Archives

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
03
Mar 24

Is Eyewitness Testimony Trustworthy?

An account provided by individuals of an event they have personally observed, is referred to as eyewitness testimony in legal terminology. They might be asked to explain a robbery trial or a traffic accident that they witnessed, for instance. This covers information on the crime scene, the identity of the offenders, etc. Research on eyewitness testimony is crucial for understanding human memory and cognitive psychology. Eyewitness testimony is typically given careful consideration by juries, who view it as a trustworthy source of information. However, studies in this field have shown that a variety of psychological factors can influence eyewitness testimony, none more so than Reconstructive Memory.

Knowledge of the validity of eyewitness testimony requires a knowledge of, Frederic Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory, which claimed that recall is open to individual interpretation based on taught or cultural norms and values, as well as how we view the world.

Individuals organize information according to what makes the most sense to them. We try to fit information into schemas, which are ways of organizing data, to make sense of it. Schemas are conceptual “units” of information that correlate to individuals, things, or circumstances that are encountered often. Prejudice and social values may have an influence on these schemas. Thus, schemas have the power to skew new or unintentionally “unacceptable” information to make it “fit in” with our preexisting knowledge or schemas. Consequently, this may lead to eyewitness testimony that is not trustworthy.

The legal community, law enforcement, and psychologists have collaborated to try and improve the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness memory significantly improved when researchers Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, and Holland used an interviewing technique they called the Cognitive interview (CI). The strategy aims to inform witnesses of all the circumstances surrounding a crime without fabricating information or creating false memories. This method involves the interviewer getting to know the witness before posing any questions. The witness is then given the opportunity to provide an unrestricted account of what happened. The interviewer then probes further to get further details from the witness and reassures them that it’s okay to express uncertainty and move on. This method leads the witness, instead of following a strict expectation that the witness must recall every detail.

Correct implementation of the cognitive interview results in increased efficiency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony without the generation of extra false information.

 

References

Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Geiselman, R.; Fisher, Ronald; MacKinnon, David; Holland, Heidi (1986). “Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview”. American Journal of Psychology. 99 (3): 385–401

Ghetti, S.; Goodman, G. S.; Schaaf, J. M.; Qin, J. (2004). “Issues In Eyewitness Testimony”. In O’Donohue, W. T.; Levensky, E. R. (eds.). Handbook of Forensic Psychology. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. p. 532.

Wells, G. L.; Memon, A.; Penrod, S. D. (2006). “Eyewitness Evidence: Improving Its Probative Value”. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 7 (2): 45–75.

Uncategorized — No Comments
27
Jul 20

For some criminals, Halloween is the MOST DREADED time of the year!

 

For most of us, Halloween is the best time of the year! The trick-or-treating, getting candy, or giving out candy, perhaps even throwing a party. However, for many convicted sex offenders, it is the most dreaded time of the year. Sex offenders require curfews, mandatory “no candy” signs on their doors, group roundups, and even spot checks for compliance are all among the various techniques of control designed to protect the public.

Contrary to the belief that sex offenders should be feared on Halloween, sex offenders are actually not out kidnapping and molesting children on Halloween, and they never have been. In the published study “How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters?: An Analysis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween”, it proved that there is no Halloween spike in sex crimes against children. “The wide net cast by Halloween laws places some degree of burden on law enforcement officers whose time would otherwise be put to better use in addressing more probable dangerous events” (Levenson, 2009). Levenson’s theory, published in the journal, Sexual Abuse, examined crime trends over a 9 year period.

The researchers used data from the National Incident Base Reporting System to evaluate crime trends in 30 U.S states over a 9 year time frame. They didn’t find any increased rate of sexual abuse during Halloween or during the Halloween season. In fact, the number of reported incidents didn’t rise or fall after the police put in place these current procedures. However, unfortunately, empirical evidence seems to be incapable of bringing common sense to bear. Probation officers continue to put in place these ridiculous roundups and other once a year restrictions on sex offenders, instead of aiming their focus on the real threat to children, which I will cover in a moment.

All over the USA on Halloween, probation and parole officers will continue to require convicted sex offenders to not answer their doors, wear costumes, or decorate their homes on Halloween. They are ordered to post a “NO CANDY HERE” sign on their doors (like the one seen above). Others must attend special Halloween “counseling sessions” or “movie nights” where they are monitored. The restrictions are so widespread and varied, despite at least one federal court ruling that the restrictions were overly broad, and ridicule from late night TV pundits of some of the sillier Halloween restrictions.

The ridiculous crackdowns are a perfect example of what Scott Henson from the Grits for Breakfast Blog calls “security theater”, security theater is hyping and pretending to solve a threat that in reality is very remote, even to the point of diverting resources from policing activities like DUI enforcement that would protect much more people and actually save lives. So why Halloween, you might ask? After all, most sex offenders go after people they know, not after children they see in the street. Also, sex offenses are usually committed by men who have never been caught for a past sex offense. Furthermore, registered sex offenders usually feel branded and excluded so most of them are in hiding or stay on the down low.

