Outline. Chapter 19 Forensic Psychology

Transcription

1 Chapter 19 Forensic Psychology C19:1 Outline Perspectives and History Definitions History Professional Issues Major Activities of Forensic Psychologists Expert Witness Criminal Cases Civil Cases Rights of Patients Predicting Dangerousness Psychological Treatment Consultation Research and Forensic Psychology C19:2 Perspectives and History Definitions Applications of methods, theories, and concepts of psychology to legal system diverse (T19-1) Victims/Clients: Psychological damage resulting from negligence, Determination of disability for social security claims, Workers compensation claims, Battered woman syndrome, Rape trauma syndrome, Sexual harassment Psychological disorders: Commitment to mental hospitals, Release C19:3 from involuntary confinement, Need for conservator due to incapacity Police: Police psychology, Criminal profiling Courts: Competency to stand trial, Criminal responsibility (insanity defense), Conditions affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony, Accuracy of eyewitness identification, Jury selection, Advice on factors that affect juror behavior, Child custody cases, Misleading advertising claims Corrections/Institutions: Offender treatment programs, Predicting dangerousness, Rights in institutions of person with mental disability C19:4 History General statements about value of psychology for law: Freud, Stern, Watson, Early specific history involved (perhaps) premature statements about extensive role for psychology: Munsterberg s On the Witness Stand and Wigmore critique (Box 19-1) (+1) Full text available at: Increasing role for psychology in courts: Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) Bazelon (1962): ruled that psychologists could testify as experts on mental disorder C19:5 Munsterberg s On the Witness Stand Strong advocate for Applied Psychology in many walks of life To make psychology serviceable cannot mean simply to pick up some bits of theoretical psychology and to throw them down before the public need to adjust research to practical problems. Applied Psychology will become independent experimental science related to ordinary experimental psychology as engineering to physics. time for such Applied Psychology is near, work has been started from various sides. Those fields of practical life which come first in question may be said to be education, medicine, art, economics, and law. The educator... The physician. It is also not difficult to convince the artist. And even the business world And experience shows that the politician, the naturalist, the officer, and the minister -- all are ready to see that certain chapters of Applied Psychology are sources of help and strength for them. The lawyer alone is obdurate. The lawyer and the judge and the juryman are sure that they do not need the experimental psychologist. They do not wish to see that in this field preëminently applied experimental psychology has made strong strides, led by Binet, Stern, Lipmann, Jung, Wertheimer, Gross, Sommer, [p. 11] Aschaffenburg, and other scholars. They go on thinking that their legal instinct and their common sense supplies them with all that is needed and somewhat more. With this aim in mind, I have written the following popular sketches, which select only a few problems in which psychology and law come in contact. They deal essentially with the mind of the witness on the witness stand; only the last, on the prevention of crime, takes another direction. I have not touched so far the psychology of the attorney, of the judge, or of the jury -- problems which lend themselves to very interesting experimental treatment. C19:6 Professional Issues Training Requires specific course work and practicum experience Expertise in law Strong knowledge of ethics and specialty guidelines Ethics American Academy of Forensic Sciences: accuracy in stating qualifications, accuracy and honesty in reports and testimony, impartiality Specific variations of APA s ethics guidelines Blau (1988) guidelines for specific activities: e.g., T19-2 (+1) 1

