Whether or Not Psychology Should Be Included in Law - Essay Example

Law and Behaviour By To of Institue Due The question of whether or not Psychology should be included in law has been on debate for a very long time. Although this possibility has been considered for a very long time, it has only come to be accepted and used in the last few years. In the past, the psychologists have been too forceful in declaring that they have superior knowledge and fact-finding skills. This created reluctance by the lawyers on using anything that the psychologists would bring forward. Similarly, the lawyers were very irrational in refusing to use psychological insights and evidence (Kapardis 2003). The issue of "Psychology and law" entails the inclusion of psychology in the law. The emphasis is on law, with the psychologists being used by the lawyers to enhance their operations. For instance if it is claimed that the person who has been accused is mentally unstable, the psychologist will be asked to give his expert opinion on this. He or she will have to carry out an analysis including psychological tests so as to come up with a conclusion on the person's mental state. A criminal lawyer can use the theories of psychology so as to enhance his or her trial strategy (Ogloff and Schuller 1998). The main focus is on how the legal system can prepare and adapt to the inclusion of psychologists in the law and in the legal system. The psychologists should also find ways of changing their work so as to meet the needs and requirements of the legal system. Forensic psychologists have used it for a long period of time in the United States and it is only recently that the lawyers acknowledged their relevance in the execution of justice (Kapardis 2003). Psychology and law interrelate in many ways and can benefit each other. Psychology can give better understanding of the behavior of criminals and sometimes it can show how a person can be rehabilitated. Psychologists may help the criminal lawyers because they assist in the selection of people who are suitable for acting as the jury. They are also a part of the analysis and presentation of evidence and arguments brought to the courts. Such matters like criminal law, procedures, insanity defense, decreased capacity, competency for trial relies a lot on the contributions of a qualified psychologist. The execution of law has been improved largely by the work of psychologists (Sherman & Hoffman 2007). Law and Psychology are two fields that have various contrasting fundamentals. According to Ogloff and Schuller, law is stare deices, while psychology is based on creativity. In law there are past cases and precedents, which are used as a foundation for the development of the legal arguments. The judges even make the rulings according to the legal precedents that were made years before. In contrast, the model adopted in psychology is one of innovation and creativity. Thus psychologists are encouraged to use new ways and ideas in their research and in dealing with their patients (Ogloff and Schuller 1998). While law is hierarchical, psychology is empirical. The decisions in the legal system are hierarchical and authoritative. The lower courts are constrained by the rulings of the higher courts. On the other hand, psychology is the accumulation of consistent and supporting data. The data derived is used to confirm whether a claim or position is valid or not. It is not based on an authoritative statement. (Ogloff and Schuller 1998) The law is reliant on the adversarial methods but psychology is dependant on experimental techniques. To reach the truth, in law, conflicting viewpoints are presented with each side putting forward its best case. Prejudice and egotism are intrinsic part of law and they are both allowable and encouraged as the best procedures. Psychologists arrive at the truth by trying to understand a certain incident through the use of data gathering techniques. They try to reduce the bias and error by being objective instead of fighting for victory over a particular point of view (Ogloff and Schuller 1998). Another difference between law and psychology is that the law is idiographic, and psychology is homothetic. Law works on a case-by-case basis where each case is decided based on certain facts. In contrast, psychology aims at uncovering certain principles, patterns and relationships. The focus is not only on a particular instance but also transcends, which occurred (Ogloff and Schuller 1998). Schuller and Ogloff also found that law is operational while psychology is academic. Law is a practical discipline, which is intended to deal with real problems. This has made them incapable to create any crash on the lawful organization because they are short of information of communal and lawful changes the different players within the system are expected to carry out specific and clearly defined functions. Psychology is different because the psychologists can choose what issues they want to pursue and how to pursue them. What drives them is the desire to get more knowledge concerning a certain issue. Their focus is in academic matters while law is more pragmatic (Ogloff and Schuller 1998). Law is reactive while psychology is proactive. As far as law is concerned the matters are mainly deal in originate form outside the legal system. For example, a client brings the case that a lawyer handles to his attention. Contrary to this, psychologists, regardless of the various external demands such as the availability of funds, have high control over the issues they want to study (Ogloff and Schuller 1998). Decision-making in law is reliant on certainty but with psychology, it is based on probabilistic evidence. In law, the choices made are on the all basis or nothing i.e. the accused person is either guilty or innocent and the plaintiff is found liable or not liable. Contrary to this, psychologists lay a lot of emphasis on the probability. For instance, claims are on the basis of proofs that must have a probability or level of statistical significance. Therefore the conclusions drawn by the psychologists are qualified and not definite (Wegener, Losel & Haisch 1989). Psychology is descriptive while the law is prescriptive. The law defines how people should behave but psychology is a description of people's behavior as it actually is. This is a very clear difference about the focal point of the two disciplines. The law specifies what are acceptable and unacceptable behavior and the consequences of such actions. Psychology is not judgmental of people's behavior unlike the law (Wegener, Losel & Haisch 1989). The above differences in the two fields are essential in understanding their receptivity and resistance of each other. Because the law is ideographic, the psychologists who have this orientation are the ones who are welcome to the courts. According to Schuller and Ogloff, these psychologists have had a long history of involvement with the legal system. The experimental psychologists have met a lot of resistance. Because of the background of psychologists, they often speak in terms of statistical probabilities. This could present a problem in the courts when the psychologists are testifying because the law is inclined to certainty. Many psychologists have reservations about ignoring the limitations or qualifications of the research findings and yet very often, the legal system limits or prohibits full disclosure. Although citizens typically remember