Psych of Crime and Corrections Midterm 1 PDF

Psych of crime and corrections midterm 1: Early history in criminal psychology: Cattle 1895: →Some of the first experiments of criminal psychology were done by him →Conducted experiments that would later be called the psychology of eyewitness testimony →”Measurements of the accuracy of recollection...

Psych of crime and corrections midterm 1: Early history in criminal psychology: Cattle 1895: →Some of the first experiments of criminal psychology were done by him →Conducted experiments that would later be called the psychology of eyewitness testimony →”Measurements of the accuracy of recollection” →Cattell asked 56 university students to recall things they had witnessed in their everyday lives →Results revealed that majority of his students were inaccurate with their recollections and that they didn't have a lot of confidence that their recollection was accurate either →In cattell's view, these findings had the potential to assist in “courts of justice” Binet 1990: →Alfred Binet presented numerous studies in which he showed that the testimony provided by children was highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques: He would present objects to children for a short period of time Shortly after they would be asked either direct or mildly to highly misleading (suggestive) questions The free recall questions (asking the children to freely recall everything they saw) resulted in the most accurate answers and the suggestive questions resulted in least accurate These results showed that children are extremely susceptible to influence and that they are not necessarily accurate eyewitnesses due to how easily their recall can be influenced →His studies contributed to how we deal with children as eyewitnesses today Stern 1910: →Conducted studies on the suggestibility of witnesses → Responsible for “The reality experiment” that is now commonly used by eyewitness to recall and recognition: Participants are exposed to staged events and then are asked to recall information about the event One of his first experiments was with students in his law class: He exposed them to a scenario where two students were arguing which ended with one of them drawing a revolver The observers were then asked questions about the event, he discovered that the testimony of the participants was often incorrect He found that recall was the worst for portions of the event that was particularly exciting (when the revolver was drawn) This led him to conclude that emotional arousal can have a negative impact on the accuracy of a person's testimony Early cases in Europe: Albert Von schrenck notzing 1896: →Was probably one of the first expert witnesses to provide testimony in court about the effect of pretrial publicity on memory →1896 the case involved a series of three sexual murderers that had received a lot of attention from the press →He testified that the extensive pretrial press coverage could influence the testimony of people by causing what he called “retroactive memory falsification” →Retroactive memory falsification: Confusing actual memories of events with the events described by the media →Schrenck Notzing supported his expert testimony with lab research which revealed findings that are in line with more contemporary research on the topic Varendock 1911: →Was called on to be an expert witness in a case involving the murder of a young girl →In one of his studies he asked a group of children to describe a person who had supposedly approached him in front of of the children earlier →Although this person did not exist he was able to demonstrate that many of the children were easily led by suggestive questioning as they recalled the man who didn't exist just because he said that a man was there →Varendonck offered to the court his findings from this study to support his conclusion that the testimony provided by the children in this case was likely inaccurate that children were prone to suggestion Munsterberg: →Contributed his opinion to 2 high profile cases: 1. Richard Ivens (1906): Young intellectually disabled man confesses to sexually assaulting and murdering a woman, Musternberg analyzed the interrogation records and concluded that they were unreliable and untrue, the justice system ignored him and executed Ivens, it was later discovered that Musternberg was right and that he was innocent 2. Harry Orchard (1907): He confessed to killing a former governor and several others but on the orders of a union boss. Musternberg tested Orchard and concluded that he was telling the truth, the justice system once again did not believe him and had him executed on the account that no one ordered him to commit the crimes he did, he was executed and it was later discovered that he was telling the truth →Fought for psychology to be recognized as a valid and legit science that could be a massive asset to the legal system, was rejected and received a lot of backlash for his thoughts →Wrote “On the witness stand”: in his book he argued that psychology had much to offer the legal system, in issues involving eyewitness testimony, hypnotism, crime prevention →Book received heavy backlash →John Henry Wigmore sued him for “claiming more than he could offer” Progress towards forensic psychology: →First juvenile delinquents clinic was opened in 1909 →Developing laboratories to conduct pretrial assessments in 1916 →Established psychological testing for law enforcement selection purposes in 1917 Landmark US cases that paved the way for the use of psychology in the criminal justice system: State v Driver: →First court case where expert testimony was allowed by a psychologist in 1921 →Only a small portion of the testimony was permitted in the court →The case involved the rape attempt of