Unit 1 Lecture Notes - Psychology, Social Policy, and Law

9.4.24 Psychology, Social Policy, and Law https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/40710355?module_item_id=7717466 Why have government? - Initially; collective security - Monarchy = hyper-wealthy class holds power through taxation and offers protection - More productive people = more tax...

9.4.24 Psychology, Social Policy, and Law https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/40710355?module_item_id=7717466 Why have government? - Initially; collective security - Monarchy = hyper-wealthy class holds power through taxation and offers protection - More productive people = more tax money - Empires: better physical infrastructure (transportation, sanitation, water, energy) = more productive people = more $ - Better social infrastructure (safe streets, education, health care, workplace safety, mental health) = more $ Age of Enlightenment - Behavior should be governed by agreed upon rules; not religious or monarchical decree - Everyone (including kings and bishops) should have to obey the law - Problem: who decides what the law should be; who decides who should decide that (active vs. passive citizenship) 20th century government - Otto von Bismarck’s social legislation: - Universal health care (1883) - Accident insurance (1884) - Old age and disability support (1889) - Productivity is hurt by fear, sickness, etc. - Government has a role in mitigating the risk people face in life. It also increased national identity, productivity, and quality of life FDR’s 4 freedoms - Freedom of: 1. Speech 2. Worship 3. From want (food and shelter) 4. From fear (fear of illness, crime, etc.) - The last two were the foundation for Truman’s 1947 legislative package: universal health care, free college tuition, paid parental leave, paid sick leave The Point - The ethos of individualism in the US means that the state provides little in the way of social infrastructure compared to our competitors (and pretty much everybody else) - To obtain conformity, the system offers relatively less support and relatively more harms for failure (failure includes poverty, crime, illness, etc.) 9.9.24 Basics of American Legal System https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/40775786?module_item_id=7727295 Social contract - Social contract = agreement from the people that laws are needed - Citizens give some freedom to government - In exchange for rules to keep order, settle disputes, punish wrong, and promote commerce - Laws are operated by a system created by a government structure - Government runs by laws and not by individuals (like Kings or Queens) Historical roots for running our society - Social contract: individuals give up some of their liberty to the government in exchange for the government providing: - National security - Other benefits necessary for society to function or develop that can’t be done adequate by individuals, like: - Physical infrastructure: sewers, transportation systems, water, power - Police and dispute resolution mechanisms, fire - Business/commerce supports: banking, money, bankruptcy policies - Individuals could not opt out of the social contract - The debate is about what else should be included The Common Law Tradition - American law is based largely on English Common Law - The Common Law was based largely on traditions, social customs, rules, and cases developed over hundred of years - At common law, there were two separate court systems with two different types of remedies: - Courts of Law (monetary relief) - Courts of Equity (Non-monetary relief) based on “notions of justice and fair dealing” - (i.e.) our social values Constitutional Principles - The government should only be able to interfere with people’s lives if it needs to in order to fulfill its legitimate role - Legitimate government role defined by the US Constitution in global terms Bill of Rights - First 10 amendments of the Constitution - Requires due process: the government can only intervene in your life after a fair process that establishes that the government has a legitimate reason to intervene - Individuals have liberty interests that must be balanced against the state interests - Bans cruel and unusual punishment - Bans double jeopardy: you can’t be tried or punished for the same crime twice Sources of American law - US and State Constitutions - Statutory law (federal and state) - Administrative regulations and decisions - Case law and common law doctrines - Restatements of the law (ALI) Primary sources of law - Statutory law - United States Code (USC; Federal Law) - State Statutes (WI and every other state) - Administrative law - Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) - Case law (Case Citations) - Supreme court cases - Federal court cases - State court cases Examples of regulatory agencies - Interstate commerce commission (ICC) = 1887 - Railroads, trucking, pipelines, barges, express carriers - Federal reserve board (FRB) = 1913 - Banks - Food and drug administration (FDA) = 1931 - Food, drugs, cosmetics - Federal communications commission (FCC) = 1934 - Radio, television, telephone, telegraph - Federal aviation administration (FAA) = 1967 - Airline safety - National highway traffic safety administration (NHTSA) = 1970 - Motor vehicles Classifications of law types: - Every law with be either: - Civil or criminal - Substantive or procedural - Public or private - (i.e.) non-government law between private citizens Substantive vs. procedural law - Substantive law = defines or creates the rights and obligations of persons and governments - (i.e.) “homicide means…” - Procedural law = provides the steps one must follow in order to avail oneself of on’e legal rights or enforce another’s legal obligations - (i.e.) process of laws Civil vs. criminal - Civil law defines the rights between individuals or individuals and governments - Criminal law defines an individual’s obligations to society as a whole Types of litigation - Criminal: prosecution for violation of a state or federal law - Campaign finance law violation is against federal law - No federal law against murder (generally); only state laws apply - City ordinances apply to cities and usually deal with licenses, parking, and minor offenses - Civil (tort): litigation designed to resolve disagreements - You owe me money: I sue in state court to get you to pay - I’m a prisoner and think you are treating me in a cruel way: I sue in federal court because you are violating my constitutional rights - Civil (others): mental health commitment, probate, family issues, etc. - Typically handled in state circuit courts (but not always) Bringing a case in civil or criminal court? What are the differences between them? - Who initiates the case? - Criminal = state - Civil = plaintiff - What is the standard of proof? - Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt - Civil = preponderance of the evidence  - What is the remedy or outcome? - Criminal = jail, prison, probation, fines - Civil = money, injunction (get the party to start or stop doing something) - Is there a right to an attorney? - Criminal = defendant has a constitutional right to an attorney - Civil = parties must pay for attorneys or represent themselves Dual system: Federal power and state power - Federal power overarches state sovereignty (freedome) in certain areas - Overall justice, domestic safety and defense, general welfare - The Bill of Rights helps make clear what the federal government must protect for all of the states - it helps keep a check and balance on centralized rule - State power allows states to govern anything the federal power does not have authority over - 10th Amendment - States have a lot of power to regulate their citizens, settle disputes, contracts - States have different laws on the same issues, dependent on how each state decides to function Federal courts: Limited - Limited jurisdiction - As the framers wrote the constitution, some feared that the federal courts might threaten the independence of the states and the people - To combat this fear, the framers set up a federal court system that can only hear cases in special circumstances - We call this having “limited jurisdiction” - Since the federal courts can only have certain kinds of cases, most of the day-to-day cases that courts deal with happen in state courts - Federal courts have a “limited” role - states have a lot of power Federal cases: Examples These cases involve the U.S. government, the U.S. constitution or other federal laws - A crime that is a violation of federal law, such as bank robbery, drug cases, guns, or kidnapping - Civil cases based on federal laws, such as laws prohibiting employment, discrimination, or laws regulating securities trading or competition (antitrust) - Interstate commerce or interstate criminal activity - Violation of a protection guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - US is a party Social Security claims or federal tax - Controversy between two states  - US vs. foreign governments such as international trade or foreign treaties - All bankruptcy, patent, copyright, Native American, and maritime cases State courts - General jurisdiction - State courts are courts of “general jurisdiction”. They hear all the cases not specifically selected for federal courts - Just as the federal courts interpret federal laws, state courts interpret state laws - Each state gets to make and interpret its own laws - This helps the states retain power, and makes sure the national government doesn’t become too strong State courts: Types of cases - About 90% of all cases heard in the American court system happen at the state level - Examples: - Criminal: robbery, assault, murder, many drug-alcohol - Controversy arising out of the state constitution or other state laws - A case in which the state is a part, such as state tax violations - Most real estate cases, malpractice, personal injury cases, and contract disputes - All family, divorce, custody, inheritance, and probate cases - Most traffic and juvenile cases Dual court system example: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - Miranda arrested in Arizona for kidnapping-rape state violations - Miranda goes first to AZ Supreme Court and then to US Supreme Court on constitutional question of whether his signed confession violated the 5th amendment (right against self-incrimination) and 6th amendment (right to an attorney) - Because constitutional (federal) - Miranda appeals case from AZ (state) to US Supreme Court in the dual court system - US Supreme Court held 5-4 Miranda’s confession was unconstitutional because coercive nature of police interrogation, no confession can be admissible unless a suspect is made aware of his rights and then in turn waives those rights - Sends case back to AZ - Miranda goes back to AZ state court: he is convicted again (without his confession because it could not be used following US Supreme Court ruling) with other evidence (witnesses); later Miranda stabbed to death in a bar fight Supreme Court Justices - The main job of the nation’s top court is to decide whether laws are allowable under the Constitution - Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in cases involving foreign diplomats or state - All other cases come to the court on appeal - The Court chooses the cases it hears through the writ of Certiorari - Most cases are rejected - In cases the Court refuses to hear, the decision of the lower court stands Power of the Supreme Court - The Court’s main job is to decision whether laws and government actions are constitutional, or allowed by the constitution - It does this through judicial review = the power to say whether any law or government action goes against the constitution - The legislative and executive branches must follow Supreme Court rulings - Because the Court is removed from politics and the influences of special-interest groups, the parties involved in a case are likely to get a fair hearing The currency Supreme Court - The president appoints Supreme Court justices, with Senate approval - The president’s decision may be influenced by the Justice Department, American Bar Association, interests groups, and other Supreme Court justices - 8 associate justices and one chief justice make up the Supreme Court - Court has final authority on cases involving the constitution, acts of Congress, treaties Types of powers - Police power: the power to pass laws, enforce them, and punish violators - Minimally requires that the police think a crime probably happened and the person probably did it - It’s about what has happened and who did it - Parens patriae: the state has a duty to protect citizens from bad things in the way that a parent would protect a child - Requires the person have a mental disturbance and poses a danger to themselves or others in society - It's about what the person is and what might happen System structure - Law enforcement: local, state, federal - all have their own structures - State = circuit/trial, intermediate appellate, State Supreme Court - Federal = district, circuit appellate, federal supreme court (SCOTUS) - Administrative law = rules and regulations for implementing policies (including running prisons, state hospitals, etc.) - Corrections: - Local jails = hold people while awaiting trial and many hold people while serving short sentences/not typically designed for holding people long term - State prisons = typically where people serve prison sentences for state crimes - Federal prisons = where people serve sentences for federal crimes - Federal detention centers = similar to local jails for federal defendants and others (people awaiting deportation, enemy combatants) Types of legal reasoning - Deductive reasoning: makes use of syllogism, a type of logical relationship involving a major premise and a minor premise (to reach a logical conclusion) - Linear reasoning: proceeds from point to point, with the final point being the conclusion - Reasoning by analogy: analysis that compares facts of present case with facts of similar previously-decided cases Appeals - Constitution guarantees the right to “petition for redress of grievances” - This means if you don’t like something the government is doing, you can complain to a court - Includes if you think you were treated unfairly in a criminal or civil action - Appeal first goes to the state or federal appeals court - If you don’t like that outcome you can appeal to the state or federal supreme court - Appellate courts don’t have to take the case Doctrine of stare decisis - Stare decisis = Latin phrase meaning “to stand on decided cases” or “let the decision stand”, or “it has been decided and therefore leave it alone” - Why is it important? - Makes the law stable and predictable - Increases judicial efficiency by relieving courts of having to reinvent legal principles for each case brought before them Stare decisis and precedent - Stare decisis is “judge made law” based on precedent - Precedents are judicial decisions that give rise to legal principles that can be applied in future cases upon similar facts - Precedents and other forms of positive law, such as statutes, constitutions, and regulations, are referred to as binding authority and must be followed Stare decisis and legal reasoning - Method used by judges to reach a decision - Many courts and attorneys frame decisions and briefs using the IRAC format: Issue, Rule, Application (analysis), and Conclusion - When there is an effort to overturn a decision it requires the legal analysis as to why in the face of the principle of leaving the issue alone since it was decided previously - In other words: it is an uphill battle to change the previous decision Remember: Doctrine of stare decisis Stare decisis is a Latin phrase meaning “to stand on decided cases” - Makes the law stable and predictable - Increases judicial efficiency by relieving courts of having to reinvent legal principles for each case brought before them Due process - Procedural due process = refers to the manner in which the government enforces laws - (i.e.) how much trickery, coercion, deception can you use to get a confession - (i.e.) how do you ensure the person is able to exercise their rights - Miranda v. Arizona: SCOTUS ruled that a suspect has to be informed of their rights - Substantive due process = refers to the substance of the behavior subject to regulation or a law - Griswold v. Conn (1965): SCOTUS ruled that bans on birth control violated a person’s right to privacy with no legitimate state interest at stake - Lawrence v. Texas (2003): SCOTUS overturned 14 state laws against consensual homosexual sex - Texas “homosexual acts” law banned anal sex between men - Overturned in part on equal protection grounds: it didn’t apply to women Primary authority of law - Primary authority is the law itself - Constitutions - Statutes - Administrative regulations issued pursuant to enabling legislation - Case law Secondary authority of law - Secondary authority is all legal materials that are not primary authority or finding aids - Encyclopedias - Law reviews - Treatises - ALR - Secondary authority is never binding on a court - it is persuasive Review - Constitution is the supreme law of its jurisdiction and 51 major jurisdictions in the US - Three branches of government in each jurisdiction - Executive, legislative, and judicial - Each branch produces legal materials - Primary and secondary authority - Three court systems of the US and each of the states - Mandatory and persuasive authority Summary - US constitution - Social agreement - Some freedom lost for the common good - Protects rights - Prevents abuse - State constitutions - Power to decide state crimes - Provide health and safety - Welfare - Education - Government of checks and balances - Legislature makes laws - Executive administers laws - Judicial decides what law means - Dual courts = federal and state court systems - State court handle majority of cases - Trial courts = deal with the who, what, why facts - Criminal cases - Standard - “beyond reasonable doubt” - Often plea bargain outcome - Civil cases - Standard - “preponderance of