INSTRUCTOR’S MANUAL Angela Book Brock University
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY Sixth Edition
Joanna Pozzulo Craig Bennell Adelle Forth
Contents Chapter 1: An Introduction to Forensic Psychology Chapter 2: Police Psychology Chapter 3: The Psychology of Police Investigations Chapter 4: Deception Chapter 5: Eyewitness Testimony Chapter 6: Child Victims and Witnesses Chapter 7: Juries: Fact Finders Chapter 8: The Role of Mental Illness in Court Chapter 9: Sentencing and Parole in Canada Chapter 10: Risk Assessment Chapter 11: Psychopaths Chapter 12: Assessment and Treatment of Young Offenders Chapter 13: Intimate Partner Violence Chapter 14: Sexual Offenders Chapter 15: Homicidal Offenders Appendix: Revel Shared Writing Questions and Sample Responses and Feedback
Instructor’s Manual for Forensic Psychology
1–1
CHAPTER 1 An Introduction to Forensic Psychology LEARNING OBJECTIVES
LO 1: Identify some of the major milestones in the history of forensic psychology. LO 2: Explain the roles and activities performed by forensic psychologists. LO 3: Describe the function of expert testimony and the process by which judges assess its value.
OUTLINE An Introduction to Forensic Psychology Forensic psychologists are interested in understanding people’s thoughts, feelings, and actions in a legal context. Generally, forensic psychology can be defined as a field of psychology that deals with all aspects of human behaviour as they relate to the law or legal system. Portrayals of forensic psychology in the media often are inaccurate (see the description of media portrayals in the introduction to the chapter). A Brief History of Forensic Psychology The history of forensic psychology dates back to the late 1800s. Early research in the area centered on eyewitness testimony and suggestibility. Some of the first experiments were conducted by Cattell at Columbia University, who demonstrated that people often were inaccurate at recalling everyday events. Similarly, Binet published studies demonstrating that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques (i.e., misleading questions). Stern also began conducting studies using a “reality experiment” paradigm, and found that eyewitness recall often was incorrect, and that emotional arousal has a negative impact on memory. Around the same time, psychologists around the world began providing expert testimony surrounding issues such as the effect of pretrial publicity on witnesses (i.e., Schrenck-Notzing and retroactive memory falsification) and the susceptibility of children to suggestion (i.e., Varendonck), often making reference to experimental research. Some suggest forensic psychology arrived in North America with Munsterberg’s On the Witness Stand (1908). In his book, Munsterberg detailed ways that psychology could assist the legal system, following criticisms that psychology was a fad for “cheating justice”. However, several scholars engaged in a counterattack (i.e., Wigmore’s “trial” of Munsterberg and his claims), and psychologists did not provide expert testimony in North America until 1921. In the mid- to late-1900s, many theories of crime were being proposed. Generally, there are three categories of theories (see Box 1.1): - Biological theories emphasize the role that biology plays in explaining crime (i.e., constitutional theory, chromosomal theory, theory of lead exposure).
Copyright © 2022 Pearson Canada Inc.
Instructor’s Manual for Forensic Psychology
1–2
-
Sociological theories suggest that cultural variables are important in explaining crime (i.e., strain theory, differential association theory, labelling theory). - Psychological theories emphasize a range of individual difference variables in explaining crime (i.e., biosocial theory of crime, social learning theory, general theory of crime). Classic U.S. court cases included State v. Driver (1921), People v Hawthorne (1940), and Jenkins v. United States (1962). The field of forensic psychology is believed to have begun in Canada around the mid1900s. Canadian psychologists have made many important contributions to the field since then (see Figure 1.1), and in particular within the area of corrections (see Box 1.2 featuring the work of Dr. Stephen Wormith). Forensic psychology now is an established discipline, recognized by the American Psychological Association, complete with multiple high-quality textbooks on forensic psychology, academic journals, professional associations to promote research and practice (i.e., APLS, the Criminal Justice section of CPA), and a growing number of graduate training programs in Canada.
