Download
1 / 13
130 likes | 381 Views
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.
E N D
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
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
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
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
Roles for forensic psychologists • Researcher • Consultant to law enforcement • Trial consultant • Forensic evaluator • Expert witness • Presentation to courts and legislatures
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?
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
The role of evaluator • Evaluating a defendant’s • Intelligence • Competency to stand trial or to plead guilty • Sanity • Ethical issues • Confidentiality • Dual relationships
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.
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)
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
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
The “temptations” of forensic psychology • Promising too much • Losing scientific objectivity • Letting values overcome empirical findings • Doing a cursory job