a young girl →The testimony was for lie detection →The court rejected the psychologists testimony in its ruling the court stated “it is yet to be determined that psychological and medical tests are practical, and will detect the lie on the witness stand” →It was decades after this case that psychologists were allowed to be used as expert witnesses in cases throughout the united states Brown v Board of education: →Case in the supreme court →Case looking at segregated schools in the united states →The case dealt with the constitutionality of schools segregation and the research examined how discrimination affects personality development →The clark and clark doll study: Children were shown black and white dolls and asked questions about the dolls (ex whos the pretty one?) There was a clear positive bias to the white doll and negative bias to the black doll →The results from this study were used in the Brown v board of education court case which led to the US supreme court eliminating segregated schools →This was the first time the findings of psychology were cited and referred to by modern authority (Supreme court decision) Jenkins v United states: →This case strongly reinforced the view that psychologists could provide an admissible opinion regarding a defendant's mental health →Jenkins was fighting charges of breaking and entering, assault and intent to rape →He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity →3 psychologists supported this defense on the basis that he was suffering from schizophrenia →The trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the testimony because “psychologists were not qualified to give expert testimony on the issue of mental disease →The case was appealed and the APA (American Psychologist Association) provided a report to the court stating their view that psychologists are competent to provide opinions concerning the existence of mental illness →The court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, stating that “some psychologists are qualified to render expert testimony on mental disorders” Brief overviews: Narrow definition: Only focuses on clinical assessments, consultations with lawyers and judges or treatment for convicts over the years Narrow vs Broad is basically categorical vs dimensional in psychology Examines facts more objective Broad definition: Examines human behavior in relation to the legal system, includes application and research, includes areas such as social, cognitive, personality, organizational and developmental psychology Examines experiences more subjective Relationships between psychology and the law: Psychology and the law: Looks at them as separate, the use of psychology to study the operation of the legal system: Psych seen as a separate definition than the law Questions in this relationship might be: Are eyewitnesses accurate ? Do certain interrogations cause false confessions ? Can we predict if an offender will be violent after their release ? Psychology in the law: The use of psychology within the legal system as it currently operates: Providing expert testimony about an issue relevant to a case A psychologist using their expertise in communication to assist police in a hostage situation Psychology of the law: The use of psychology to study the law itself: Questions like: Does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society ? Forensic psychology: Most common practice of it is psychological assessments of individuals who are involved one way or another with the legal system Clinical skills is one of the most important skills of a forensic psychologist Clinical assessment Interviewing Report writing Strong verbal communication skills Case presentation Forensic psych shows how psychological science enhance the gathering and presentation of evidence, improve legal decision making, prevent crime, rehabilitate crime Functions of an expert witness: →To provide info to the courts that they otherwise would not know →2 Primary functions: 1. Aid in understanding a particular issue relevant to the case 2. Provide an opinion →This contrasts with a regular witness because a regular witness is only allowed to talk about what they directly observed NOT their opinion Challenges of providing an expert testimony: →The fields of psychology and law differ in several key ways, creating challenges for providing effective testimony →According to Hess these fields diverge across at least seven dimensions: 1. Epistemology: Psychology aims to uncover objective truths through experiments, while the law defines truth subjectively based on who tells the most convincing story consistent with legal standards 2. Nature of law: Psychology is descriptive, explaining human behavior, while law is prescriptive, telling people how they should act and enforcing consequences for disobedience 3. Knowledge: Psychology relies on empirical, group based research, while law bases knowledge on case by case analysis, using logic to apply legal precedents 4. Methodology: Psychology uses experimental methods that control variables and seek replication, while the law focuses on unique case narratives that align with legal principles 5. Criterion: Psychologists use cautious, conservative criteria (ex statistical significance) to accept hypotheses, while the law relies on more practical standards (beyond a reasonable doubt (no other possible explanation)) to determine guilt 6. Principles: Psychologists explore multiple explanations for findings, identifying the correct one through experimentation, lawyers prefer explanations based on coherence with facts and legal precedent 7. Latitude in courtroom behavior: Psychologists are restricted by rules of evidence when testifying, whereas lawyers have more freedom in presenting evidence and