2 T19-2: Blau guidelines for financial arrangements C19:7 Never accept fee contingent on outcome of case Written understanding about structure and details of reimbursement at outset Outstanding fees paid before testimony Disagreements about fees resolved before proceeding with case Psychologists who testify regularly should contribute some time to pro bono publico cases Outline Perspectives and History Definitions History Professional Issues Major Activities of Forensic Psychologists Expert Witness Criminal Cases Civil Cases Rights of Patients Predicting Dangerousness Psychological Treatment Consultation Research and Forensic Psychology C19:8 Major Activities Expert Witness Offer opinions and inferences within area of expertise (e.g., emotional damage) Qualifications Need to be highly qualified Education, Experience, Knowledge, Frye: general acceptance in scientific community Daubert: relevance and validity Rotgers & Barrett: Use validated tools and theory, Prepare to defend scientific status of methods, Topics Numerous areas (T19-1) Not ultimate opinion: e.g., insanity C19:9 Expert witness (cont d) Testifying Numerous challenges: adversarial (see below), ambiguity, Importance of significant detailed preparation Cross-Examination Impugn integrity Paid how much? Not a real doctor? Guidelines Be prepared Be honest Admit weaknesses of data Talk in personally meaningful terms Listen carefully to wording of questions Take time to consider answers C19:10 Criminal Cases C19:11 Insanity Plea Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) Seldom successful McNaughten Rule: Patient does not know nature or quality of act or that it is wrong Idea of irresistible impulse Durham standard: issue of mental illness. Guilty But Mentally Ill option in some jurisdictions (GBMI) Competency for trial Patient must appreciate nature of charges C19:12 Civil Cases Involuntary commitment to mental institution Patient deemed dangerous, unable to make their own choices about hospitalization Court hearing required Szasz: Dangerous and misused power Domestic Issues Child Custody, Parent Fitness, Child Abuse, Adoption, Primary criterion: best interest for the child Need to examine past, present, and future relationships: bonds, parenting capacity, moral fitness, child s desires re placement, etc. Goal is to identify living situation that will truly best meet interests of child Present norm is joint custody 2

3 Rights of Patients C19:13 Advocacy regarding patients rights to a positive physical environment, clothing, activities Issue of right to refuse treatment Interest of government must outweigh individual interests No less intrusive solution Treatment must be appropriate Dissemination of assessment data C19:14 Predicting Dangerousness Base rate is so low that many false positives result Violent acts over predicted and hard to predict 90% of those with mental illness NOT violent Prediction best: For short term predictions For same setting that already have data on Given knowledge of past history of aggression If patient is in group with high base rate of aggression Issue in release from prison Several quantitative systems (next few slides) Statistical Information on Recidivism SIR scale Introduced by Correctional Service of Canada in 1988 as risk assessment tool to use in prerelease decision making (Cormier, 1997) Predicts general recidivism better than violence Scores range from -27 (high-risk) to +30 (low-risk) Determined by checklist of 15 static factors (right panel) C19:15 1. Current offence 2. Age upon admission 3. Prior incarceration 4. Revocation of release 5. Escape 6. Security level 7. Age 1st adult conviction 8. Prior convictions for assault 9. Marital status 10. Risk interval since last offence 11. Number of dependents 12. Current sentence 13. Previous sex offence convictions 14. Previous break and enter convictions 15. Employment at arrest (Cormier, 1997) HCR-20 HCR-20 (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997) HCR-20 Structured Guide for Assessment of Violence Risk 20 items plus Hare PCL-R (+1) Each item scored as 0 (not present), 1 (possibly present) or 2 (definitely present) to yield score out of Historical variables: Previous violence, Young age at first violence, Relationship instability, Employment problems, Substance use problems, Major mental illness, Psychopathy, Early maladjustment, Personality disorder, Prior supervision failure 5 Clinical variables: Lack of insight, Negative attitudes, Active symptoms of major mental illness, Impulsivity, Unresponsive to treatment 5 Risk management factors: Plans lack feasibility. Exposure to destabilizers, Lack of personal support, Noncompliance with remediation attempts, Stress C19:16 Part 1 Superficial Grandiose Deceitful Lacks remorse Lacks empathy Doesn t accept responsibility PCL-R / PCL-SV C19:17 Part 2 Impulsive Poor behavioral controls Lacks goals Irresponsible Adolescent antisocial behavior Adult antisocial behavior PCL and Recidivism Below: CSC (1993) after average of 30 months 5-year violent reoffence rate PCL-R > 30 released from prison: about 70% Medium group (21-29): 50% Low group (< 20): 30% C19:18 3