evidence” - Often settlement of money or harmful condition change - Stare decisis principle - Court decisions can be appealed - But appeal does not try the case again - For error review, due process violations - Can overturn decision, order new trial, adjust decision, written opinion with explanation and direction, and within principle of stare decisis - US Supreme Court - Selects pressing constitutional issues - Resolves conflicting state decisions on federal constitutional issues 9.11.24 Moral Panics https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/40810880?module_item_id=7732290 What is a moral panic? - Moral panic = feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society - And where there is a disproportionate public reaction to that actual threat Examples of moral panic - 1945-60 = “Red Scare” - Fear of left wing “communists” - 1970s = “War on Drugs” - Political need for tough on crime - Gets votes - 1980s = Satanic ritual abuse - No evidence at all - 1980s-90s = Dungeons and dragons - Video games produce witchcraft, pornography, suicide, homicide, Satanism - Not likely - 1999 = Columbine school shooting - “Goth Rockers” the cause - 2014 = Ebola virus - 12,000 dead; 4,000 dead in African countries - Created fear of flights from Africa - race/xenophobia - 2018 = Migrants from Central America to the USA - Creates fear - 2021 = Critical race theory - Creating political wedge of fear of teaching certain topics - 2024 = Immigration? Moral panics: how to get one started - Typically, there is a core concern regarding something that could be potentially harmful (but not always) - Typically a person or group is defined as a threat to society (witches, psychopaths, superpredators, etc.) - Moral entrepreneurs who obtain benefits from the panic enter the picture: - Experts, media, politicians Moral panic and folk devils - Moral panic = an intense feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order - Cohen coined the term “moral panic” in his study of the media and social reaction to the 1960s culture of “Mods and Rockers” - He suggested the media overreacted to a particular type of behavior which challenges the accepted social norms - (i.e.) the way “mods” and “punk rockers” and the way they interacted with each other was not deemed acceptable in society - Folk devils = they become the Outsiders - something must be done! - Folk devil = a person or group of people portrayed by the media as outsiders and deviant, and who are blamed for crimes or other societal problems - In Cohen’s case this was the “Mods and Rockers” - He studied how different groups reacted to the many different youth gangs in England in 1964 - Most of the time these things happen in passing and are easily forgotten BUT occasionally they worry/scare public so much that it causes real change in society such as new policies and laws Moral panics: Culture, politics, and social construction Goode/Ben - Yahudat (1994) - Abstract: - Social problems may fruitfully be looked at as constructed phenomena, that is, what constitutes a problem is the concern that segments of the public feel about a given condition - From the constructionist perspective, that concern need not bear a close relationship with the concrete hard or damage that the condition poses or causes - At times, substantial numbers of the members of societies are subject to intense feelings of concern about a given threat which a sober assessment of the evidence suggests is either nonexistent or considerably less than would be expected from the concrete harm posed by the threat - Such overheated periods of intense concern are typically short-lived - In such periods, which sociologists refer to as “moral panics”, the agents responsible for the threat - “folk devils” - are stereotyped and classified as deviants - What accounts for these outbreaks or episodes of moral panics? - Three theories have been proposed: grassroots, elite-engineered, and interest group theories - Moral panics are unlike fads; though both tend to be short-lived, moral panics always leave an informal, and often an institutional legacy Cohen’s five stages of moral panic 1. Something or someone is defined as a threat to values or interests 2. This threat is depicted in an easily recognizable form by the media 3. There is a rapid build-up of public concern 4. There is a response from authorities or opinion makers 5. The panic recedes or results in social changes Folk devils and moral panics - Stanley Cohen (1972) - “Societies appear to be subject, every now and then, to periods of moral panic. A condition, episode, a person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests” - Its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by mass media; moral barricades are manned by editors/politicians; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or resorted to; the condition then disappears and becomes more visible - Sometimes the panic passes over and forgotten, except in folklore and collective memory; at other times it has more serious and long-lasting repercussions and might produce such changes as those in legal and social policy or even in the way society conceives itself Dilulio: The Coming of the Super-Predators (1995) - Reaction to the increase in juvenile homicide rates from 1985 to 1993 - Framed this as a moral issue: moral poverty/moral depravity - Very selective use of research to construct a patina of scientific validity - (i.e.) ignores increased urbanization, welfare reform, income disparity, effects of increased handgun lethality, etc. - The superpredator scare was grabbed by “moral entrepreneurs” that wanted increased incarceration and “tough on crime” as a campaign issue Social constructionism - Social problems, and other areas of social discourse, are constructed from the shared belief of the social system - They have a “collective definition” - Problems may, or may not exist in the objective world - Problems may be different in the objective world than they are understood to be - The definition of a social problem is socially constructed, and thus may be defined differently in different groups - Socially constructed problems drive social policy that change laws, not always for the benefit of society Moral panics can powerfully influence laws - Legislative actions lead to law changes - Lengthen sentences - Sentence enhancers - More laws to “stop the problem people” - Like: Three Strike Laws - Community notifications - probation/parole conditions - Release standards and decisions Consequences of moral panics? - “The explosive incident will always get more attention than the duller, more complex bigger picture. And when we let that happen, everyone loses” (Cree 2013) - The innocent can be victimized - regulations/law in response to the circumstance can become out of proportion to the actual level of the threat - Threats can be grossly exaggerated - Moral panics simplify complex problems and distract from other (and often far more important) factors How are moral panics expressed? - Moral panics can be expressed through: - Organized collective actions; protests, campaigns, etc. - General public concern and prioritizing he ussie as a serious problem - Public discussion of the issue in the media - Legal processes; new laws, altered policing actions, etc. How are moral panics exacerbated? - Moral panic = the process of arousing social concern over an issue, usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media - Moral panics involve the interaction of the media, public opinion, and authorities Elements of a moral panic - Concern = legitimate or sincere concern about a perceived social issue - Hostility (fear) = the concern identifies an “other” that represents a threat - Consensus = a substantial segment of society feel that the threat is real, serious, and caused by malicious “others” - Disproportionality = the term “moral panic” is applied when the response is disproportionate to the issue, often the source of considerable disagreement Other necessary elements - Limited facts about the issue - Bits of information that substitute for complete or accurate data - Limited info used to create the panic narrative - Lack of established methods to control the threat - A weakly defined threat (i.e. evil-doers) - An “otherization” process that identifies individuals or groups that are the source of the threat Players in the panic - Moral entrepreneurs = individuals or groups who promote the panic - “Experts” = those who profess special knowledge about the issue and who typically say “it’s worse than you think” - Typically have a book/seminar that gives them a financial incentive, and the time to promote the panic - Media = panic provides content; they view themselves as fulfilling their civic duty - Political forces = advocacy groups or politicians who use the information from the “experts” and media to craft laws and policies Moral panic models - Goode and Ben-Yahuda - Grassroots model = panic arising from general public, usually some latent, diffuse anxiety that rises to larger public awareness because of an untoward