witnesses, provided they stay within legal boundaries These differences explain why courts may hesitate to admit psychological testimony as legal scholars question the applicability of psychology's general patterns and trends in specific court cases Admissibility criteria: In order for a testimony to qualify to be admissible in court it must meet this criteria that was established in the case of Frye v United states: General acceptance test: In order for novel scientific evidence to be admissible it must be established that the procedures used to arrive at the testimony are generally accepted in the scientific community →Received criticism for being too vague, which led to…. Daubert criteria for admissibility criteria in court: →In the case of Daubert v merrell dow pharmaceuticals inc his lawyers challenged the state and appeals courts interpretation of “general acceptance” when his claims in court were rejected due to not being “generally accepted” in the scientific community →He claimed the criteria was much to vague →To assist judges in making the decision as to whether evidence is in fact reliable the US supreme court laid out 4 specific criteria now commonly referred to as the Daubert criteria: Testimony is admissible if it is: (1) provided by an expert, (2) relevant, and (3) valid, where validity is determined by the Daubert Criteria. The criteria requires the research: –Be peer reviewed –Be testable (falsifiable through experimentation) –Adhere to professional standards Scientific evidence is considered reliable if the following criteria are met: 1. The research has been peer reviewed 2. The research is testable (falsifiable through experimentation) 3. The research has a recognized rate of error 4. The research adheres to professional standards R. v. Mohan: → Rules for admissibility of a testimony in court in Canada were laid out in this case →The standards are referred to as the Mohan criteria: 1. Evidence must be relevant 2. Evidence must be necessary for assisting the trier of fact (the evidence must go beyond what the court is capable of understanding or knowing themselves) 3. The evidence must not violate any other rules of exclusion (Rules that would otherwise exclude the admissibility of the evidence) Example: in a sexual assault case involving young girls, the defendant's prior convictions may be relevant, but such testimony could unfairly bias the jury into punishing him for past actions rather than the current charge. 4. The testimony must be provided by a qualified expert R. V. D.D: Challenges judges encounter when applying the Mohan criteria: →Young girl was sexually assaulted but only reported the abuse later, defense lawyers argued that she was lying because she didn't report them when it happened →Crown hoped to introduce expert testimony from a child psychologist who would testify reasons why a child would delay reporting abuse →The trial admitted the expert evidence initially however the case was appealed and the court of appeal determined that the expert testimony of the psychologist was not relevant to the case according to the mohan criteria because the evidence was: 1. Not relevant to the case (relevant to her credibility which was not the issue 2. The testimony was not necessary for assisting the triers of fact →The big debate was on whether the evidence presented by the psychologist was necessary for the triers of fact in that it went beyond their common understanding ? The SCC justices were split on the issue →The result of the SCC decision was that the appeal court decision was upheld and the expert evidence tendered by the crown was deemed inadmissible →Despite having the same info not only did the court of appeal disagree on the trial judges interpretation of the mohan necessity criteria the scc justices also disagreed on how this criterion should be interpreted →While the mohan criteria may be useful for assisting judges with admissibility decisions there remains challenges when applying these criteria People V Hawthorne: →Case was about a man who killed his wife and was pleading not guilty for insanity. →The trial court refused to allow a psychologist with a PHD to be an expert witness in the case. →This issue ended up in supreme court of michigan, where it was determined that the trial court should have accepted the psychologist as an expert witness →They ultimately ruled that the criteria for being an expert witness should not be based on whether the person has a medical degree →The bases for qualifying an expert witness should be their depth of knowledge in a particular area COME BACK Controversy of People V Hawthorne This ruling created some controversy however in that many people believe that to testify about something like insanity, which they considered to be a disease, a person needed a medical degree. Definition of insanity: →A legal term pertaining to a defendant's ability to determine right from wrong when a crime is committed →The DSM-V does not include the term insanity it is a LEGAL TERM not a psychological term →In canada it is not insanity it is not criminally responsible Criminal profiling: Technique used for identifying the personality and behavioral features of an offender based on an analysis of the crimes they have committed Used in serial crime investigations, particularly homicide and rape The goals of profiling: Criminal profiles are used for a variety of purposes: To prioritize suspects Key case in forensic psych history: Wayne Williams: COME BACK Robert Ressler: One of the original profilers, started the behavioral science unit at the FBI Many credit him with the term “Profiling” Two types of profiling: Deductive: Profiling an offender from evidence relating to that offenders crimes Inductive: Profiling an offender from what is