The scare feeds into a deeper rooted cultural fear of the “bogeyman stranger”, this fear is memorialized in the Halloween legend of so called “tainted candy” that has endured despite countless attempts at correction. Benjamin Radford, of the Skeptical Enquirer discussed the persistence of the stranger danger myth: “despite email warnings, scary stories, and Ann Landers columns to the contrary, there have been only two confirmed cases of children being killed by poisonous candy on Halloween, and in both cases, the children were killed not in a random act by strangers but intentional murder by one of their parents.” (Radford, 2005).

The sad part about both myths is that children are taught a message of fear: Strangers, or even their own neighbors, might try to poison or molest them. I remember the first time I heard this myth, when I was 9 years old, and was trick-or-treating with my friend from school, and when we got home, naturally, I was eager to start eating my candy, however, my friend told me that she cannot eat the candy because her mother has to check it first. I remember being shocked, and thinking why on earth would anyone poison candy for trick-or-treaters? I didn’t believe it, after all, I had been trick-or-treating for years and I never was poisoned! So I just assumed her mother was crazy, but later on, I came to learn that this is a very common belief among most parents in the USA.

So, what is the real danger that children face on Halloween? It’s the one your mother always warned you about: getting hit by a speeding car while crossing a dark street. Car accidents kill about 8,000 children every year in the USA (Vieru, 2008), and children are more than twice as likely to be killed by a car while walking on Halloween night, then any other time of the year (Children’s National, 2020). So maybe next Halloween, show some compassion toward a publicly identified sex offender (or not, up to you!). BUT PLEASE, children, don’t get too friendly with cars!

References:

Levenson, J., & Chaffin, M. (2009, July 6). How Safe Are Trick-or-Treaters?: An Analysis of Child Sex Crime Rates on Halloween – Mark Chaffin, Jill Levenson, Elizabeth Letourneau, Paul Stern, 2009. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1079063209340143

Henson, S. (n.d.). Grits for Breakfast. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/

Radford, B. (2005, October 25). Candy Fears are Mere Halloween Phantoms. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.livescience.com/434-candy-fears-mere-halloween-phantoms.html

Vieru, T. (2008, December 11). WHO Says 830,000 Kids Are Killed Annually by Accident. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://news.softpedia.com/news/WHO-Says-830-000-Kids-Are-Killed-Annually-by-Accident-99829.shtml

(n.d.). Halloween Safety On and Off the Road. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.nsc.org/home-safety/tools-resources/seasonal-safety/autumn/halloween

(n.d.). Be Safe, Be Seen on Halloween. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.safekids.org/be-safe-be-seen-halloween

Uncategorized — No Comments
20
Oct 19

Criminal Justice Reform

With nearly 2.3 million prisoners behind bars, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. In context, that means more than in Communist China, Russia, or India.

The cry for criminal justice reform has been growing louder ever since the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences during the Clinton administration of the 90s. As expected, both Congress and the Senate have been slow to act.

It is therefore incredibly surprising, that despite all of the posturing and political vitriol being hurled across the aisles of Washington, the First Step Act was signed into law by the unlikeliest of presidents – Donald Trump.

Bipartisanism in an age of Tribalism

 

In the news media, hot button topics grab the most headlines. This ranges from health care and gun control to immigration and the economy. Yet under the surface, politicians are cooperating at an unprecedented rate, working together to compromise and pass legislation with support from all political strips.

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

 

Gathering accurate statistics about federal criminal justice metrics is easier to accomplish but there remains a glaring blind spot. Data about local criminal justice is often incredibly limited, inconsistent and not easily accessible to the public or policymakers.

So although at the federal level, the First Step Act will go along way to set new standards going forward, it does nothing retroactively and requires extensive time and consideration to adjust policies to be effective at state and local levels.

In the meantime, that means more lives being destroyed, more resources wasted, and more tax dollars being ineffectively thrown into a black hole of criminal justice opacity. Just when the light at the end of the tunnel will be reached for many inmates is still impossible to gauge. Furthermore, an entire swath of inmates has been entirely excluded from the reforms being cemented into law by the legislation.

High-risk groups, who would benefit the most from additional resources for productive programs are ineligible because of their status. Whereas low-risk inmates are afforded the utmost opportunity to reduce their time spent behind bars.

As expected, this bias also trends towards worsening the racial divide in the prison system, with more black Americans being labeled as dangerous, high-risk felons than white inmates.

A Road Paved With Good Intentions

 

One of the major focuses of the First Step Act is the shift in the application of mandatory minimum sentences. Historically, prosecutors were given discretion when choosing which charges to file and thus what sentencing recommendations would be available to a Judge. The Judge would then be required to follow the existing edict.