event - Turns into a crisis often because there is a perceived threat to an overall public safety - Elite engineered model = more nefarious; where small, powerful group “engineer” a circumstance to create fear and panic, even though they know issue isn’t near as dire and terrible regarding harm - often a diversion move to deflect from much more real issues - Interest group theory = crusaders of some type, moral crusaders who want to reinforce the “social rules”, more narrowly focused - (i.e.) religious, for/against police, for/against media Criticisms of Cohen’s theory - The term “panic” has connotations of irrationality and lack of control - “Disproportionality” has no way to measure what a “proportionate” action should be to a specific action or situation - Conservatives are viewed as the “cause” of the panic and “liberals” are the rational ones Moral entrepreneurs - positive panic too - Entrepreneurs = people who lead the labeling of a behavior - positively or negatively - and spread of popularize this label throughout society - (i.e.) MADD (mothers against drinking driving), gun control lobby, pro-life, pro-choice, anti-tobacco Antidotes to moral panic activities - Increased understanding of the powerful social dynamics often stirred by fear or disgust - Awareness of the power of emotions over thought - Awareness that emotion improperly applied can change laws - Resistance with rationale thought supported by science, data, research - Opposition to false feel good actions with vigorous defense about ramifications - costs/fairness/long view - Use of the law to force and stir rationality 9.16.24 Why do we punish? https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/40930342?module_item_id=7744501 What is punishment? - Punishment = the deliberate infliction of harm onto another person for the purpose: 1. Changing behavior of person 2. Changing behavior of others 3. Confirming authority or power of the entity that inflicts the harm 4. Supporting the legitimacy and mandatory nature of the law - If the law is not enforced its not much of a law and the agent that passed the law loses legitimacy U.S. and punishment - US relies on punishment - and particularly retribution - more than any country - When you are harmed, a retributive impulse is natural and almost universal - US courts offer punishment of the offender as a foundation to help the victim recover from the harm Criminal justice purpose of punishment 1. Retribution: people who harm deserve to suffer harm 2. Incapacitation: prevents the person from committing another crime 3. Deterrence: makes people less likely to commit crime because they don’t want to pay the cost Philosophy of punishment - Individually oriented punishment philosophies (past tense orientation): - Retribution - Special deterrence (deters a specific person) - Society-wide oriented punishment philosophies (present tense orientation): - Control/order maintenance - General deterrence (deters the general population) What should be punished? - In general, we punish people who have done harm - Harm to an individual (i.e. shot someone) - Harm to the nation (i.e. treason) - Harm to the economic system (i.e. tax evasion, fraud) - Harming others is considered morally wrong Moral reasoning - Punishment deters because people think rationally about harms and gains - Philosophers and the law assumes that we make moral judgments on a rational basis - Moral reasoning is rational - Research shows that lots of moral reasoning is intuitive and we come up with a rationale for the judgment afterward - Moral reasoning is irrational - What is immoral? 1. I shoot a guy in the head - immoral? 2. Drowning a child? - Moral imperatives - Moral reasoning = we rationally decide what is moral and not moral based on the harm the behavior cause Morality and punishment - If deliberately doing harm is immoral, and punishment does deliberate harm, why do we punish? - RETRIBUTION = we feel an impulse to get back at the person who armed us or someone we identify with (i.e. child) - US criminal justice system encourages retribution What is immoral? - We have a tradition that retribution is justified as a response to immoral behavior IF - The immoral behavior was deliberate or done on purpose - The person was exercising FREE WILL when the act was done Actus rea - To punish someone, we first have to prove they did the bad act - Actus rea = bad act Mens rea - Mens rea = “criminal intent” of the person when they committed the bad act - A more deliberate and intentional bad act justifies more punishment - BUT this means we have to consider the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime - not just the facts of what they did (actus rea) Criminal culpability - How much blame we attribute to the person is a mix of their actus and mens rea - CULPABILITY = term for blameworthiness, or how much we blame the person for what they did (how much punishment is justified) The “myth of evil” - Acts that involve death tend to make us attribute greater culpability - We are more likely to see the act as deliberate - We are more likely to see the actor as having a bad character - We are more likely to see these acts as “evil” and the actors as “evil” people - When something terrible happens, we are apt to see the source of evil - It’s not that we live in an arbitrarily and unpredictably violent world, but there is evil that shows up from time to time Eastern state penitentiary history - World’s first fully realized penitentiary - Opened in 1829 - Replaced lashes and corporal punishment with solitary confinement - Seen as a breakthrough in human rehabilitation Definition: Jails - Operated by county and city governments - Hold mostly inmates from the local community - House those who are awaiting trial or have recently been arrested, in addition to convicts - Generally hold inmates who have been found guilty of minor crimes and are serving sentences of less than a year - Due to smaller budgets, tend to focus only on the necessities of safety, food, clothing Definitions: Prisons - Operated by federal and state governments - House only those who have been convicted of a crime - Generally hold inmates who have been found guilty of serious crimes and received sentences of longer than one year - Often offer a wide variety of rehabilitation and educational programs for long-term prisoners Punishment in the US - US has less than 5% of world’s population but 25% of world’s prisoners - Highest incarceration rate in the world (except a few small island nations) - Probably higher than any large country in peacetime in history Prosecution tools - Stacking charges: charging multiple crimes for one incident - (i.e.) armed robbery = armed robbery + assault with a deadly weapon + carrying a concealed weapon + possession of stolen property + conspiracy to commit felony assault + threatening, etc. - Sentencing enhancements: additions to a charge that increases the length of sentence - (i.e.) 3 strikes, presence of a child, use of a weapon, certain drugs involved, etc. - Between 94% and 97% of criminal cases end with a plea bargain - Strategic charging helps get to that point Increase in what’s illegal - Over the past 30 years most states have: - Increased the number of laws - Increased the number of convicted persons given prison time - Increased the length of sentences Prison population increases - Three strikes laws = third felony conviction = life without parole - “Truth in sentencing” = some variation or elimination of earned parole - (i.e.) person gets a 20 year sentence with 15 years in no matter what and automatic parole for the last 5 - Longer sentences passed during the “tough on crime” era - Parole revocation = 40% of prison admissions are for parole violation - Most common reason = failure to report to Parole Officer on time  - Lack of parole board regulations/oversight - In most states, ANYONE can be on the parole board - Parole decisions cannot be appealed - Parole decisions have no guidelines or rules Forgiveness therapy - Retribution is a common initial impulse, but it does not move the victim of harm past the harm - You remain focused on retaliation for the harm - Several forgiveness models: - Recognition of the harm - Considering forgiveness as a way to put the burden of harm down - Commitment to forgiveness - Develop a new way of thinking about the harm - Working through the practice of forgiveness as a way to live with the harm - Phases: 1. Recognition and expression of anger over the harm 2. Decision phase: consider the burden of anger and the alternative of forgiveness 3. Commitment to forgive phase 4. Cognitive reframing phase - the work of forgiveness 5. Deepening/meaning phase - finding meaning in the suffering and putting the trauma into your life story - Outcomes - Carrying anger, resentment over the harm has negative health impacts - Forgiveness therapy has been shown to improve: - Depression - Anger and hostility - Stress and distress - Positive affect in general - All models and modalities were effective - Lots of variation in methodology limited findings