known about other offenders who have committed similar (solved) crimes Organized disorganized model: The most widely known inductive profiling approach is the organized-disorganized model developed by the FBI (Robert Ressler) →Crime scenes can be categorized as organized (methodical) or disorganized (chaotic) →Background characteristics can be categorized as organized (high functioning) or disorganized (low functioning) →Organized crimes are committed by organized offenders and disorganized crimes by disorganized offenders Organized crime: →Well planned and controlled crime →Organized background characteristics reflect a methodical individual Disorganized crime: →Impulsive crime that is chaotic in nature →Disorganized background characteristics reflect a disturbed individual, who is usually suffering from some form of psychopathology Police interrogations: Two goals of interrogations: →Obtain a confession →Gather information The reid model of interrogation: →Technique originally developed by John E. Reid, a polygrapher from Chicago →9 step model of interrogation used frequently in North America to extract confessions from suspects →3 part process →Goal is to break down the suspect’s resistance to confessing →Designed to make the anxiety associated with deception (i.e., by maintaining one’s innocence) greater than the anxiety associated with confessing Part 1: Gather evidence related to the crime and to interview witnesses and victims Part 2: Conduct a non accusatory interview of the suspect to assess any evidence of deception (determine if the suspect is lying when they claim to be innocent) Part 3: Conduct an accusatorial interrogation of the suspect if they are perceived to be guilty →At this stage the 9 step procedure is implemented with the primary objective being to secure a confession from the suspect 9 step procedure: 1. The suspect is immediately confronted with their guilt if the police do not have any evidence against the suspect at this time they will hide that and act as if they do by implying that evidence against them exists Further details: The interrogator presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against them implying in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect’s stress level increases and the interrogator may move around the room, invading the suspect’s personal space to increase the discomfort. If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking lips, and/or grooming themself (running his hand through their hair, for instance), the interrogator notes these as deception indicators confirming they’re on the right track. 2. Psychological themes are then developed to allow the suspect to rationalize or excuse the crime, ex: a murderer may be told that the interrogators understand why they committed the crime and that the crime was even justified for example of the victim was a criminal they would say he had it coming Further details: The interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why they did it. The interrogator lays out a theme or a story that the suspect can latch on to, to either excuse or justify their part in the crime and the interrogator observes the suspect to see if they’re buying the theme. Are they paying closer attention than before? Nodding their head? If so, the interrogator will continue developing that theme; if not, they’ll pick a new theme and start over.  Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security. 3. Interrogator interrupts any statements of denial by the suspect to ensure the suspect does not get the upper hand in the interrogation Further details: Letting the suspect deny their guilt will increase their confidence, so the interrogator tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it’ll be their turn to talk in a moment, but right now, they need to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the interrogator watches for denials and stops the suspect before they can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect’s confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so they don’t have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the interrogator takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows they’ve found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing 4. The interrogator overcomes the suspects objections to the charges Further details: Once the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect relates to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like “I could never assault somebody — my sister was sexually assaulted, and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone.” The interrogator handles these differently than denials because these objections can give information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, “See, that’s good, you’re telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister — it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing.” If the interrogator does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt. 5. If the suspect becomes withdrawn, the interrogator ensures that they have the suspect's attention and that the suspect does not tune out of the interrogation. Ex physically moving closer to the suspect Further details: At this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of themselves. They may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect’s ally. They’ll try to appear even more sincere in their continued theme development and may get physically closer to the suspect, making it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation.  