1 / 13

Contrasting Approaches

Law Goal = prescriptive Method = legal reasoning Primary sources: written law and case law Principle of stare decisis Secondary sources Adversarial method. Psychology Goal = descriptive Method = empirical Naturalistic observation Archival studies Survey research Experimental research.

alvis
Download Presentation

Contrasting Approaches

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Law Goal = prescriptive Method = legal reasoning Primary sources: written law and case law Principle of stare decisis Secondary sources Adversarial method Psychology Goal = descriptive Method = empirical Naturalistic observation Archival studies Survey research Experimental research Contrasting Approaches

  2. Experimental methods • Researcher controls all aspects of situation • Independent variable (presumed cause) is manipulated by researcher • Dependent variable (presumed effect) is measured • Clearest way to show cause & effect, but external validity (generalizability) is low

  3. In Depth Example:Size of a fair jury Legal perspectives: • Constitution does not specify jury size • Jury of 12 is traditional, going back to 14th century English court system • State to state variations • Williams v. Florida, 1970: jury of 6 adequate • Ballew v. Georgia, 1978: jury of 5 adequate

  4. In Depth Example:Size of a fair jury Psychological perspectives: • Observational and archival studies: no significant difference between 6- and 12-member juries • Controlled experiments • More hung juries with 12-member juries • Longer deliberation for 12-member juries

  5. Roles for forensic psychologists • Researcher • Consultant to law enforcement • Trial consultant • Forensic evaluator • Expert witness • Presentation to courts and legislatures

  6. The role of researcher • Generate hypotheses, test them empirically, analyze statistically, & communicate results • Special ethical issues in forensic psychology: • How far can we go to simulate a crime situation realistically? • How do we protect identities of participants in studies of real cases?

  7. The role of consultant • Consultant to law enforcement • Counseling police officers • Assisting in personnel selection & training • Trial consultants • Jury selection • Preparation of witnesses • Improve lawyers’ “image” with jury

  8. The role of evaluator • Evaluating a defendant’s • Intelligence • Competency to stand trial or to plead guilty • Sanity • Ethical issues • Confidentiality • Dual relationships

  9. The role of expert witness • Unlike fact witnesses, expert witnesses are allowed to express opinions • Judge must be convinced that expert has knowledge that the average juror would not • Topics include insanity, competence, eyewitness identification, psychological damages, negligence, child custody, malpractice, etc.

  10. Approaches to expert witness work • Conduit-educator: duty is to share the most accurate picture of research in your field • Advocate: duty is to share the research that favors your “side” of the conflict • “Hired gun”: duty is solely to help the lawyer who hired you (not ethical)

  11. Admissibility of expert testimony • Frye test (1923): standards & principles of a particular field should determine admissibility • Federal Rules of Evidence (1975): “if knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence” • Daubert (1993): Trial judge determines scientific validity of the research in deciding admissibility

  12. Presentation to courts & legislatures • Amicus curiae briefs (usually submitted by an organization such as the APA) • Some notable examples • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • Lockhart v. McCree (1986): “death qualified” juries • Recent efforts to modify lineup procedures on federal and state levels

  13. The “temptations” of forensic psychology • Promising too much • Losing scientific objectivity • Letting values overcome empirical findings • Doing a cursory job

More Related