What Is Forensic Psychology, History, Relationship between Psychology and the Law - Coursework Example

What is forensic psychology, history, relationship between psychology and the law Forensic psychology Forensic psychology is a sub-discipline or branch of psychology which involves the legal system and its actions. It is also known as psychology and law, psycho-legal studies, correctional psychology etc, and its existence has been met with a lot of controversy since its discovery (Hess, 1996; Grisso, 1991). The wide scope of both psychology and law is one of the reasons that forensic psychology has been the subject of much debate since both of these two fields are separated by some distinctions but they do have some similarities in some areas (Bersoff et al., 1997). In the clinical/medical sense, forensic psychology involves psychological evaluation, calculation and prevention of future risks and danger and methods of rehabilitation of perpetrators. There are also some experimental subjects in psychology and law that are tackled such as social, inter and intrapersonal behavior, cognition and other areas. Examples of areas on the legal side of forensic psychology are: decision-making in juries, identification of potential witnesses, the significance of star witnesses and the importance of children and minors in the courthouse. Other aspects that are beginning to have very big impacts in forensics psychology are: the examination of the various significance of court decisions, legislative actions and conclusions on the social behavior and beliefs. Advocates of forensic psychology believe that these areas hold the promise of psychology and law to help build a better society (Melton, 1992). On the other hand, there are aspects of forensic psychology that are specific to either psychology or law only and these will not be discussed in this paper (Huss, 2001b). Psychology and Law’s extensive and broad nature can be read in issues of Law and Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society, a branch of the American Psychological Association. It contains articles upon articles about forensic psychology and is available all throughout the year. Articles included in the journal cover a wide array of topics, ranging from coerced confessions, methods of polygraph procedures, alternate trial processes, pre-trial publicity, reports of capital cases and the pressure of the present members of the counsel for that case and sex offenses to name a few (Wiener, 1997). The journal emphasizes on past psycho-legal, experimental and 37 other topics on psychology and law, for example in their 2000 issues, 32% of the articles (12 in total) were about forensics, 51% is about psychological and legal matters (about 19 articles) and 16% were about policies. This account does not include articles that are exclusive for each side and is only a reflection of the articles in each field (Huss, 2001b). Forensic Psychology is the application of psychological applications in legal matters. It is a combination of psychology (the study of human behavior and mental conditions) and law (the study of governance and justice in a society) (Walker and Shapiro, 2003, p.3).  There are a lot of issues and arguments about the scope and coverage of forensic psychology. It is commonly attached to the combined application of the law/legal system and the science of psychology (Wrightsman, 2001). There are other experts that align forensic psychology to the application of clinical practices in legal situations, a reversal of previous definition (e.g., Melton, Huss, & Tomkins, 1999). As an example, both the American Board of Forensic Psychology and the American Psychology-Law Society (1995) defines forensic psychology as the practice of clinical psychology, counseling psychology, neuro-psychology, and school psychology in which they are regarded equally as experts in any legal action or movement that requires psychological proficiency done by the legal system. This definition does not include the experimental aspects of forensic psychology and law in the judicial system and rather spotlights the mental health aspects. This work will focus on the combination of the concern for mental health, psychological practices and general psychological practices. Also this paper will focus on the legal process itself and not on law enforcement because law enforcement is just a small part of the legal system (Huss, 2001a).       Commonly, psychologists deal with the diagnosis and treatment of mentally incapacitated or deranged persons. They relate with persons who are inflicted mental disorders ranging from marital and mild mental predicaments to schizophrenia, phobias manias, mental traumas and other severe mental conditions. Now, psychologists working on forensic psychological situations may work on every sort of mental conditions and illnesses which involve criminal intentions considered as unconventional behavior by the law. Legal difficulty usually ensues when a claimant forwards a law suit where they claim that another person has physically or emotionally hurt them. Examples of these lawsuits include personal injury suits, civil commitment proceedings, child custody disputes, or compensation cases on workers. Criminal case usually happens when a claimant forwards a law suit where they claim that another person has physically or emotionally hurt them, cases which include personal injury suits, civil commitment proceedings, child custody disputes, and even company compensation cases. (Huss, 2001a)..   