in psych is based on empirical and nomothetic study while law focuses on idiographic analysis of court cases and connections to preceding ones. 4. Methodology: Psychology mainly uses nomothetic, experimental methods, focusing on controlling variables and replicating results. In contrast, the law works case-by-case, building narratives that fit  the specifics of each case while staying consistent with legal principles. 5. Criterion: psychologists are wary to accept something is true while the law determines guilt based on case-specific criteria, such as proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. Principles: Psychologists take an exploratory approach, considering multiple explanations for research findings and using experiments to find the correct one. Lawyers, however, focus on explanations that align with facts and past cases. 7. Latitude of law: In court, psychologists as expert witnesses are limited by rules of evidence in what they can say. Lawyers, while still restricted by some rules, have more freedom in presenting evidence, calling witnesses, and structuring their case. c. Criteria; Accepting expert witnesses: expert witnesses must meet a certain criteria criterion called: general acceptance test; 1. daubert criteria: 2. mauhan criteria: CHAPTER 3: Psychology of police interrogation [3.0. police interrogations] def; police interview a suspect to gather evidence and get a confesion The main point is to gain a confession, most those who confess, even falsely, are likely to be convicted. coercion is a huge component of confessions, while physical coercion and abuse are less common now, psychological coercion is still commonly used. [3.1. interrogation techniques] a. Mr. Big technique used in Canada and a very controversial technique of gaining confessions. technique:  1. undercover cops disguised as members of a criminal org. and luring the suspect into a gang. (showing them how lucrative it is $$$) 2. suspect is made to commit minor crimes and rewarded with $$$ 3. once integrated they are interviewed by “Mr.Big” for a higher level job 4. to seal the deal they must confess to a big crime (what the cops suspect them for) → this is as a form of insurance so they also have something on the new recruit. 5. The main point of them confessing is letting MR.Big remove these charges with their connections. This technique has a 75% success rate and 95% conviction rate. (used at least 350 times before 2004) Ethical? poses various ethical questions; is this entrapment where a person is influenced to commit crimes they would not otherwise? → even if it isn't entrapment, is this coerced or voluntary, essentially making them unreliable. Canada: a. sting operation: because this is to elicit a confession for a crime happening before the operation and not the minor crimes committed during, it falls outside of entrapment b. trickery: this is not considered coercion under canadian law SCC: dispute that the CAD supreme court has added regulations a. it must be proven that the confession is more useful than harmful (strong evidence outweighing manner it's obtained) b. if confessions is obtained using violence , threats, or preying on vulnerability, it may be deemed unacceptable b. The Reid Model: commonly used interrogation technique formed by John e. Reid. → 3 part process, with a 9 step technique in the third stage. 3 stages: 1. Stage 1: gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses & suspects  2. Stage 2: conducting non accusational interviews 3. Stage 3: conducting accusational interviews of the suspect perceived to be guilty. 9 steps: 1. step 1: confront the suspect with guilt and deception; even if there is no evidence the police can lie about that to lure them. [maximization] 2. step 2: use psychological themes to justify the crime (i can see why you did that, i'd do the same) Used to sympathize with the suspect so they confess [minimization] 3. step 3:interrogators interrupt all the suspects denials and don't let them get the upper hand → always interrupt trying to make the suspect “slip-up” (if the suspect is not telling us what we want they should not speak) [MAX] 4. step 4: usually when the suspect is quiet & withdrawn. the interrogator overcomes the suspects objections, trying not to let them fall more silent. → persuade them to stop denying [MAX] 5. step 5: interrogator moves in close to reduce psychological distance so the suspect is not more withdrawn → whisper, invading personal space to re engage them [MAX] 6. step 6: interrogator shows empathy and understanding → “please come clean, we're all tired, this can end quicker’’ however they cannot lie about sentencing. [MIN] 7. step 7: offer suspect face-serving explanations for the crime, making false confessions easier to fall into. (maybe this is a result of an argument gone wrong, maybe u were not involved in intentional homicide, it was probably an accident) → emotional distress is used[MIN] 8. step 8: once the suspect takes accountability for the crime, usually an alternative explanation, the integrator gets a full confession → sometimes people don't fully confess but agree with the story law enforcement gives them) 9. step 9: the confession paper is written and signed by the suspect and the process is over.  curated aspects; everything is staged in the interrogation room; foreign environment, uncomfortable and barely furnished room w cameras, fake evidence file, suspect is alone. The Reid model bases itself on the fact that people are usually more afraid about lying than falsely confessing → this makes confessions look like a release. 