With the First Step Act, discretion goes back to the person wearing the robe and for the first time, a fair and impartial arbitrator can decide what level of sentencing is appropriate. This also serves to remove a coercive tool from a prosecutor’s toolbox. No longer can they threaten an accused individual with a mandatory minimum sentence as a way to extort a guilty plea, even if the accused is innocent.

The Next Step

 

Looking ahead, it is logical to conclude that a “Step Two Act” will be following on the heels of this groundbreaking legislation. What this hypothetical Act would look like and what problems it would address is up for debate.

In her book “Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration”, author Rachel Barkow suggests that the glaring problems still needing to be addressed include resources for “High-risk” prisoners, a path to freedom other than clemency for those existing prisoners who were unfairly prosecuted and quantification of the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice system at all levels so that measuring efficacy can be achieved with transparency.

This seems like a tall order to fill, especially since the industry of private prisons will always attempt to block any kind of scrutinization of their business practices. But politics and money be damned.

Building Solutions

 

The solution to overcoming these obstacles is to show the narrative for what it is. That the Criminal Justice system is so broken and harmful that people from all levels of society are being persecuted. By broadening the issue to be about human rights, and not focusing as strongly on the bias against ethnic minority groups – which undeniably exists – there emerges a clear cause for every American to rally behind.

Highlighting clear points of congruency and cooperation will always supply a better outcome for changing this broken system. As the ultimate example of this, look at the bipartisan support exercised for the passage of the First Step Act.

create an entry — No Comments
20
Oct 19

Applied social psychology in the criminal justice system: improving eyewitness identification accuracy in police lineups

            

                  

There are many steps and factors in a criminal case that all come together to ultimately produce a verdict of guilt of innocence for the accused. There are several stakeholders in a criminal trial, though the defendant probably has the most at stake, as a verdict can mean the difference between freedom and prison time, which can have lasting negative effects for a lifetime. Social psychology principles and research findings can be effectively applied to the criminal justice system, specifically to help improve how law enforcement officers conduct criminal investigations. A crucial part of the investigation that police strive to achieve is an eyewitness identification of a suspect; however, eyewitness bias and poor procedural steps can taint this process, resulting in false eyewitness identifications of suspects. By studying what procedures influence witness error and bias, eyewitness accuracy can be improved, which can lead to less false positive identifications.
In a criminal case, the prosecutor works closely with law enforcement to build their case; they try to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense does all that it can to plant reasonable doubt into the minds of the jury. The case begins after a crime has been committed, and the steps that take place from there can all impact the final verdict of the accused. One of the most important pieces of evidence for the prosecution’s case against the defendant is a positive eyewitness identification, often done in police lineups. Unfortunately, false positive identifications do happen, and the repercussions of these errors can be devastating to those who are wrongfully identified. In 2016, the Innocence Project reported that of the 325 cases in which convicts have been exonerated by DNA evidence, 72% of those cases involved false positive eyewitness identifications; it is plain to see how much rests on the accurate identification of suspects by witnesses (Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts, 2017).
Many factors can affect the accuracy of a eyewitness’s identification, such as stress of witness at the time of witnessing the crime, the involvement of weapons in the crime, the timing of the identification of a suspect after the crime occurred, and the ability to see the suspect’s entire face at the time of the crime. Another factor that affect eyewitness accuracy is the “cross–race effect”, which describes the ability to recognize faces of people of one’s own race better than the faces of other races (Gruman et al., p. 304).
In addition to these factors, lineup procedures can have an enormous impact on eyewitness identification. The book of lineup guidelines which is widely used by law enforcement agencies in America, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement, outlines specific procedures that, if followed, would greatly reduce witness identification errors. The guidebook recommends that all lineups should be sequential lineups, where individuals are shown to the eyewitness one a time, versus a simultaneous lineup, which is what we commonly see in movies—where the suspects are lined up all together in a row in one room. Of confronted with all suspects at once, the eyewitness may feel pressure to choose one, even in the face of uncertainty. Foils, or people whom the police know are innocent, should also be used—this reduces the risk of a false identification by the eyewitness. Eyewitnesses may be swayed by the input of others after they identify someone in a lineup, so their confidence level in their decision should be recorded immediately by law enforcement. Police officers sometimes knowingly bias eyewitnesses so that they may have a positively identified suspect; by putting a suspect in the room who is the only individual that matches the eyewitness’s physical description of the suspect, the chances of a positive identification are greatly increased.
Knowledge gained through social psychology research can be applied to the investigative processes in the criminal justice system in many ways. False eyewitness identifications of suspects can result in devastating outcomes, and also leaves the real criminals at large. Errors in lineups can be greatly reduced by following guidelines and procedures that minimize bias and maximize eyewitness accuracy.