Forensic studies have shed light on the various shortcomings of the legal system. As an example, psychologists have found out that jurors create bias against the suspect based on the facts that the judge has not presented upon them or facts that have been deemed to be insignificant according to trial simulations. Details such as race, skin color, appearance of the suspect etc raises the bias against the “criminal” in mock trials in trial simulations, mock crimes based on several real eyewitness accounts are created by the psychologists to study the behavior of the people involved. One procedure requires the “eyewitness” to identify the perpetrator and to recall the details of the crime. Observations of the mock trials suggest that the “eyewitnesses” are very much susceptible to errors (Kassin, 2003). Many psychologists today are directly involved and employed in the judicial system. They are seeking advice from and discuss legal matters with attorney and they can testify in court as expert witnesses. Among their other legal tasks include counseling prisoners, teaching psychology in law schools, and research on various legal issues. These forensic psychologists apply psychological methods in the selection of jury, analysis of eyewitness accounts, criminal confessions and profiling and many other legal actions. Take for example the capability of a psychologist to testify in court as an “expert witness”. In a case where the accused pleads insanity, forensic psychologists are called upon by the court to analyze the accused and determine whether he is really insane or not. This is a particularly delicate matter as a defendant who has claimed that he or she was deranged when he or she has committed a crime might be absolved due to the reason that he or she cannot really determine the moral implications by his or her criminal actions because of a mental disorder. Defendants who are declared mentally insane by the time. Other situations when a psychologist is allowed to testify in court is when there is a need to test the accuracy of the eyewitness’ claims and/or when testing of the mental fitness of the dependants is requires and/or when there is a need for verification of childhood memories used in the trial (Kassin, 2003). History of forensic psychology Forensic psychology has just been considered recently as a branch of applied psychology, having been just recognized by the AP A in the year 2001. Forensic psychology is best viewed in two ways: one is that it is a research endeavor that looks at the various facets of human behavior that has a real legal significance (e.g., eyewitness memory and testimony, jury decision making, and criminal behavior) and second, it is the practice of psychology that links the legal system with itself, and include both criminal and civil laws and the aspects and characteristics in which they interconnect .One can then say that forensic psychology is the construction and application of psychology to the judicial system. As mentioned earlier, it includes the following activities such as: courtroom statement, child custody assessment, law enforcement officer trainee screening, treatment of perpetrators in prison facilities, assessment of claimants in disability claims, criminal behavior research and theory building, and designing and implementing prevention programs for young perpetrators. (Hess, 1987, 1999). Ronald Roesch and other psychologists however have adapted a much narrow and specific view. (Cited in Brigham, 1999, p. 279), Roesch states that: “Most psychologists define the area more narrowly to refer to clinical psychologists who are engaged in clinical practice within the legal system.” He continues by stating that: “…the primarily clinical aspects of forensic assessment, treatment, and consultation” is retained and adopted in their definition, in reference to the recognition of the APA of forensic psychology as a branch of psychology in 2001 (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002, p. 8). This limited, more specific view although appreciated, is still seen as inferior to the more general view. And on the other hand, those that embraced the limited view do not consider the recognition of forensic psychology in 2001 as insignificant (Weiner and Hess, 2005). In the past 20 years, forensic psychology’s growth in terms of its use in the courtroom it was introduced way back (Ogloff, Tomkins, & Bersoff, 1996; Melton, 1992). This particular growth is shown by the various journals that tackle issues in forensic psychology such as: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Law and Human Behavior, and Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law. These journals seem to bolster and enhance the utilization of forensic psychology in the courtroom and in the evaluation of studies in psychology for use in legal disputes (e.g., Lockhart v. McCree, 1986). The propagation of the use of forensic psychological methods in court is also boosted by the founding organizations such as the American Association for Correctional Psychology; American Board of Forensic Psychologists and American Psychology-Law Society which continues to produce graduates specializing in both psychological and legal fields. Also the recent increase in research endeavors involving law and psychology has helped in promoting the patronage of forensic psychology (Melton, 1992; Huss, 2001b). Relationship between psychology and the law Any issue concept idea or aspect that crosses the bounds of psychology and law may be considered to be included in the field of forensic psychology. This very general definition of forensic psychology allowed the expansion of the field which is only limited by the imagination of psychologists and evolution of the judicial system (Bartol & Bartol, 1994). Research in the psycho-legal field is mainly fueled by the judicial system, and basic education and knowledge of the legal system is a must have. Classical research in his field often aims to answer issues about the basic tenets of human behavior. Both types of psychologists, those who are attuned to legal and forensic aspects are required to close in the gap between their research and the legal process through the application of scientific techniques. This does not mean that the contribution of basic psychological principles will be ignored or minimized in psychological and legal actions. In fact there are numerous psychologists who prefer working in a legal environment, applying cognitive, developmental, social, and clinical psychology in. their works. This may also due to the fact that forensic psychology has a somewhat special link to each other and that the legal environment provides a sort of experimental set up for these psychologists complete with human test subjects (Huss, 2001b). The application and implications of using psychological methods in the real world legal system has been determined by Hugo Munsterberg (1908) when he made claims and predictions that psychology would really deal a huge impact on the enforcement of law. Munsterberg’s claims were featured in his work On the Witness Stand in which some