Human rights - Most countries have a human rights law or constitutional human rights provisions - These require the government to comply with the UN charter on human rights - Not the US: 8th amendment allows things that are considered crimes against humanity by the UN Myths about prisons: all wrong - Humane: most prison systems use long-term isolation routinely for prisoners that are disruptive or MI - Many of these violate UN charters on human rights - Prison is reserved for the deserving: you are far better off being guilty and rich than poor and innocent - Vigilance effects = people in poor neighborhoods are policed more, therefore arrested more; racial bias - Makes us safer: high incarceration rates, prevent a small number of offenses through incapacitation - High incarceration rates are also associated with higher recidivism rates, cancelling out most or all incapacitation effects - Prisons have high rates of crime and suicide; but the victims are other prisoners and guards (so its OK?) Why do we tolerate prison conditions? - Distance/proximity: out of sight, out of mind; punishment happens where we don’t see it, makes it seem unreal - Harm caused by omission (taking things away like family contact, normal human comforts, human contact, etc.) seems less immoral than active punishment like corporal punishment - The punishment happens over time: any one day is not that bad, its the accumulation of harm and deprivation of a chunk of the person’s life that is the main harm - The prisoner deserves punishment anyway - suffering inflicted on someone who did harm is fair Why do we punish? - Americans love retribution: bad acts should be punished - Assumption is that evil acts are done by evil people - not like us - Retribution sells: politically, economically, emotionally 9.18.24 Labels and Bias https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/40985871?module_item_id=7749214 Early punishments - Involved public torture or execution of the person - Not intended to reform the person - Intended to demonstrate the dominance and power of the ruler to the audience - Dominance was (and is) demonstrated by control of the person’s body - destroying the body demonstrated the states domination over subjects - Severity of the torture matched the status of the person - high status were executed quickly without torture Enlightenment - Introduced the idea that the sovereign should only rule with the consent of the people - the head of government should serve the people - Punishment to establish the dominance of the sovereign was problematic - “Enlightened” reformers began to push for alternatives to corporal punishments Official purpose of punishment - Re-asserting the legitimacy of the law - (i.e.) you are not a sovereign citizen - Retribution = providing just deserts; repaying a harm; “evening the score” - Deterrence: - General deterrence = things that deter general population from future bad acts - (i.e.) braking on the wheel, making an example of a person - Specific deterrence = things hat target a specific person to dissuade them from future bad acts - (i.e.) prison time, fines How do we decide who to punish? - Historically animals would be tried for crime and potentially executed - Logic was: if they did a bad thing, they should be punished - Actus rea (the bad act) was all that mattered - What about bad acts that were unintentional? - Doing bad acts out of free will deserves punishment - Mens rea (bad intention) becomes relevant - Culpability (degree of deserving punishment) = scale not a switch - Depends on the level of immorality of the act and how much it was a manifestation of the person’s free will Empathy and moral reasoning - Empathy = degree of emotional resonance - When we see pain in others it activates neural pathways related to similar suffering we have experienced or seen - May involve “mirror neurons” - Moral behavior = behavior that avoids harming others or that benefits others (altruism) - Defined by moral reasoning and moral norms Factors affecting our moral judgments - Attribution of blame requires that the person did the bad act and acted out of free will - Free will assumes that the person had agency in the act - They could have chosen to not do it - Assumption is that good people choose to do good things and evil people choose evil acts Types of empathy - Cognitive mentalizing (perspective taking) - Ability to perceive the internal processes of another person - Requires ability to perceive emotionally relevant cues - Facilitated by personal emotional experiences - Requires the ability to suppress personal experience - Theory of mind - Basic ability to recognize that others have their own inner experiences - Primates have it - Crayola box example with individuals with autism - Emotional empathy (emotional contagion) - Requires affective resonance with the other person; you recall past experiences of pain to relate to the pain of others (usually automatically) - Requires a vicarious reaction to the pain of others as if it was your own - Present in infants and other primates - Probably foundational for all prosocial functioning Moral reasoning - Out biases are our a priori moral judgments - Recent research demonstrates that moral reasoning is influenced by: 1. Disgust; of the offense or the person 2. “Otherness”; the degree to which we identify with the person involved 3. Outrage or anger 4. Perceived threat 5. Biases (race, gender, proximity) Labels matter - Labeling someone with non-human labels tends to increase moral outrage - (i.e.) monster, super-predator, pedophile, psychopath, drunk, etc. - More human labels tend to decrease moral outrage - (i.e.) mother, grandmother, child, etc. Implicit bias - African americans are about 13% of the population but: - Account for 56.4% of LWOP prisoners - 1 in 3 Black men can expect to do time - Are killed by police at about 3x the rate of white suspects Other factors in fatal encounters with police - Gender = males are about 7x the rate of females - Mental illness - Race = non-white is far higher risk Increase in what’s illegal (another example) - Nixon’s War on Drugs - “We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” - John Erlichman, Assistant to the President (Nixon)” The labels we live by - How we label a victim influences how their case is handled - Depending on the circumstance, there is a tendency in humans to mentally at least partially “blame the victim” - (i.e.) drunk guy not assault victim - Once labeled, difficult to change the viewpoint otherwise (“tunnel vision”) Confirmation bias - Bias is an efficient way to process information; mental shortcut - People tend to seek out new information that supports previous judgments - People tend to discount information that conflicts with established judgments - Biases include the accumulation of previous moral judgments Otherization - We are less compassionate about people we do not identify with as being in our group - We are far more altruistic toward people we see as in our group - Things that affect whether someone is “other” - Proximity - Similarity - fear/threat - Fidelity of the other WI has the highest percent of its Black population in prison of any state in the US 9.23.24 Police use of force and police stress https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/41083347?module_item_id=7756558 Police stress: Gershon, et al. (2009) - Police cite several sources of stress: - Ineffective workplace communication - Rigid organizational structure - Shift work, excessive overtime, heavy workload, variable/intermittent work pace - Lack of opportunities for advancement - Workplace discrimination, harassment - Poor working conditions, frequent interaction with general public  - Gershon, et al. (2009) - Exposure to critical incidents - near death or traumatic incidents - Job dissatisfaction - Organizational unfairness - lack of support when in trouble - Discrimination - Lack of cooperation and trust - Most stressors are related to the organization and demands of the job Why do cops kill people? - Mandate as the body authorized to use force yields a “safety first” culture - Cops are VERY aware of cops being killed - Threat of violence is traumatic and socially isolating - Only others who have been through it can relate to the experience - Shared threat experience generates tight support culture: us v. them - Past direct and vicarious traumas can “trigger” over reactions to threat - Courts allow consideration of the officer’s perception of threat in the reasonableness of their use of force - making implicit biases sort of OK - Questioning of police actions under threat conditions increases us vs. them culture - Investigation of other officer galvanized sense of alliance with officers who engage in misconduct - Other officers can imagine making that mistake - maybe Sherman (2018) Annual review of criminology - 1970 to 1985 = first major push to reduce police killings - 50 cities involved; cut police killing citizens from 353 to 172 per year - UW laws school conference in 1970 was instrumental - Movement ended with Tennessee