 

References

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied Social Psychology:
Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. ISBN 9781483369730

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
14
Oct 18

Danger in Prisons

When thinking of prisons, we just see inmates, people that did a crime and are in there because they put themselves in that position. What people seem to not know or ignore is the violence that occurs in prison. With overcrowding prisons and violent prisoners, it is a constant battle to keep a safe environment. There is violence between inmates and violence between inmates and guards. Data on physical violence in prison is scarce and more needs to be done to protect all parties. There are many inmates that have been wrongfully convicted or are still awaiting trial and these individuals forced in a position of danger.

Prisons have a set of codes such as the street codes from low income communities. (Wolff, N., Blitz, C. L., Shi, J., Siegel, J., & Bachman, R. 2007) Prisons have become a place that people try to survive. 19% of male inmates have stated that they have been physically assaulted by other inmates. (Gilson, D., Mother Jones, Lee, J., Baptiste, N., & Oatman, M. 2017, June 23) The number of inmates being physically assisted by prison staff members is at 22%, these numbers show that the individuals put in place to keep the peace are doing the opposite. (Gilson, D., Mother Jones, Lee, J., Baptiste, N., & Oatman, M. 2017, June 23)

The prison system needs to be updated and training needs to be a constant item on their agenda. There is very little research being done to accurately test how prison facilities are being operated and that needs to change. In 2001 the department of justice released data showing inmate vs inmate assaults were 38% higher in private prisons compared to public prisons. (Gilson, D., Mother Jones, Lee, J., Baptiste, N., & Oatman, M. 2017, June 23) There needs to be accountability for inmate safety.

Gilson, D., Mother Jones, Lee, J., Baptiste, N., & Oatman, M. (2017, June 23). 10 stats about assault and sexual violence in America’s prisons. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/attacks-and-assaults-behind-bars-cca-private-prisons/

Wolff, N., Blitz, C. L., Shi, J., Siegel, J., & Bachman, R. (2007). Physical Violence Inside Prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 588-599. doi:10.1177/0093854806296830

create an entry — 4 Comments
27
Feb 18

Juvenile Justice System

There is this perception in our society that those under 18 are under some type of legal protection or exemption. I used to think that if a teenager was tried as an adult then they would be susceptible to an unfair trial and that being sentenced as a juvenile was far better. I certainly do not agree with many ways that our U.S. justice system operates. I strongly believe that young people’s age should be a factor in understanding their motivation and capabilities. Therefore, charging a 16-year-old as an adult seems to be incredibly unjust. However still, juveniles are not awarded many of the same rights as adults and therefore may be getting a fairer trial but certainly not a fairer sentence. It is incredibly unreasonable to hold children to adult expectations; therefore, the juvenile justice system needs to be structured in a way that considers their age, allows them a fair trial and sentence. While also providing consistent and rehabilitative discipline that allows them to succeed as an adult.

Juvenile hearings are quite different than adult hearings, the Juvenile Law Center notes that “juvenile court hearings are often closed to members of the public and records are often confidential…however, despite what many people believe, juvenile records in most jurisdictions are not automatically sealed or expunged” (Juvenile Law Center, 2018). A juvenile record may follow an individual around throughout their life, making it difficult to be successful as an adult. Juveniles are not given the same rights as adults, thus having less protection when being accused or convicted and highly susceptible to manipulation. Furthermore, children are sentenced and tried by a judge, not a jury, which makes them highly vulnerable to discrimination. While also being subject to the judge’s personal opinions of the significance of the crime.

Remember the “kids for cash” scandal in Pennsylvania a few years back? This is a prime example of how the juvenile justice system is vulnerable to manipulation. Judges were found guilty of receiving a monetary commission for sentencing minors to juvenile detention centers (NPR, 2014). Judge Ciavarella took advantage of a system that allowed him to benefit from selling kid’s lives to juvenile detention centers for a profit (NPR, 2014). The juvenile system should not have space for Judge’s to have so much influence in one person’s life. Some of the children in the juvenile justice system lose years from their life based from one person’s sentence. This is different than the Adult justice system where adults are tried in front of a jury.

The article, Mandatory Minimums, Maximum Consequences discusses how federal law is reviving the “tough on crime approach” with juveniles (Steiner, 2017). This requires juveniles to be automatically tried as adults for certain crimes, therefore giving them an adult sentence. Therefore many have spent most, if not all their lives in jail for crimes they committed as teenagers. Steiner notes that a situation where Washington teens faced up to 45 years for stealing candy and cell phones while having a firearm on them (Steiner, 2017). Crimes committed by juveniles certainly need to be addressed and some situations may have more severe consequences on society. However, children should not be held to the same expectations as adults, because they are not mentally mature enough to understand the full consequences of their actions.