of his events that was depicted in the book was inspired from real life crime at that era such as the kidnapping of Charle’s Lindrberg’s son and the eventual prosecution of the kidnappers (McGehee, 1937). Early accounts of psycho-legal cases in the US were made unintentionally in the past. One case involves the Supreme Court’s ruling that segregation in American private schools were unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). Another one of these cases where psycho-legal techniques were used in court was the famous Harrisburg Seven Trial in the 1970’s. A man named Phillip Berrigan and 7 other were accused of anti-war activities. A jury was then formed by a group of social scientists who joined the case. The team of social scientists objective was to prove if several demographic characteristics such as religion, age, gender and education formed the basis for a bias for the conviction of the accused (Huss, 2001b). The contributions of forensic psychology to law There were a number of studies that investigated the effects of laying out pieces of evidence in court. It turns out that the presentation of evidence or pieces of evidence have a particular effect in the decisions of the jurors when the pieces are presented at a certain order or when the piece of evidence was presented at a certain point of time during the trial. Researchers have also looked upon the significance of the state or star witness in certain specific facts, statements made off-the-court (hearsay), the statement of information on confessions done with a touch of coercion, statistical pieces of evidence etc. Lawyers have always been known to find out how they can prove the innocence of their clients in the court of law. Psycho-legal procedures have always been a great help in these cases, providing the necessary impact in some pieces of evidences (Huss, 2001b). Ta large part of research on psycho-legal actions emphasizes on the use of expert witnesses. These studies are not possible if not for the huge demand for psychologists in the courtroom, especially in domestic violence cases and mental recall of crime scene events. The chance of having an expert witness in the courtroom provides the opportunity for the reorientation of jurors about the psychological aspects that are not in the scope of the normal knowledge of the jurors (Blackman & Brickman, 1984; Huss, 2001b). In the beginning, psycho-legal studies are centered on the significance of the testimony of the expert witness to point out and imply the factors that influence the identification of an eyewitness. These factors include the confidence and memory capacity of the eyewitness; police S.O.P. etc (Cutler & Penrod, 1995). The impact of the delivery of an expert witness testimony is seen in domestic violence cases especially when battered wife syndrome is present (Schuller, Smith, & Olson, 1994), pleas of insanity (Rogers, Bagby), Crouch, & Cutler, 1990), physical and sexual abuse in children (Crowley et al., 1994), rape and the trauma it entails (Frazier & Borgida, 1992), and discrimination of minors and the elderly (Raitz, Greene, Goodman, & Loftus, 1990). Though some other studies show that the presence of expert testimonies in some cases are not that effective, most of the psycho-legal studies suggest that an expert testimony can indeed have a huge effect on the way the jurors take on the pieces of evidence presented unto them and eventually the decisions they will make (Penrod & Cutler, 1987; Huss, 2001b). If this is the case then there is a possibility that the mental condition of the jurors and the witness have effects on the conviction of suspects. The assessment of evidence and other factors in the application of psychology and law expands to other significant issues. As an example, Kassin and Neumann (1997) looked at the impact of the confession of the accused at the trial itself than witness identification, expert testimony etc, evidence shows that that a confession are greatly more powerful than any kind of evidence (Kassin & Neumann, 1997). Kassin and Sukel (1997) showed that the use of coercion to induce confessions increased the conviction of the accused even if the jurors see it as forced and may be seen as having less impact than a more “honest” confession. Also studies have found out that hearsay or the act of giving statements outside the courtroom also has a huge impact on the decisions of jurors about the suspect (Golding, Sanchez, & Sego, 1997; Schuller, 1995). In terms of statistical and quantitative or those that involve probabilities also have high impacts to the jurors, although it is not a guarantee that jurors comprehend the figures presented in the case (Smith, Penrod, Otto, & Park, 1996). There were also studies that examined the physical mediums as evidences such as pictures/photographs (Douglas, Lyon, & Ogloff, 1997) and computer-generated images (Kassin & Dunn, 1997). These studies suggest that the more sophisticated and intricate pieces of evidences have a greater effect on the decisions of the jurors and even on the final verdict itself (Huss, 2001b). The largest and most extensive research emphasizes on eyewitness memory or eyewitness identification. This still remains on the domain of psychology though (Wells, 1995). Eyewitness research on the other hand, emphasizes on the victims themselves and the factors that affect performance of the eyewitness (Huss, 2001b). Conclusion Forensic psychology, even though considered as a relatively new field has shown it’s potential in the resolution of crime. Not only that, it has wormed its way into pop culture, creating a sort of surge in the renown and popularity of forensic psychology. The popularity of forensics and forensic psychology has been heightened by the media in television shows, in the movies, and books. These forms of media have helped boost the utilization of forensic psychology and also have helped in creating public awareness on the procedures done in forensics. Movies such as Silence of the Lambs where the main antagonist, the cannibal Hannibal Lecter matches wits with forensic psychologist Special Agent Clarice Starling. Also, television shows such as Profiler and C.S.I. (Crime Scene Investigation) where a team of forensics experts cracking difficult and gruesome cases show that the study and application of forensic psychology is “cool” and very interesting. Although in real life, the practice of forensic psychology is a lot less glamorous, it helps to think that this relatively new field of law and psychology has resolved a lot of hard cases since it’s establishment this”media blitz” applied to forensic psychology has also encouraged a lot of would be forensic experts that may soon help in the resolution of perplexing case in the future (Huss, 2001a). Bibliography American Board of Forensic Psychology, & American Psychology-Law Society. (1995). Petition for the recognition of a specialty in professional psychology [Online]. Available: http://www.unl.edu/ap-ls/petition.PDF [WEBMASTERS NOTE: Link no longer works] Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1994). Psychology and law: Research and application. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Bersoff, D. N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Grisso, J. T., Hans, V. P., Poythress, N. G., Jr., & Roesch, R. G. (1997). Training in law and psychology: Models from the Villanova Conference. American Psychologist, 52, 1301-1310. Brigham, J. C. (1999). What is forensic psychology anyway? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 273 –278. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Blackman, J., & Brickman, E. (1984). The impact of expert testimony on trial of battered women who kill their husbands. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2, 413-422. Crowley, M. J., OCallaghan, M. G., & Ball, P. J. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 89-105. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485-502. Douglas, K. S., Ogloff, J. R. P., Nicholls, T. L. (1999). Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric outpatients: Douglas, K. S., & Webster, C.D. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3-19. Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402 (1960). Frazier, P. A., & Borgida, E. (1992). Rape trauma syndrome: A review of the case law and psychological research. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 293-311. Golding, J. M., Sanchez, R. P., Sego, S. A. (1997). The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 299-326. Grisso, T. (1991). A developmental history of the American Psychology-Law Society. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 213-230. Hess, A. (1987). Dimensions of forensic psychology. In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 22– 49). New York: Wiley. Hess, A. K. (1996). Celebrating the twentieth anniversary of Criminal Justice and Behavior: The past, present, and future of forensic psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 236-250. Hess, A. (1999). Defining forensic psychology. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 24 – 47). New York: Wiley. Huss, Matthew T. (2001a). What is Forensic Psychology? Its Not Silence of the Lambs! Eye on Psi Chi (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 25-27) Huss, Matthew T. (2001b). Chapter 11 Psychology and Law, Now and in the Next Century:The Promise of an Emerging Area of Psychology in The Many Faces of Psychological Research in the 21st Century. Halonen, Jane S. and Stephen F. Davis. (editors). (2001). The Society for the Teaching of Psychology Kassin, Saul. (2003). Psychology. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library (2003 edition). Microsoft Corporation Kassin, S. M., & Dunn, M. A. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 269-282. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypotheses. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469-484. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27-46. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986). McGehee, F. (1937). The reliability of the identification of the human voice, Journal of General Psychology, 17, 249-271. Melton, G. B. (1992). The law is a good thing (psychology is, too): Human rights in psychological jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 381-398. Melton, G. B., Huss, M. T., & Tomkins, A. J. (1999). Training in forensic psychology and the law. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (2nd ed., pp. 700-720). New York: Wiley. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: McClure & Co. Norcross, J. C. (2000, Fall). Clinical versus counseling psychology: Whats the diff? Eye on Psi Chi, 5, 20-22. Ogloff, J. R. P., Tomkins, A. J., Bersoff, D. N. (1996). Education and training in psychology and law/criminal justice: Historical foundations, present structures, and future developments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 200-235. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57, 5 –19. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1987). Assessing the competence of juries (pp. 293-318). In I. B. Weiner and A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 1, 817-845. Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385-395. Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., Crouch, M., & Cutler., B. (1990). Effects of ultimate opinions on juror perceptions of insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 225-232. Schuller, R. A. (1995). Expert evidence and hearsay: The influence of "secondhand" information on jurors decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 345-362. Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49-82. Schuller, R. A., Smith, V. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Jurors decisions in trials of battered women who kill: The role of prior beliefs and expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 316-337. The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 917-930 Walker, Lenore E. and David Shapiro. (2003). Introduction to Forensic Psychology: Clinical and Social Psychological Perspectives. New York: Kluwer academic/Plenum Publishers, p.3 Wiener, R. (1997). From the editor. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 1-3. Weiner, Irving B. and Allen K. Hess (Editors). (2005). The Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd. Wells, G. L. (1995). Scientific study of witness memory: Implications for public and legal policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 1, 726 731. Wrightsman, L. S. (2001). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Read More