with time, some people will by no means remember. Psychologists are of the view that the reminiscence of an observer about a terrifying occasion like carrying weapons theft can be improved depending on the person's poignant arousal. For example a person who has been robbed by a human being without a firearm may have his reminiscence indistinct and he can give evidence in court that the person has a gun. Psychologists have been unwilling to give evidence in court because they have found that there is a high chance that there will be misrepresentation and distortion of their work (Kapardis 2003). Although there are many differences between psychology and law, there have been a lot of similarities between the two fields. A lot of aspects of psychology can be helpful for lawyers in the growth of their lawful skills this receptivity of especially by the legal system has shown that the differences between them are reconcilable. However there are still some areas whereby the differences have continued. The psycho-legal field has been unwilling to use other kinds of research methods. It has excessively used experimental research techniques and this has caused them to produce questionable results. Many times, it has been difficult to establish their work in the context of the law. Kapardis asserts that it is important for the psycho-legal field to use a larger community as the subject of research so as to advance psychology and law. Psychologists need to be more critical of the legal issues the research on so as to confront various area of the law. Another constant source of conflict is that the psychologists are unwilling to build an education about the law. This has made them unable to make an impact on the legal system because they lack knowledge of social and legal changes. (Kapardis 2003) The psychology of the witness is very important especially for the eyewitness. A number of studies and experiments have been done to find out if the witnesses are reliable or not. People's memories may be failed and this means some piece of evidence will be missed. When a person is asked to describe a person that he came into contact very briefly with, it will be quite difficult for the person to remember accurately. Also it is difficult to know whether the account being given by the eyewitness is accurate. The issue of perception should also be considered when it comes to the witness. Perception is highly selective and people tend to pay attention to relevant and important things and less significant things are ignored. It is possible for a person standing on the side of the road fail to see an event and therefore unable to give an account of something that was happening just in front of him. If he knew he would be questioned about it later, he would probably have paid more attention to a particular occurrence (Stephenson 1992). Stressful events can interfere with a person's memory. The memory of what happened just before or after a frightening experience can be forgotten. Although people usually remember with time, some people will never remember. Psychologists are of the view that the memory of a witness about a terrifying event like armed robbery can be enhanced depending on the person's emotional arousal. For instance a person who has been robbed by a person without a gun may have his memory distorted and he can testify in court that the person has a gun. This will mean that the accused will get a worse sentence than what is just and deserved (Bostock 1998). Lawyers spend a lot of time interacting with people because their job involves interviewing clients, preparing legal document, courtroom procedures, negotiations and legal decisions. Many aspects of psychology can be beneficial to lawyers in the development of their legal skills. Some of these areas are the psychology of communication, persuasion, and social interaction. Psychological research on the legal system and process can be helpful because it can help the lawyer know what is going on from the Psychological point of view. It will be easier for them to work with witnesses and the jury (Bostock 1998). Legal psychology is a process that involves empirical and psychological research of legal institutions, the law and the people who come into contact with the law. Legal psychologists apply cognitive and social theories to the legal system. They emphasize on such issues like jury, decision-making, investigations, eyewitness memory and interviewing. Legal psychology and forensic psychology forms the basis of psychology and law. The introduction of psychology in the legal field is a very commendable step because it assists the legal system in operating efficiently. Governments of the countries where the practice has not yet been embraced should encourage its adoption. References Austin, L and Kortum, J. (2004) Psychological Analysis of crime. New York: New York Press, Vol (2) pp 517-528. Bennett, H., Gunter, H. & Reid, S. (1996) Through a glass darkly: images of appraisal. Journal of criminal investigation. 5 (3) October, pp.39-46. Brewer, N. Kipling D. (2005) Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective. Guilford press. Bull, R. (2001) Children and the Law: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell. Bustok, J (1993) Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology. No. 52 Fall, pp.94-122. Davies, G. Lloyd-Bostock, S. McMurran M. (1996) Psychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice. Walter de Gruyter. Dent, H., Flin, R. (1992) Children as witnesses. New York: Wiley. Drisko, W (1997) Journal of Law and psychlology. Washington Street Press, Vol.33, pp.185. Emily, J. (2005) Decision making in criminal justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 67-89. Gonzalez, M. & Martin, F. (1998) Psychology analysis crime detection. Barcelona, Difusion. Gottffredson, M.R. & Gottfredson, D.M (1988) Decision making in criminal justice: Towards the rational exercise of discretion. New York: Plenum. Greene, E., Nietzel, M. T. & Fortune, W. H. (2002) Psychology and the Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hastie, R. (ed) (1993) Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision-making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horngren, C. T. and G. Foster. (1987) Introduction to psychology and law. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hudsen, W. M. (1999) Psychological analysis and law. New York: Wiley. James R. P. Ogloff. (1992) Law and Psychology: The Broadening of the Discipline. Carolina Academic Press. .Kapardis, A. (2003). Psychology and Law: A critical introduction. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Kaplan, R.S. and A. A. Atkinson (1989) The psychology of juror decision-making. Prentice- Hall International Inc. Levine, M. (2005) Law and Psychology. New University Press York. Lloyd-Bostock, S. (1998) Law in Practice: Applications of Psychology to Legal Decision Making and Legal Skill. Routledge, Southampton. Smith, M. (1991) Behavior and Psychology as Related to Law Enforcement and Criminology. No. 6069, 28 April, p 1115 Stephenson, G.M. (1992) The psychology of criminal justice. Oxford: Blackwell. Toch, H. (1979) Psychology of crime and criminal justice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Wegener, H., Losel, F. (1989) Criminal behavior and the justice system: Psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag. Wrightsman, L. S. (2001) Forensic Psychology. Belmont: CA. Read More