2 techniques ○ Minimization: soft cell tactics used to lure the suspect into false security ○ Maximization: scare tactics to intimidate the suspect Problems with the reid model: ○ (1)deception detection:( detecting when smn is lying) → Whole the red model claims to allow officers to detect deception from suspects; there is very little proof that people can detect deception with accuracy as body language while lying or when nervous. → there's no sure training to differentiate truth-tellers and liars. ○ many people do not know their rights, starting them into trouble ○ Young people and those with intellectual disabilities are much more likely to be affected by false confessions as they often do not understand the process of interrogations or their rights enough. ○ (2)investigator bias: bias that comes with the interrogator already presuming that the suspect is guilty. This can skew the interrogation in a biased manner. ○ study: study was done on 100 students , some presuming fake suspects were guilty while others presuming they were innocent, those thinking they were guilty asked leading questions as they were convinced of the suspect's guilt: 1. Interrogators with guilty expectations asked more leading questions that assumed the suspect's guilt. 2. They used more interrogation techniques compared to those with innocent expectations. 3. They judged more suspects as guilty, regardless of the suspect's actual guilt. 4. Interrogators applied more pressure on suspects, even when the suspect was innocent. (which they did not know)  5. Innocent suspects accurately sensed the increased pressure from interrogators. 6. Neutral observers saw interrogators with guilty expectations as more coercive and the suspects as more defensive. 3. The third problem has to do with the coercive or suggestive nature of certain interrogation practices and the possibility that these practices will result in various types of false confessions. - courts: it's hard to determine what is and is not admissible in court because while it is obvious that extortion does not pass; it gets hard to distinguish whether information is admissible in court when the coercion is more subtle. - alternative; PEACE in wales and england → approach focuses on gathering information through careful planning and conversation rather than pushing for confessions, aiming to reduce pressure on suspects. [3.2. False Confessions] the main issues with interrogation techniques is the increased likelihood of false confessionds → definition; confessions that is either entirely fabricated or not based on actual knowledge. 2 terms confused w false confessions: ○ redacted confessions: confession that the confessor later declares to be false ○ disputed confessions: confession later disputed at trial frequency ○ no one knows the actual frequency of false confessions → even if a confession is coerced it does not mean its false ○ one way that is frequently used to determine the frequency is looking at the rate of wrongful convictions Different types ○ voluntary false confessions: when someone voluntarily confesses to something they did not do without any elicitation from the cops. ○ wanting fame ○ not able to differentiate fact and fantasy ○ people who feel deep feelings of guilt look punishment  ○ desire to prtect someone else from harm ○ i.e. john benet ramsey ○ coerced-compliant false confessions: confession to leave the coercive environment of police interrogation or gain a benefit promised by cops (thry know they did not commit the crime) ○ also to avoid a threat ○ i.e. MJS ○ coerced-internalized false confessions: the confessor has come to believe they actually committed the crime.usually because they are subjected to the coercive and maximization techniques. → things that influence; ○ substance abuse ○ not being able to differentiate reality from what was presented to them ○ mental issues ○ (i.e. billy wayne cope Testing in a lab ○ example tested: Keyboard experiment.One notable study by Kassin and Kiechel (1996) involved participants who were falsely accused of hitting a forbidden key on a computer. The study manipulated participants' vulnerability (by speeding up or slowing down tasks) and whether false evidence (a witness claim) was presented. ○ Results: many participants, especially those made vulnerable and presented with false evidence, falsely confessed, internalized the confession, and even made up details to fit their false memory. More recent studies show people can be coerced into false confessions, even for serious crimes, using similar techniques. a. Compliance: The person admits to something they didn’t do just to stop the pressure or stress, even though they know they’re innocent. b. Internalization: The person starts to believe they actually did what they’re being accused of, even though it's not true. c. Confabulation: The person begins to create detailed but false memories about the event, adding made-up details to fit the false confession  Consequences of false confessions: ○ this creates issues for both the person falsely confessing and the police ○ a. conviction: the false confession admitted in court can influence jury decision, coveting the person of something they did not commit ○ juror bias: jurors cannot easily identify false confession, they believe people would not admit guilt if innocent → additionally false confessions can seem real influencing the jury → court and jury LOVE confessions and usually belive it immediately. ○ evidence contamination: A false confession can influence other evidence in a case, making things like eyewitness testimony or forensic evidence seem more reliable than they are. This can happen because investigators and witnesses might be biased once a confession is made. ○ For the police: False confessions mislead police and waste valuable time that could be spent catching the real criminal. This has happened in famous cases like the Lindbergh kidnapping and the Yorkshire Ripper investigation. ○ Delays in justice: When police follow false confessions, it can delay solving the case, and in some instances, it has allowed the real criminals to commit more crimes. ○ Minimizing false confessions: Given these serious consequences, police must be cautious about how they obtain confessions and work to prevent false confessions from occurring