There are certainly issues with the juvenile justice system that we could discuss endlessly. The adult justice system in America is certainly no model to strive for. Though, suggesting that juveniles be treated to the same extent and with the same expectations as adults is unreasonable. Duplicating the adult justice system with juveniles, while also giving them less rights and protections is also highly problematic. I am simply suggesting that the juvenile justice system enact changes that truly reflect the child’s needs and ensure fair and ethical discipline. Instead of trying to transfer kids to the adult system or disregard their rights to fair trials and appropriate sentencing.

References

Juvenile Law Center (2018). Youth in the Justice System: An Overview. Retrieved from: http://jlc.org/news-room/media-resources/youth-justice-system-overview

NPR Staff (2014). ‘Kids For Cash’ Captures A Juvenile Justice Scandal From Two Sides. NPR. Retrieved from: https://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287286626/kids-for-cash-captures-a-juvenile-justice-scandal-from-two-sides

Steiner, Emily (2017). Mandatory Minimums, Maximum Consequences. Juvenile Law Center. Retrieved from: http://jlc.org/blog/mandatory-minimums-maximum-consequences

Uncategorized — No Comments
03
Mar 17

Personality Disorders at the Interface of Psychiatry and the Law

The relationship between mental illness and causation of crime has been a popular topic among forensic psychiatrists and the justice system.  Pin pointing a direct cause for problematic behavior is mostly caused by a varying degree of personality disorders within legal contexts.  Personality disorders are defined as, “a type of mental disorder in which you have a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning, and behaving (Mayo Clinic, 2016).” Furthermore, the Criminology Resource Center explains criminal behavior in relation to four criteria: “First, the act is prohibited by law and punished by the state.  Next, it is considered to violate a moral or religious code and is considered punishable by a supreme spiritual being.  Third, the act violates norms of society or tradition and it punishable by a community.  Finally, it causes serious psychological stress of mental damage to the victim (Regis, 2017).” The context within this blog entry will address how personality disorders are implicated in forensic cases, as well as analyze how such disorders are viewed in different legal contexts (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).

 

The evaluation process of different mental disorders is not viewed equally through forensic law.  At which point should flawed personality traits be considered an illness by a certified psychiatric diagnosis?  When is a personality disorder considered to cross the line into becoming an abnormal or severe condition?  Relatively, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is used to systematically organize diagnostic categories of certain mental disorders.    Individuals must meet established criterion in order to be legally classified with that particular ailment.  The DSM6’s definition of personality traits as, “ensuring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and one’s self that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).”  Relatively, personality traits are considered to be mental disorders (clinically and by the law) IF they show a precedence of impairments to overall functioning, resemble faulty adaptive constituents, and present distress on a continuum.  In many cases, mental illnesses can revise the definition of the law relevant to particular criminal and civil aspects.  Clinical Neuroscience report declares that, “classification and specific definitions of personality disorders can have a major impact on how and when they serve as modifiers [for the law] (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).”  Conclusively, the legal system’s perception of understanding the relationship between mental health and law is determined by considering the different mechanisms of functional impairment relative to a specific person.

 

Personality disorders play a significant role in legal assessments of criminal behavior.  Clinical conceptions of personality disorders attempt to explain the criminal justice system.  Additionally, the role of mental health in varying testimonies is determined by the severity of functional impairment as a causative agent of criminal behavior and other social controversies.  Mental illness has been considered the key to understanding and potentially eradicating crime.  What is the current state of acceptance for assessing personality disorders within a forensic context?  Essentially, the law develops a basis for which personality disorders hold practical significance for litigations within the court of justice.  Clinical Neuroscience justifies the code of law as, “a system that must be applicable across diverse situations and populations (Johnson & Elbogen).”  Additionally, the law addresses the impact that these disorders may have on individual’s behavioral constituents, as well as implicating that people are responsible for their own actions.  Where does the jury draw the line on what is tolerated or accepted behavior, or what crosses into a realm of symptoms from psychological distress?  Psychiatric components and the law describe behavior as either “within or outside the norm, and define behavior as acceptable or not.”