4 C19:19 Violence Risk Assessment Guide (VRAG, Quinsey et al, 1998) P(Violent Recidivism) Validity of VRAG C19:20 PCL-R score Elem. school problems Personality disorder Age ( ) Separated from parents under age 16 Failure on prior conditional release Nonviolent offense history Never married Schizophrenia ( ) Victim injury ( ) Alcohol abuse Female victim ( ) C19:21 C19:22 Bernardo s VRAG Results PCL-R score +4 Elem. school -1 Personality disorder +3 Age 0 Separated from -2 Failure on prior 0 Nonviolent offense -2 Marital status -2 Schizophrenia +1 Victim injury -2 Alcohol abuse +1 Female victim -1 Total: -1 Bin #: 4 p(viol): 17% - 31% Psychological Treatment C19:23 Right to treatment Some misconceptions about psychological treatments: e.g., behavior modification may be seen as punishment or deprivation Right to refuse treatment Does an inmate have right to refuse treatment? Competing interests/concerns: Client, Court, Lawyers, Therapist, Consultation C19:24 Jury selection: help lawyers decide who to include Number of biases in jury selection (+1) Jury Shadowing: hire mock jurors who are similar to actual jury to see how they will react Public Opinion Surveys: getting feel for general reactions / opinions re legal issues Witness Preparation: Help witnesses give better evidence but without changing content. Convincing Jury: Teach lawyers how to best present information. 4

5 Bias in Dallas Prosecutors may be biased in challenges during jury selection: e.g., reject more Blacks, less educated, Perhaps due to correlated factors Defense lawyers may have opposite biases: e.g., reject more white jurors Race can be critical in views about guilt: e.g., O J Simpson (+1 +2) C19:25 C19:26 C19:27 C19:28 Research and Forensic Psychology Eyewitness Testimony Impact of witness (+1) Often unreliable, inaccurate: e.g., Memory changed by presentation of subsequent information (+2) Buckhout (1975): televised purse-snatching lasted 12 seconds 1800/2000 callers identified wrong person Studies of perception, stress, information storage Even so-called Flashbulb Memories not immune (+3) Guidelines for presenting line-ups to witnesses Person conducting line-up should not know identity of suspect Tell witnesses suspect may or may not be in spread Suspect should not stand-out Assess witness confidence immediately and before feedback C19:29 Impact of Witness Profound Mock jurors given: Description of grocery store robbery, owner and granddaughter killed Summary of evidence and arguments presented at trial Jurors told either: No eyewitnesses to crime, OR Store clerk testified seeing defendant shoot victims, although defense attorney claimed he was mistaken, OR Store clerk testified to seeing shootings, but defense attorney had discredited him: clerk not wearing his glasses day of robbery, his vision too poor to see face of robber from where he stood Guilty Decisions No Eyewitness: 18% Eyewitness: 72% Impeached Eyewitness: 68% Loftus & Palmer (1974) C19:30 5

6 Research (cont d) C19:31 Flashbulb Memories Often believed to be particularly memorable and resistant to forgetting Talarico & Rubin Memory for Sept 11 and for an everyday event around the same time Questioned immediately (1 day) and after 7, 42, or 224 days (different subjects) No difference in accuracy for Flashbulb and Everyday memories: details lost at same rate for both (+1) But Flashbulb memories described as more vivid and having higher levels of belief in accuracy Talarico & Rubin C19:32 C19:33 C19:34 Research (cont d) Jury Behavior Manner in which judge gives instructions can change jury behavior Idea that jurors believe likable witnesses more Study with simulated jurors shows that decision for Plaintiff vs. Defense in skiing-accident suit depends on general risk-taking and ski-experience (below) Research (cont d) False Confessions e.g., John Mark Karr and JonBenet Ramsay Widespread abuses in Japan C19:35 Suspects held for long periods, isolation, lies (e.g., everyone else has confessed), threatened (e.g., family will suffer), Almost 100% conviction rates: no jury, wait for confession, Kiechel & Kassin (1996) Students performed typing task at slow or fast pace Warned not to press Alt key as computer would crash Computer crashed after 1 minute and subjects (who had NOT pressed Alt key) questioned about whether they pressed Alt key For some subjects, witness (confederate of Experimenter) said they had pressed Alt key Some degree of confession and even acceptance of guilt; some subjects accepted responsibility outside lab (Believed in Guilt) and even Confabulated Evidence (+1) Effects stronger with Witness and if Fast Paced C19:36 6