The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect’s shoulder or patting his back. 6. The interrogator exhibits sympathy and understanding, the suspect is urged to come clean (ex by appealing to the suspects sense of decency) Further details: If the suspect’s body language indicates surrender – head in his hands, elbows on knees, shoulders hunched — the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. It transitions from theme development to motive alternatives that force the suspect to choose a reason why they committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect’s stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the interrogator knows it’s a positive indicator of guilt. 7. Suspect is offered explanations for the crime, which makes self incrimination easier to achieve. For example, rather than the suspect being involved in an intentional homicide which would carry a severe penalty, the interrogator may suggest to a murder suspect that the crime they committed was accidental ex the result of an argument that simply went wrong) Further details: The interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it’s less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable (“It was a crime of passion”), and the other is morally repugnant (“You killed her for the money”). The interrogator builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the interrogator speeds things up. 8. Once the suspect accepts responsibility for the crime, typically by agreeing with one of the alternative explanations, the interrogator develops this admission into a full confession for the crime in question Further details: Once the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and might arrange for a second interrogator in the room to increase the suspect’s stress level and his desire to give up and tell the truth. A new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal. 9. Finally the interrogator gets the suspect to write and sign a full confession Further details:  The final stage of an interrogation is all about getting a truthful confession that will be admitted as evidence at trial. Virtually all interrogations today are recorded on audio/visual and transcripts are developed. There are further evidentiary tools used during confession besides words. Having the suspect draw maps or sketches of the scene, confess to secondary parties, write letters of apology, and return the suspect back to the scene and re-enact the crime are commonly used. It’s vitally important to back-up the truthfulness of the confession with independent, corroborating evidence such as disclosing ‘key facts’ of the crime which would only be known to the perpetrator and investigators or turning over critically implicating evidence like the murder weapon. Other effective techniques to effectively interrogate suspects (Inbau and colleagues): Plainly decorated interrogation room to avoid distractions Having the evidence folder in your hand when beginning the interrogation Making sure that the suspect is alone in the interrogation suite prior to the interrogator entering the room Minimization and maximization techniques: In general, interrogations techniques included in the Reid model can be broken down into two categories: –Minimization techniques: –Soft sell tactics that provide a sense of false security (e.g., justifying the crime) –Maximization techniques: – Scare tactics that attempt to intimidate suspects (threats, deception, yelling) The number of Reid techniques used by interrogators in this study did relate to interrogation outcomes, more confessions were extracted when interrogations contained a greater proportion of Reid techniques, however these results do not necessarily prove the effectiveness of the Reid model Interrogation example: Russell Williams COME BACK Problems with the Reid model: 3 main problems, first 2 relate to the ability of investigators to detect deception and to the biases that may result when an interrogator believes perhaps incorrectly that a suspect is guilty, 3rd relates to the coercive and suggestive nature of certain interrogation practices and the possibility that these practices will result in various types of false confessions: Problems with the reid model: Deception detection Comprehension of legal rights Investigator bias  False confessions The case of eric morgan: Eric Morgan is a great example of the reid model being used to invoke false confessions, they berated witnesses for hours until they changed their story to what they wanted. His friends were adamant that he was next to him all night and was innocent but the police used the reid model techniques on the witnesses until Brian coxx gave in after hours of constant beratement and psychological torture Reid model is dependant on police officers ability to detect deception, which is extremely difficult Individuals don't often understand they can ask for a lawyer or if they haven't been convicted with a crime they can leave Comprehension of legal rights: It is assumed that safeguards (e.g., knowledge of legal rights) are in place to protect individuals being interrogated Research indicates that people often do not understand their legal rights Comprehension can be improved if cautions are delivered in an appropriate format (e.g., written vs. verbal) Certain populations are vulnerable to misunderstanding their legal rights: Young people People with impaired intellectual capacity Investigator bias: Officers enter the accusatorial phase of the interrogation with the belief that the suspect is guilty This can lead to biased perceptions and behaviors on the part of the interrogator and observers of the interrogation (e.g., jurors) False confessions: Research suggests that the Reid model may also elicit false confessions A false confession occurs when an individual confesses to a crime they did not commit or exaggerates their involvement in a crime they did commit Types of false confessions: →Voluntary