 

Personality disorders are affected by various social pressures and societal means.  Additionally, mental illness is a huge topic of interest in the study of criminal forensics because it reflects various causation principles for problematic behaviors.  It is crucial that the criminal justice system assesses the importance and reality of impaired mental health and its impact on behavior.  Although, the law must be consistent with their definition of mental illness as some criminals may claim to be mentally unstable as an excuse for their wrongdoings.  Contrarily, areas with increased crime rates typically have a high prevalence of personality dysfunction (Johnson & Elbogen, 2013).  In conclusion, mental health explains various concepts which underlie acts of criminal offense.  Forensic psychopathology is influenced by various neurological systems that coincide with discrepancies for the human mind, which results in the prevalence of certain behavioral traits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APA CITATIONS

Johnson, S. C., Elbogen, E. B. (2013, June). Personality Disorders at the Interface of Psychiatry and the Law: Legal Use and Clinical Classification. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3811091/

Regis. (2017, January 6). What is the definition of criminal behavior? Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://criminology.regis.edu/criminology-programs/resources/crim-articles/definition-criminal-behavior

Clinic, M. (2016). Mayoclinic. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/personality-disorders/home/ovc-20247654

create an entry — 1 Comment
17
Oct 16

Police Investigations and High Stake Liars

Most police officers think avoidance of eye contact and fidgety movements are hallmark signs of a liar (Vrij & Mann, 2001). However, these are actually signs of nervousness (Vrij, 2000). Vrij (2000) has studied behaviors of liars, and based upon a review of the literature, has concluded that liars actually do not tend to fidget nervously–instead they become unnaturally still. And what’s more, eye contact has nothing to do with lying at all. In a study by Vrij, Mann, and Bull (2002), the researchers analyzed videotapes of police investigations of crimes in which the suspect lied about some aspect of the case. Thus, the researchers had an opportunity to observe liars in action, in a real, high-stake situation, where getting caught lying would lead to a conviction. The researchers hypothesized that the high stake liars would demonstrate not signs of nervousness, but instead signs of cognitive load and attempted behavioral control.

The suspects in this case were being investigated for various offenses, including theft, rape, and murder. Their interviews were videotaped for an hour, and their stories were corroborated or debunked by the use of forensic evidence, so as to catch both their truth telling and lie telling behavior on tape. Objective, independent observers coded the videotape for eight behaviors, namely: gaze aversion, blinking, head movements, self-manipulations, illustrators, hand/finger movements, speech disturbances, and pauses. Inter-rater reliability was calculated and found to be sufficient.

The researchers found two significant results of their study. Firstly, the suspects blinked less while lying, and secondly, the suspects paused for longer periods of times when lying, both behaviors that are signs of cognitive load. Though this is a post-hoc inference, it is quite plausible given that the suspects had to fabricate stories as to fit in with what the investigators already knew. Quite opposed to the idea that most police officers have, that suspects who are lying display nervousness (of which blinking more is a sign), the suspects blinked less while lying. Interestingly, the tendency to blink a lot while nervous has been called the Nixon-effect, as per Tecce (1992), who calculated that Nixon blinked 50 times PER MINUTE during his resignation address.

While many police officers believe that there is a typical kind of lying behavior, the researchers found that there were large individual differences in lie behavior. Therefore, police investigators are recommended to establish changes from baseline readings obtained from the same suspect. According to the researchers, the most reliable indicator of lying is a departure from what is normal behavior in the suspect.

References:

Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2002). Suspects, lies, and videotape: An analysis of authentic high-stake liars. Law and human behavior, 26(3), 365-376.

Tecce, J. J. (1992). Psychology, physiology and experimental. McGraw-Hill. Yearbook of Science and Fechnology, 375-377.

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. Wiley.

Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7(1-4), 119-132.

 

 

 

Uncategorized — 4 Comments
12
Oct 16

Racism in the Justice System

Although the founding fathers of our nation did their best to ensure fair and due process of law when they established our justice system, there is a sickness that’s eating away at what we know as the due process of law. Racial bias is alive and well in our justice system, and it has been found to influence jury decisions and subsequent sentencing. Right now, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on two cases involving explicit racial bias that has affected juror deliberations and ultimately the sentences recommended by these juries.

Almost ten years ago, the Supreme Court asserted that it is unconstitutional to base decisions on the assigning of students to particular schools on race, regardless of the goal being the integration those schools. The opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority dismantled two school districts’ plans for desegregation and created obstacles inhibiting the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education. He justified the Court’s ruling by stating that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

There are two cases before the Supreme Court right now that shine a light on the type of indisputable, unequivocal racial discrimination that fly in the face of the Chief Justice’s colorblind statement. The Court’s handling of matters of racism will decide the fate of two men and will also bring into focus the Court’s recurrent disposition to overlook the implicit racism that undermines our criminal justice system.

Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado and Buck v. Davis are two very distinct cases. Miguel Angel Pena Rodriguez was convicted of allegedly attempting to grope two teenage girls. Dwayne Buck was convicted of murder. Mr. Pena Rodriguez received a sentence of two years’ probation and was required to register as a sex offender. Mr. Buck was sentenced to receive the death penalty. The similarity between these two cases arises in juries that were both contaminated with explicit overtures involving racist stereotypes, which in turn jeopardized the process of deliberation.