v. Garner (1985) and Graham v. Connor (1989) - In Garner, police killed a 15 year old unarmed boy leaving a burglary; Graham suffered multiple injuries including broken bones while being arrested on suspicion of theft - SCOTUS limited the use of force to make an arrest to the level of force a reasonable cop would use in that situation - Many departments adopted Garner and Graham as THE standard for deadly force; supplanting some local policies - Police killings went up in many depts partly due to adoption of more lethal weapons and higher homicide rates - End of that push for reform of police use of force Graham v. Connor (1989) - Dethorne Graham was having an insulin reaction, a friend drives him to a convenience store for some OJ, line is too long and he leaves immediately - Police see Graham enter and leave the store quickly, stop the car as it drives away - Graham tries to explain he is going into insulin shock and struggles with police - Police beat him, break his foot, injure his shoulder, etc. - Graham sues over excessive force - SCOTUS rules that force but be “objectively reasonable” - Meaning: given the facts known at the time, would a similarly trained and experienced officer respond in a similar fashion? - Whatever the police generally say it is - Replaced more restrictive policies in place in several police departments Sherman (2018) Annual review of criminology - Police killings should be viewed as “system crashes” - rare but inevitable failures, similar to plane crashes - Analyze the systematic elements that contribute to the failure - not just hold individual officers accountable - Focus the investigation on the system and culture in the police department and community - Assumes that there will be disasters during routine operation of the system - Focus on identifying systemic contributors and ameliorating them - Often it is a series of cascading events, a pathway of events, or an interactive complex of events - The problem is not just “rogue cops”, it is also “rogue policing cultures” Task force on 21st century policing (2015) - 59 recommendations reflecting 6 pillars: - Building trust and legitimacy of the police: including community in policies, establish community oversight board - Policy and oversight: including specialized training, national standards and certification of police officers - Technology and social media: national standards and model policies - Community policing and crime reduction: enhance the public service role of police - Training and education: establish regional training and a postgrad institute for policing; include crisis intervention de-escalation training, AODA, MH issues - Officer wellness and safety: collect better data, provide protective equipment, require seat belts, critical incident management - Had an impact, slow adoption, killed in the Trump admin, partially revived by Biden Police: what is the job? - Police training emphasizes taking control of a situation - Emphasis on dominance - Every cop is always aware of the risks Sherman (2020): what to do? 1. Require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, through communication, maintaining distance, slowing things down, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force 2. Prohibit officers from using maneuvers that cut off oxygen or blood flow 3. Require officers to intervene and stop excessive or unnecessary forced used by another officer and report these incidents immediately 4. Restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles 5. List the types of force/weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance 6. Require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force 7. Require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before using serious force 8. Require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force Who can do it? - Removing rogue cops may be easier than preventing rogue cops - Fixing rogue cultures may be more complex: - Realistic systemic thinking - 18,000 police agencies under local control makes broad changes harder - Sherman recommends state takeover of local departments - Develop a parallel department that eventually replaces the local department - New department starts with community policing, and similar activities - Existing police workload is freed up from MH and minor calls - Build a culture of problem-solving vs. dominance - State inspector general to track rogue cops performance and intervene early Police training - Police are seen as, recruited to, and trained to use force - Training varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction - Often becoming a police officer requires less training than a licensed beautician - TN = 480 hours training (12 weeks) - US average = 672 hours training (1 sem) - Plumber takes 2 years tech school plus a licensing exam What cops actually do - Overwhelming majority of incidents that cops are involved in are traffic related; disabled vehicles, accidents, speeding, etc. - Domestic violence is by far the most common violent crime (misdemeanor) - Intervention in a felony or violent crime is rare - Training emphasizes the worst case Incident driven policing - Police only respond to 911 calls - Incident driven - Reactive - Limited information; police don’t get to know people - Focus on single incidents - Reliance on the criminal justice system to solve problems - Efficiency driven - keeps cops busy Community policing - Community policing = policing philosophy that promotes and supports organizational strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime and social disorder through problem solving tactics and community police partnerships - We/they partnerships - Broken windows - Officer expertise - Citizen is a resource - Variety of strategies/tactics - Decentralized service - Increased officer authority/accountability Broken windows theory Wilson and Kelling - If you leave a broken window unfixed, its an indicator of a lack of social concern and will lead to more significant social and neighborhood decay - Paying attention to details of a neighborhood can impact crime and fear of crime - The best way to fight more serious crime is to fight the disorder that precedes it Reactive vs. Proactive policing Crisis intervention team - Police handle MI persons on a regular basis - Often involuntary hospitalization requires the police to intervene - MH commitments are time consuming, costly, and frustrating to police - There is no guarantee that a hospital will admit or hold a MI person - Its faster and easier for the officer to arrest, file charges, then call MH staff to jail - CIT are specifically trained to handle MH emergencies - Trained in recognizing and de-escalating MH crises - Coordinates with psychiatric hospitals so there are fewer admission failures - Coordinates with MH court 9.25.24 Eyewitness testimony and he legal system https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/41148628?module_item_id=7762543 Eyewitness testimony and the legal system - Involves most compelling evidence in court - Is most persuasive to a jury - Beats out confessions even - Leads to more wrongful convictions than any other evidence Eyewitness memory and court testimony - Errors in perception and memory sometimes lead to mistaken identification and inaccuracy in legal proceedings, leading to wrongful convictions - Errors most prominently seen in DNA appeal cases where conviction based entirely on eyewitness statements and testimony Myths about memory (all false) - Mine is great [‘flashbulb’ ‘video camera’] - “I wouldn’t ‘lie’ about what I saw, why would an innocent bystanding witness?” - Generally, people do not know that the mind/memory is “malleable” - Inaccurate memory isn’t about “lying,” it is about brain processes and other events - Judges tend to assume we understand memory Eyewitness identification and brain process - Eyewitnesses rely on memory - Encoding (gathering) - Storage (holding) - Retrieval (assessing) - Errors can occur at each stage - Imperfect encoding - Memory trace deterioration - Retrieval distortion Memory and the accuracy of eyewitness testimony - Assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience is not correct - Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions - We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others - Memory is active and malleable - Memory is a process and not static, not stored and retrieved, not as clean Reasons for ID problems - Memory reconstruction - Cross-racial identification - Lineup procedures - Stress and anxiety - Suggestive interviewing techniques Unreliability of eyewitness testimony 1. Memory decay and distortion 2. Perception and attention 3. Misidentification 4. Lineup procedures 5. Solutions Misinformation effect - Misleading post-event information leads subjects to remember false details (Loftus et al.) - What causes this effect? - Overwriting failures - Encoding failures - Social desirability concerns? - Source monitoring: failure to retrieve the correct source of a (real) memory - Cannot tell if it is the memory or the suggestion What about the