false confessions →Coerced compliant confessions →Coerced internalized confessions Voluntary false confessions: Individual confesses without being prompted by the police, can happen for many reasons some being: a desire for fame, an inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, an attempt to protect the real offender, or a need to be punished Example: The lindbergh case: Lindbergh child goes missing and the police received an abundance of false confessions from individuals who had no involvement in the crime (estimated 200 people) False confession made by John Mark Karr to the unsolved 1996 murder of JonBenet Ramsey Coerced compliant confessions: A coerced-compliant false confession occurs in response to a desire to escape further interrogation or to gain a promised reward The confessor knows that they did not commit the crime Most common type of false confession Caused by the use of coercive interrogation tactics used by the police Example: Gerry Conlon and the IRA bombings Coerced internalized confessions: A coerced-internalized false confession results from suggestive interrogations The confessor comes to believe they committed the crime People suffering from brain impairments, extreme anxiety, or confusion may be more susceptible Example: The Paul Ingram case Billy wayne: found his daughter dead after being raped and called the police, they treated him as a suspect and convinced him that he did it and must not have remembered, eventually he confessed saying he must have done it and recounted exactly as he did, he didnt do it he was just convinced he did Kassin and Kiechel study on false confessions Gerry conlon and the ira bombings Paul ingram case Universal Microexpressions (6 types plus new 7th discovered by paul ekman) 1. Happiness 2. Sadness 3. Fear 4. Surprise 5. Anger 6. Disgust New 7th: Contempt: looking down on someone, seeing them as inferior: eyes neutral, lip corner pulled up and back on one side only, contempt is the only unilateral expression (on one side of face)) Paul ekman: He wanted to see if people from across the world far from north american expressed their emotions the same way, he discovered 6 universal expressions of emotions that are expressed everywhere in the world by humans In order for microexpressions to occur or leak out the person being interrogated has to feel as if something bad could happen to them if they get caught for lying Small shrugs can be a strong indicator of a lie, a real shrug isn't Susan smith: Lied about her kids being kidnapped from her car during a car jacking but she actually drove her car into the lake with them in it and killed them, she got on the news and pretended that she was distraught about her kids being kidnapped but she knew exactly what happened Diane downs: She lied and told everyone that she was driving with her children and stopped on the side of the road to help a man who was asking for help, she claimed he attacked all of them herself included, she drove all the way to hospital with her kids, one died and the other two were left with lifetime deficits. She was the one who did it, the “man” that attacked them didn't exist, in an interview it was evident she was lying, she was talking from the blood gushing from her child with a smile on her face Theoretical base (classic trait model) Accuracy of profilers (snook et al) 5 main concepts used in profiling Geographic profiling Potential problems with profiling: Criminal profiling is often criticized on the following grounds: It lack a strong theoretical base Profiles are too ambiguous to be useful Professional profilers are not accurate Downside of profiling: lack of strong theoretical base, profiles are too ambiguous Lack of strong theoretical base: based on classic trait model for personality, criticized for taking into account internalized factors more than external factors, it disregards potential situational influences and only focuses on organized predisposition Ambiguous profiles: Ambitious titles such as “social misfit” labels like that can be interpreted to fit a wide range of individuals so it cant be used to prioritize suspects Accuracy of profilers: Despite their claims, professional profilers do not always produce profiles (under laboratory conditions) that are more accurate than profiles produced by non-professionals Snook et al: Analyzed 100 murders committed by serial killers in the united states To see of they could be categorized as organized or disorganized Did not reveal any distinct subset of organized vs disorganized behaviors Predictions on 4 categories (cognitive processes, physical attributes, offensive behaviors and social history/habits Profilers were slightly better at physical attributes, but the same or worse in other categories Douglas et al: presented a profile that predicted 29 criminal characteristics, they were correct on 11 of them but incorrect on 18 5 main concepts used in profiling: Victimology, location, crime scene, organizational level, pre and post behavior Geographic profiling: involves an analysis of crime scene locations in order to determine the most probable area of offender residence Assumes that offenders do not travel long distances from home to commit the majority of their crimes Quick facts to remember: First court case where expert testimony was allowed by a psychologist: →State v Driver (partial testimony) Landmark cases that paved the way for the use of psychology in the criminal justice system: →State v Driver  →Brown v Board of education →Jenkins v United states Trier of fact: A trier of fact, or finder of fact is a person or a group of persons who determines facts in a legal proceeding, usually a trial. To determine a fact is to decide from the evidence whether something existed or some event occurred