In Mr. Buck’s case, his own attorney called an expert witness during the penalty phase of the trial, Dr. Walter Quijano, who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to commit future crimes because he is Black. In Texas, where Mr. Buck was tried, future hypothetical danger posed, or “dangerousness”, is a factor that the jury must unanimously determine as existing in order to introduce the death penalty. The expert’s testimony was then utilized by the prosecutor during his closing arguments to convince the jury that Mr. Buck was too dangerous to not receive the death penalty. The jury subsequently issued a death sentence.

In Pena Rodriguez, the jury was in the middle of intense deliberations, when (according to two jurors’ affidavits) a juror who established himself as a former law enforcement officer, made a number of racist statements. Included in these statements were remarks that the defendant probably committed the crime because in his (the juror’s) experience, when he “used to patrol, nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being aggressive toward women and young girls.” The juror also cast aside an alibi provided by a witness, who was also Latin, because the juror asserted that the witness was an illegal immigrant, even though the witness was in fact a legal immigrant. The jury was not able to come to a verdict on a felony charge, but instead found the defendant guilty of three misdemeanors.

Though in both cases the claims of racial bias are largely admitted to, the lower courts denied requests for relief due to obstacles in procedure. In the Pena-Rodriguez case, the Colorado Supreme court denied the racial bias claim based on the statute stated in the so-called Mansfield rule. The Mansfield rule states that jury deliberations are inviolable and does not allow testimony from jurors about those transactions, even in proceedings where jurors may have behaved improperly. It is now within the power of the Supreme Court to repair this error and elucidate that unequivocal, racist stereotyping during jury deliberations is so immoderate as to exceed any benefits awarded by the Mansfield rule.

In comparison, the lower courts have maintained that Mr. Buck waived his right to appeal the issue of the performance of his attorney in calling the expert witness and has defaulted in procedure on any claims in connection with the ineffective assistance of counsel. In this as well, Supreme Court precedent permits exception to such defaults in procedure, but lower courts maintained that Mr. Buck’s assertions weren’t “extraordinary” enough to warrant such an exception. The Supreme Court now has an chance to right the lower court’s improper decision that being subject to the death penalty because of racist stereotypes is not an exceptional circumstance.

These are just two instances of implicit racial bias in our justice system that are being heard by the highest court in our nation. The fact that racism is allowed in juror deliberations seems to undermine the entire process. Many jurors are sequestered from the outside influences of TV and print media as well as public opinion. Would it not also be prudent to ensure that juror’s explicit biases are not skewing their better judgment?

Buck v. Davis – Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from https://ballotpedia.org/Buck_v._Davis

Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007).

Peña-Rodriguez v. State of Colorado. (2016, July 1). Retrieved October 11, 2016, from https://www.aclu.org/cases/pena-rodriguez-v-state-colorado.

Totenberg, N. (2016, October 11). Supreme Court Hears Case On Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.npr.org/2016/10/11/497196091/top-court-hears-case-on-racial-bias-in-jury-deliberations.

Uncategorized — No Comments
19
Oct 15

Criminal Injustice

There are many ways in which our criminal justice system actually promotes criminal in-justice. Researchers have been exploring the ways in which practices in the criminal justice system have promoted bias on multiple levels and how they might be changed. Some scholars suggest that our current legal system “promotes false notions of human behavior” and are concerned with just how damaging this can be (Benforado, 2015). Considering that eyewitness testimony has been suggested to be unreliable and that mis-identifications played a role in over 70% of the now more than 300 DNA exonerations of wrongfully convicted men and women, (Wixted et al., 2015) one is inclined to believe that change is indeed necessary.

In considering the legal process, starting with identifying a witness, the risk of bias can occur in the existence of the cross race effect (cross race bias). Studies have supported how this effect leads to inaccurate identifications and therefore leads to false prosecutions. Research has shown that when identifying a suspect within one’s own race there is a 60% accuracy rate, whereas in an attempt to identify a subject that is different than one’s own race the rate of accuracy substantially decreases to 45% (Eysenck & Keane, 2013). Additionally, ones perception is based off of their cultural cognition and that alone has a major influence in the role they play in any part of the justice system.

Bias can also occur in the interview process and misinformation can be inserted by those handling the interview, whether it be done consciously or unconsciously. Therefore, newer cognitive interviewing techniques focus more on the extraction and collection of data, as opposed to the preexisting methods of pressuring the witness so intensely and for so long, that it leads some of them to admit guilt, even when they are not guilty. It has been suggested that witness testimony and interviewing should be dealt with as delicately as any other evidence at a crime scene, and one cannot help but to agree with this perspective.

False confessions weigh heavily with juries, even in the absence of proof. Unfortunately, with enough pressure during interrogation, a suspect might give a false confession, in an attempts to alleviate the stress of the situation. The suspect will do so, with the assumption the truth will eventually be revealed once explored further. However, once the witnessed is bullied into a confession law enforcement typically stops looking for the truth elsewhere. This behavior can be assimilated with the cognitive resource theory, which indicates that stress can reduce rational decision making. Once a confession of guilt is received, even when evidence does not support it, it has been known to be difficult to appeal such a plea. And since videotaping is now a common occurrence in the interviewing process, it too can be misleading and promote “perspective bias” depending on which angle is viewed (interrogator versus suspect).