effect of stress? Other interpretations of stress and memory - Stress enhances memory for main stressor - Stress interferes with memory for peripheral details - What did the room look like? Eyewitness identification as a function of stress level - Stress and weapons focus - Stress effects encoding - Weapons focus effect = witness focuses on weapon, not assailant - Weapons become focus of witness’ attention - Leaves individual fewer resources to encode perpetrator’s features or details Reconstruction of memory - Memory is not the same as a video - Retrieval introduces the chance for error - Each time we retrieve a memory, we reconstruct the basis of: - Existing memory trace - Expectancies - Beliefs - Current knowledge Construction, reconstruction, evaluation of eyewitness memories - Problem = witness confidence does not correlate with accuracy - Witness confidence - Highly confident eyewitnesses tend to persuade jurors - Critical level of confidence is one expressed at initial identification, not at trial - Confidence erosion or manipulation - Poorly constructed lineup - Biased information or feedback exposure (post identification feedback effect and cognitive dissonance) - Confidence increase over time - Defendant identification in court - Weakly correlated with accuracy as witness investment in identification correctness increases over time Witness confidence and children - Child eyewitness - About as accurate as adults in memory when culprit is present or culprit is absent lineup - If the true perpetrator is absent from the lineup, children do worse - Provide less information - More suggestible - Memories of children seem to be especially negatively impacted by a stress-inducing interview style Construction and reconstruction of eyewitness memory - Unconscious transference = face seen in one context transferred to another - Pre Existing expectations = interaction of beliefs about sequence of actions in a case with prior knowledge - Leading or suggestive comments = eyewitness recall shaped by wording of questions - Inadvertent “cuing” to indicate what is expected when person doesn’t recall/know  - Cross-racial identifications - Cross-race effect (own race bias) present from infancy to adulthood - Not large bias effect, but consequential for legal system - Involves more false positive identifications - Own-race identification more likely to be correct Using research findings to improve eyewitness accuracy - Estimator variables - Factors outside legal system control (stress, light, distance) - System variables - Factors under legal system control (processes used) Sequential vs. Simultaneous lineups What can be done? 1. Improving eyewitness identification procedures 2. Enhancing police training 3. Increasing public awareness 4. Strengthening the role of defense attorneys 5. Implementing reforms in the CJS System variables 1. Proper training of law enforcement officers 2. Use of sequential lineups 3. Recording witness statements 4. Use of forensic evidence 5. Collaboration with eyewitness experts American psychology-law society guidelines Pre-lineup interviews - Conduct interviews ASAP after crime - Have objective video recording of what eyewitness reported just after witnessing crime - Use open-ended questions, ask prior familiarity with suspect - Instruct witness not to discuss crime with other witnesses Evidence-based grounds for putting suspects in lineups - Use documented, evidence-based grounds to suspect an individual is guilty of specific crime being investigated - Avoidance of culprit-absent lineups because promote mistaken ID because witness believes one must be correct Double-blind lineups - Ensure that neither the administrator nor witness knows who the suspect is Pre-lineup instructions to eyewitnesses - Eyewitness should be instructed that: 1. The lineup administrator does not know which person is the suspect 2. The culprit might not be in this lineup at all 3. If they feel unable to make a decision they have the option to say “don’t know” 4. After decision, they will be asked how confident they are 5. Investigation will continue even if no identification is made Obtaining immediate post-lineup confidence statement - Secure clear statement about how confident the witness is that they have the right person - Ensure statement is taken immediately before any feedback is given to the witness (post-identification feedback effect) Video recording - Record the entire identification procedure, including pre-lineup instructions and witness’ statement Avoiding repeated identification procedures with the same witness/suspect - Repeating an identification procedure with the same suspect and witness should be avoided regardless if chosen or not Avoiding the use of show-ups - Avoid presenting a single suspect - has a biasing effect because witness assumes they are the suspect otherwise they wouldn't be presented Eyewitness testimony and legal system - Legal system attempts to expose eyewitness bias without an export: - Determining witness ability to observe (reliability criteria) - Voir dire - Cross-examination - Jury deliberation Expert testimony - Use experts on the issue as additional safeguard against mistaken identification - Helpful when witness procedures significantly deviate from 9 recommendations - Provide psychologist summary on research related to eyewitness testimony that increases or decreases eyewitness accuracy Refreshing memories of eyewitness - Hypnosis - Involves relaxed state, more receptive to suggestion - May facilitate hypnotic hypermnesia = enhancement of memory result - BUT does not increase accuracy - Cognitive interview - Involves procedure to relax witness, provide multiple opportunities to report and avoid coercive questions - Reinstates context surrounding crim - i s difficult for police to adopt this methods Memory: scientific results and court - % Experts agree on research reliability: - 98% Testimony impacted by police wording of questions - 98% Manner of lineup instructions influence - 94% Postevent Information - 87% Confidence not good indicator accuracy - 83% Cross-racial bias (i.e. better at IDing own race) - 81% Unconscious transference - 74% 1 person Show-up fosters misidentification 9.30.24 Interrogations False Confessions https://canvas.wisc.edu/courses/425668/files/41315202?module_item_id=7771077 A history of interrogation regulation - 1700s: right to remain silent developed in reaction to inquisition and political persecution - 1800s - 1930s: right applied to “street criminal” - physical violence permitted to obtain information - 1930s - 60s: supreme court cases prohibiting “coercion” - 1966: Miranda warnings requirements - You have the right to remain silent; anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to state-paid counsel before and during interrogation - You have the right to cut off questioning at any time - Confession is not admissible if warnings are not given Power of confession - Goal of questioning is to elicit confession - 39-48% of suspects make full confessions - 13-16% of suspects make damaging statements or partial admissions - 68% of police-interrogate suspects make self-incriminating statements Need for confessions - Only necessary to convict in perhaps 10-20% of cases - Sometimes interrogation useful to: - Identify accomplices - Clear other crimes - Discover threats - Typical interrogation = 20 to 30 minutes, no threats, pressure, or tricks Psychology of confession - In law, a confession is exceptionally powerful evidence - an irrefutable admission of guilt - We tend to think “no one would confess if they didn’t do it” - We believe people when they confess when when they take it back - While most confessions are true, some people have been known to “confess” to a crime they did not commit - It is impossible to know - Once convicted, it is very hard to undo False confessions: information - Prompted by lying, intimidation, deception, fatigue, abuse - Contribute 27% of known wrongful convictions - Occur most often in murder cases (80%) - Involve vulnerable, suggestible, compliant suspects (especially youth) - Police “confirmation bias” - (i.e.) ignoring other plausible information once believe suspect is the perpetrator by seeking out only supportive information about the belief Personal psychology of false confessions - Why do people make a false confession? - Way back to 1908, the answer often has a psychological component (Hugo Munsterberg) - Talking about false confession in these cases are voluntary Why would someone voluntarily confess? - Voluntary false confessions = in the absence of any obvious external pressure, person presents to the police and admits to a crime they did not commit - Why? 1. Desire for notoriety 2. May feel guilty about a previous event and believe they deserve to be punished 3. Inability to distinguish between fact and imagination 4. Desire to protect someone else to cover for a reason Involuntary false confessions - Involuntary or coerced false confessions Types of false confessions - Internalized-coerced false confession = suspect becomes convinced of