Forensic Psychology Today Much debate exists over how forensic psychology should be defined in modern times. Currently, there is no generally accepted definition of the field, and debate continues surrounding narrow or broad definitions. A narrow definition is precise and tends to focus on practical application, yet it excludes aspects of the profession (i.e., only those engaged in clinical practice would be permitted to call themselves forensic psychologists). In contrast, a broad definition attempts to include all aspects of the discipline, focusing on practical application as well as the research needed to inform applied practice. The Roles of a Forensic Psychologist Forensic psychologists play many different roles, although all are interested in issues that concern the interaction of psychology and the law. Clinical forensic psychologists focus on mental health issues as they apply to the legal system. They may engage in both research and practice (i.e., risk assessments, police personnel selection, offender treatment) in a variety of settings (i.e., prisons, hospitals). Qualifications for a licence to practice clinical forensic psychology vary across Canada, however at least a Masters’ degree in psychology is required in each province. Experimental forensic psychologists engage in research regarding human behaviour in relation to the legal system (i.e., effectiveness of risk assessment, factors that influence jury decision-making, developing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups). Qualifications involve Ph.D.-level graduate training in psychology and research in the forensic area. In contrast, a legal scholar may focus on analyses of mental health legislation and psychologically based legal movements. Qualifications to be a legal scholar include a Ph.D. in psychology and typically an L.L.B. in law. Movements in Canada include the development of SFU’s Psychology and Law program, as well as the Mental Health Law and Policy Institute (MHLPI).
Copyright © 2022 Pearson Canada Inc.
Instructor’s Manual for Forensic Psychology
1–3
Several disciplines overlap with forensic psychology (i.e., forensic psychiatry) and others are often confused with it (i.e., forensic anthropology, forensic biology, forensic odontology, forensic pathology, forensic toxicology; see Box 1.3).
The Relationship between Psychology and Law Psychology and the law can interact in three ways: psychology and the law, psychology in the law, and psychology of the law (Haney, 1980). - “Psychology and the law” refers to the use of psychology to examine the operation of the legal system and assumptions made within that system. For example, a psychologist may conduct a laboratory study to determine whether a particular type of police line up results in accurate identifications. - “Psychology in the law” is the use of psychological knowledge in the legal system as it currently operates. For example, a parole board may use a psychologist’s report when deciding whether to release an offender, or a police officer may apply psychological knowledge within their investigations. - “Psychology of the law” refers to the application of psychology to study the law itself. For example, a psychologist might attempt to determine why some people obey the law while other people do not, or how court rulings should impact the field of forensic psychology (see Box 1.4). Modern-Day Debates: Psychological Experts in Court The expert witness’ role is to assist the trier of fact by providing his or her opinion based on his or her specialized knowledge (Cutler & Kovera, 2011). The fact that experts are allowed to testify about their opinions in court is what separates them from regular witnesses. An expert is also expected to be an educator and not an advocate for the prosecution or defence. Difficulties in providing expert testimony often arise, due in part to the inherent differences between psychology and law (Hess, 1999). These differences include epistemology (objective versus subjective truths), nature of law (descriptive versus prescriptive), the manner in which knowledge is obtained (cumulative research versus case precedent), the methodology used to investigate truth (nomothetic versus idiographic), criterion (statistical versus single-case evidence), principles of law (considering alternative explanations versus convincing others of one correct explanation), and latitude (restricted behaviour of experts versus lawyers). To be considered by a judge or jury, expert testimony must meet specific admissibility criteria. - One set of criteria in the United States is referred to as the “general acceptance test” (Frye v. United States, 1923). This test requires that testimony be based on scientific principles that are generally accepted within the scientific community. - More recently in the United States, the Daubert criteria have been proposed (Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 1993). According to Daubert, expert testimony must: (1) be given by a qualified expert, (2) be relevant, and (3) be reliable (i.e., valid). According to Daubert criteria, scientific evidence is considered valid if the following criteria are met: (1) the research has been peer reviewed, (2) the research is testable, (3) the research has a recognized rate of error, an (4) the research adheres to professional standards.
Copyright © 2022 Pearson Canada Inc.