For those who hold the destiny of the suspect’s outcome in their hands, bias can be present as well. Just the fact that those that play the most important roles in the judicial system are white highly educated, wealthy men can create an environment of bias and demonstrates the need for diversity (Benforado, 2015). This belief is based on the research that supports that there is a tendency for people to believe people of their own race, more than others and that physical features can interfere with fairness as well. Also, one must consider that law enforcement is human and fallible and therefore checks and balances must be in place. While one may think they have no biases or that they are capable of even being cognizant of them, the sad truth is that biases are not introspective. It has been suggested that the intervention to this would be to bring biases to the forefront of our society’s awareness (Benforado, 2015). Furthermore, Benforado (2015) suggested that disrupting implicit racist biases with opposing perspectives (inserting different information) may be the way to counteract stereotypes that alter the opportunity for justice given to suspects.

 

References

Benforado, A. (2015, July 06). The New Science Behind Our ‘Unfair’ Criminal Justice System. (D. DAVIES, Interviewer) Retrieved October 18, 2015, from npr books: http://www.npr.org/2015/07/06/418585084/the-new-science-behind-our-unfair-criminal-justice-system

Eysenck, M., & Keane, M. T. (2013, September 11). Cognitive Psychology: Everyday Memory. Retrieved from Googlebooks.com: https://books.google.com/books?id=U-IF8PAa_jIC&pg=PA309&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

False Confessions or Admissions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2015, from Innocence Project: http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction/false-confessions-or-admissions

Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L. 2., Clark, S. E., Gronlund, S. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2015, September). Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. American Psychologist, 515-526. Retrieved October 2015, from http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/psycarticles/docview/1710253465/abstract/6A74E6714F294D33PQ/2?accountid=13158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncategorized — No Comments
15
Jun 14

The Story of Earl Washington Jr.

It is terrible to think what it would be like to go to jail. Imagine going to jail for a crime you did not even commit. Unfortunately, this is what happens when someone who is innocent makes an interrogation-induced false confession. According to the Innocence project, the average time of incarceration for an innocent citizen convicted of a crime one did not commit is 13 years. Thirteen years is a long time to be put in jail for a crime one was not even responsible for.

One may ask how this happens. Why would someone actually admit to committing a crime they were not actually involved in? Lassiter (2010) states that research shows that even mentally stable suspects may incriminate themselves as a result of certain police interrogation tactics. For instance, in circumstances where police lie to obtain implicating information from suspects, innocent suspects sometimes submit to the accusations of their guilt (Lassiter, 2010). In around 30% of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions, or pled guilty (Innocence Project, 2014). Lassiter (2010) suggests video recording suspect interrogations. In an attempt to prevent the fundamental attribution error from being made by jurors (attributing guilt solely on a suspect without taking into consideration environmental factors), it is suggested that the video interrogation show the suspect as well as his/her surroundings (i.e. police officer, holding cell, etc.) (PSU WC, 2014).

Unfortunately, in 1982 a man named Earl Washington Jr. falsely confessed to a number of crimes including the rape and murder of a nineteen year old woman. Despite confessing to the crime, Washington did not even know the race of the victim during questioning or where she lived. It was later found out that he had an IQ score of 69 (the average person’s IQ is around 100). The man was not only supposed to spend life in prison, he also was on death row. After serving 17 years in jail, DNA evidence was able to exclude him as a suspect in the case and he was eventually released (Innocence Project, 2014).

An innocent man, who had mental handicaps served 17 years in prison as a direct result of police coercion. The suspect was only able to point out the scene of the crime after police took him to the crime scene three times prior (Innocence Project, 2014). As Lassiter (2010) suggested, video recordings of interrogations should be shown to jurors and should include the suspect and his/her surroundings to confirm if the confession is one of truth or if it is false. Do you think there should be a law passed requiring video recorded interrogations during court? Are there other ways society can reduce the chances of one falsely confessing to a crime? Perhaps, police detectives should have to undergo various trainings with social psychologists to minimize false confessions?

 

References

Know the Cases (2014). Innocence Project. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Earl_Washington.php

Lassiter, G. D. (2010). Psychological science and sound public policy: Video recording custodial interrogations. American Psychologist, 65, 768-779. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/psycinfo/docview/763254229/fulltextPDF/1C1F057D079C445EPQ/61?accountid=13158

PSU WC. (2014). PSYCH424: Lesson 6, Intergroup Relations. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych424/001/content/07_lesson/01_page.html

Skip to toolbar