Online Instructor’s Manual
for
Forensic Psychology First Edition
Jack Kitaeff University of Maryland
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Chapter 15 Chapter 16
1 6 12 21 28 36 45 51 67 75 82 95 102 112 124 133
TestBank
144
iii
CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER OBJECTIVES ► Understand the significance of the ability to reason in the criminal law. ► Know the basic definition of forensic science and the disciplines which fall under this rubric. ► Appreciate the impact of social learning principles on aggressive behavior. ► Understand the difference between psychological syndromes and psychological profiles. ► Know the general differences between science and law. ► Understand the effects of unsupported scientific concepts in the American legal system. ► Understand the psychological and societal significance of Brown v. Board of Education. ► Appreciate the roles of the judge and jury in evaluating syndrome evidence.
KEY TERMS
Wild beast test
Benjamin Cardozo
Expert testimony
Soft v. Hard Science
William Stern
James McKeen Cattell
Hugo Műnsterberg
Kenneth Bancroft Clark
The Doll Test
Refrigerator Moms
False memory
Syndrome Evidence
LECTURE NOTES History of Forensic Psychology The “Wild Beast Test” Formulated by Judge Henry de Bracton in 1256 CE, referred to “insane people” who should not be held morally accountable for their actions because they were regarded as being “beast-like.”
1
In People v. Schmidt (1915), the defendant claimed that his killing of a woman was a “sacrifice and atonement.” The Supreme Court (Justice Cardozo writing for the majority) ruled that the defendant did not know right from wrong. In Davis v. State (1999), the court did not accept defendant’s claim that an angel commanded him to commit child sexual abuse, as this excuse seemed “tailored” specifically to the crime and definition of insanity. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was the first time the results of psychological research were cited in a Supreme Court case. Brown ended segregation based on race in this country forever. Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) conducted research which was utilized by lawmakers to show that aggressive behavior seen on television and in the movies can be transmitted to children via “imitation.” Examples of the influence of forensic psychology: The “Twinkie Defense” originated in 1985 when councilman Dan White shot and killed fellow councilman Harvey Milk and San Francisco mayor George Moscone. White claimed that his diet of junk food contributed to his depression which made violent actions more likely. He was not convicted of murder, but of the lesser offense of manslaughter due to the success of this defense. The “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski sought revenge against modern technology. His thinking was also delusional. The Beltway snipers attempted to extort money from local government, and to inflict terror. The BTK killer was a sexually-motivated serial killer. The Virginia Tech shooter sought revenge, and desired to teach the world a lesson. His thinking was also delusional. The science and discipline of forensic psychology involves many subtopics, these include: Psychology applied to civil law Psychology applied to criminal law Psychology applied to juries Psychology applied to investigations Psychology applied to law enforcement Psychology applied to assessment Psychology applied to treatment Psychology applied to ethics Psychology applied to social issues Forensic science is the forerunner of forensic psychology. Forensic science can be defined as the study and practice of applying natural, physical, and social sciences to the 2
resolution of social and legal issues. There are various disciplines which exist under the umbrella of forensic science. Forensic pathology involves the investigation of deaths or injury, usually as a result of violence. Forensic odontology involves the examination of dental remains and dental injuries for the identification of victims or suspects. Forensic anthropology involves the examination of skeletal remains in order to identify victims and at times help determine cause of death. Forensic engineering examines the causes of failures of devices or structures. Forensic economists interpret economic damages, lost earnings, and replacement costs. Forensic accounting is the interpretation of accounting evidence, usually associated with crimes. Forensic science is brought into court via “expert” scientific testimony. Such expert testimony can be applied directly to a particular case (e.g. an opinion of whether a victim had in fact been raped), or applied in a more general fashion (e.g. testimony on how the “typical” rape victim reacts after being raped). Forensic psychological evidence can also be introduced as syndromes (e.g. “Rape Trauma Syndrome”) or as profiles (e.g. “Battering Parent Profile”). “Soft science,” such as psychological science is closer to the understanding of the average person or juror. “Hard science” is more removed from the average person or juror. Differences between law and psychology (science): Law is normative, science is descriptive. Law is value-laden, science is value-free. Legal reasoning is deductive. Legal findings are based on certainties and standards of proof such as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Scientific findings are based on probabilities such as “significance at the .01 or .05 level,” i.e., that the results were obtained by chance one time in a hundred or 5 times in a hundred. The scientific method is inductive. Psychology was first taken into the courtroom in 1896. Albert Von Schrenck-Notzing (a student of Wilhelm Wundt) testified at a murder trial about the effects of pre-trial publicity. He claimed that witnesses could not distinguish between reality and what they read in the press. He called this perceptual error “retroactive memory falsification.” Karl Marble (1911) demonstrated the phenomenon of “reaction time” in court. Advocating for psychology’s increased involvement in the courts and the legal system were Sigmund Freud (1906) and Hugo Munsterberg (1908). Munsterberg’s book “On the 3