own guilt after long, intense interrogation; vivid false memories may be created - Internalized-voluntary false confessions = suspect suffers from delusion and confesses with little or no pressure from interrogation - Voluntary false confession = self-incriminating statements made without external pressure (psychological) - Coerced-compliant false confession = to escape interrogation; to avoid threat; to gain promise of reward such as release - Coerced-internalized false confession = tired, scared, suggestibility, confused comes to believe they did the crime, include false memory creation Why innocent people can become guilty 1. Police assume suspects are guilty - false positive problem 2. Innocents waive rights to silence/counsel more often than others - believing truth will come out 3. Vigorous denials by innocents trigger confrontational interrogations 4. Interrogation techniques increase risk of false confession 5. Police over believe confessions Coerced confessions: result of police interrogations - Coerced confession = one way or another the person is persuaded (pressured) to confess - Often the police interrogation process is the source of the false confession - Police manuals (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, 1986): interrogator must overcome the suspects’ natural resistance to tell the truth, and so must be skilled in use of strategies to persuade the suspect to confess - Reid Technique - These interrogation tactics increase the pressure on suspects so they will fall into line with the interrogator’s view of events - Interrogator’s view may be far from reality - Problem = confirmation bias Coerced false confessions - Gudjonsson and Clark (1986) = suggested that a suspect will come to an interrogation with a general cognitive “set” that may be hostile, suspicious or cooperative - This cognitive set will influence the suspect’s appraisal of the situation and affect their strategy for coping with the interrogation - Interrogator likely assumes there will be resistance (hence the techniques) Coerced compliance - This might happen for several reasons: - Suspect might wish to please interrogator - Avoid further detention and interrogation - Avoid physical harm - Strike a deal with interrogator that brings some reward to make a confession Coerced internalization - Coming to believe that their own memory for events is incorrect and that the police version must therefore be true - Over time the suspect is worn down, gets tired, confused, begins to consider what police are proposing and ultimately falsely confess - Cognitive dissonance = person comes to change their attitudes to make them more consistent with their behavior leading to obedience which occurs towards authority figures after hours of persuasion - Interrogative suggestibility = intense questioning and ultimate relenting to police pov Modern interrogation: Reid technique - Involves 9-step technique that represents the general flow of many interrogations - Includes 4 psychologically powerful strategies - Loss of control - Social isolation - Certainty of guilt - Minimization of culpability Interrogation training manuals: - Subtle “softening” pre-interrogation techniques and tougher interrogation techniques - Many people waive rights following softening - Police easily have “confirmation bias” and use guilt-based techniques to nail down belief Interrogation steps of the reid technique Allowable interrogation tactics - Misrepresenting facts - (i.e.) falsely telling suspect someone has named them - Unfair advantage of emotions - (i.e.) befriending suspect with fellow prisoner informer, promising secrecy - Not informing about facts - (i.e.) pretending no favorable evidence exists Illegal interrogation tactics - Physical and psychological coercion - Promises of release from custody or prosecution or a lighter sentence in exchange Do police techniques cause false confessions? - Drizin and Leo identified ~120 exoneration cases involving false confessions - Most involve people with retardation or juveniles - These people are “suggestible” - May not understand warnings - Some involve non-disabled adults - Ambiguity about effect of remaining silent - maximization/minimization techniques - Prolonged interrogation stimulate false confessions Confirmation bias and the police - In an investigation the police want to solve the case and are prone to “tunnel vision” - Confirmation bias = police seek out inculpatory information only, interpret it in the worst light for the suspect - Disconfirmation bias = ignore, discount, don’t look for exculpatory information that might lead to another suspect Influential police techniques - Isolation = stress in room alone, long hours with pressure, false incriminating evidence and claims, fear exacerbation - Confrontation = leaning in with evidence, denial not tolerated, repeated pressure - Minimization = sympathetic interrogator helping to rationalize situation Innocence, guilt, interrogation style, and waiver of miranda rights - Participants who were guilty or innocent of a mock crime were confronted by a neural, sympathetic, or hostile detective, who asked if they would waive their rights and talk - Only 36% of guilty vs. 81% of those that had nothing to hide or fear Modern interrogation - Modern interrogation = primarily psychological - Police receive training and are familiar with interrogation manuals and techniques - Most widely used reference by Inbau et al. (2013) offers detailed advice on every aspect of interrogation processes - Central to the process is the Reid Technique Can we actually detect innocence? - No scientific data to support it 1. People tend to “trust” confessions regardless of unknown influences 2. People are not skilled at accurately measuring deception, denials, etc. 3. People believe police-induced information gathering Myths and misconceptions about false confessions - False confessions either do not exist or are exceedingly rare: - Police investigators estimate 5% false confession rte - Research experts believe 5% is only tip of an iceberg - DNA counter evidence helps exonerate innocent people, but DNA often is not available or part of larger pool of innocent people - Police interrogation is a science - Interrogation techniques not scientific, developed over time - Process of interrogation techniques is filled with biases and searches for confirmation, often ignoring disconfirming evidence - Little attempt to “disprove” hunches - There is nothing like a blind “peer review” process to objectively question theories about confession information - Only “vulnerable” people falsely confess - There are false confession cases where obvious dispositional factors were not evident - It is “situational factors” that matter most when false confessions take place - Problems with police interrogation and false confession research is “new” - 100 years of psychological research in related areas - 1st specific review in 1992 (Gudjonsson) - Layers of related research Potential solutions to problems of false confessions - Video recordings of interrogations - Creates permanent record - Improves interrogation methods - Video recording can be manipulated - Recording admission and not interrogation - Only showing segments at trial - Manipulating camera angle - Need to record entire interrogation in event of any questions - Time limits on interrogations - Lengthy interrogations common in false confessions - 4 hours or less is recommended - Appropriate adult witness for vulnerable suspects - Juveniles should be provided with appropriate adult during questioning - Subject with mental impairment require special treatment during interrogation Use experts with juries Another myth: jurors do not “need” expert testimony - Permit expert testimony on interrogations and confession (it is permissible, but judges are reluctant to admit) - Jurors place heavy weight on confession evidence - Jurors cannot distinguish between true and false confessions What experts could provide - Expert witnesses can provide assistance - Discussing pertinent research that documents police-induced false confession - Explaining relationship between heightened risk rate of false confession and specific interrogation methods - Case law supports admissibility of expert testimony - About ¾ of jurors believe expert witness testimony would be helpful More recommendations - All police departments should have electronic record - Promotes truth finding - Reviewable factual record - Protects police against false allegations - Benefits everyone - Police training on interrogation needs improvement - Police are not skilled at lie detection and will never be - No one is, police talk themselves into it - Police need to learn they can elicit false confessions - What not to do - Reid methods - Misinforming alters perceptions, beliefs, and memories - Police should learn different interviewing methods - Get away from Reid-oriented guilt presumption techniques - Move toward investigative interviewing techniques - Exploratory open-ended questions (i.e. tell me more) - Fewer closed-ended questions