RIVERS STATE UNIVERSITY

P.M.B. 5080 NKPOLU-OROWORUKWO

PORT HARCOURT, RIVERS STATE.

ASSIGNMENT ON:
PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW

PRESENTED BY:

NAMES: MATRIC NO:

1. SORBARIKOR RITA LEBE DE. 2018/6200

2. WILLIAMS ITOHAN CONSTANCE DE. 2018/6193
3. MATTHEW MARVELOUS DE. 2018/6179
4. DANWI DORATHY DE. 2018/6194
5. AMADANYO BEAUTY TONTE DE. 2018/6898
6. OSAROCHUJOR THELMA HOPE DE. 2018/6170
7. ZIKIYE GBANAIBOLOU BEATRICE DE. 2018/6167
8. DON-PEDRO CHRISTIANA DE. 2018/6185

DEPARTMENT: PSYCHOLOGY

FACULTY: SOCIAL SCIENCE

COURSE CODE: PSY 465

COURSE TITLE: FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

COURSE LECTURER: MRS. ELIZABETH WADI

MAY, 2022.

Definition of Terms
1
Psychology: Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and how it dictates and influences our
behaviour, from communication and memory to thought and emotion.
It's about understanding what makes people tick and how this understanding can help us address many
of the problems and issues in society today.
Law: According to John Austin, “Law is the aggregate set of rules set by a man as politically superior,
or sovereign to men, as political subjects.” Thus, this definition defines law as a set of rules to be
followed by everyone, regardless of their stature.
Relationship between Psychology and Law
Law and psychology are two separate disciplines, but they have much in common. While the goal of
psychology is to understand the behavior, the purpose of law is to control it. Both fields establish norms
about people's causes.
Legal psychology involves the practical and psychological investigation of the law, legal institutions
and people who come into contact with the law. Legal psychologists usually take basic social and
cognitive principles and apply them to problems in the legal system, such as eyewitness memory, jury
decision making, investigations and interviews. The term legal psychology is used lately, mainly as a
way to differentiate the experimental approach of legal psychology from clinically focused on forensic
psychology. Together, legal psychology and forensic field psychology are more generally known as
"psychology and law." After the previous efforts of psychologists to report legal issues, psychology and
law became a field of study in the 1960s as part of an effort to improve justice, though that original
apprehension has diminished over time. (Sales & Krauss, 2015).
The American Society of Psychology and Law states that "The field of psychology and law suggests
the application of scientific and professional aspects of psychology to questions and issues related to
law and the legal system" and that the "field covers contributions conducted in a number of different
areas (research, clinical practice, public policies and teaching / training among them) of a variety of
orientations within the field of psychology, such as development, social, cognitive and clinical "(APA,
2019).
Obviously there is an connection among psychology and law and the study and practice of forensic
psychology, whereas forensic psychology is related to the application of clinical specialties to legal
institutions and people who come into contact with the law. Legal psychology is mainly related to
experimental or research-oriented areas of psychology applied to legal issues. In fact, educational
programs are beginning to recognize the important overlap between psychology and law, and this is
understood in schools that offer a combined degree in law and psychology in the way they do.
Psychologists look to examine how to improve the legal system (APA, 2019).
The field of psychology and law involves the application of scientific and professional aspects of
psychology to questions and issues relating to law and the legal system. There are a number of
specialties that psychologists may pursue within the larger area of psychology and law. This field
encompasses contributions made in a number of different areas--research, clinical practice, public
policy and teaching/training among them--from a variety of orientations within the field of psychology,
such as developmental, social, cognitive, and clinical.
While mental health professionals and behavioral scientists have been involved with the legal system in
a variety of ways for many years, the decade of the 1970s witnessed the beginning of more formalized
interactions. These interactions included the establishment of the first psychology-law program at the
University of Nebraska at Lincoln, the formation of the American Psychology-Law Society (now
Division 41 of the American Psychological Association), the initiation of an interdisciplinary journal
(Law and Human Behavior) and a book series (Perspectives in Law & Psychology). Additionally, the
American Board of Forensic Psychology was established in 1978 for the credentialing of psychologists
2
specializing in forensic issues. Since that time the field has grown steadily, with an increased number of
pre-doctoral and post-doctoral training programs, more journals and books devoted to psychology and
law, the development of a specialized set of ethical guidelines for forensic psychologists, a regular
conference held every March in addition to the annual summer meeting at the American Psychological
Association convention, the involvement of psychologists in filing amicus briefs before the U.S.
Supreme Court on issues relevant to psychology and law, and the presentation of a regular workshop
series in clinical-forensic psychology by the American Academy of Forensic Psychology.
Subspecialties
Clinical-forensic psychologists who are primarily interested in forensic practice may work in secure
forensic units, community mental health centers providing specialized services, jails, prisons, court
services units, specialized agencies, or in private practice conducting forensic assessment and treatment
relevant to legal decision-making. They may also be involved in teaching, training, or supervision in a
department of psychology, a medical school, a hospital, an interdisciplinary institute, or a clinic. Such
professionals may also be involved in conducting research and scholarship in areas such as violence
risk assessment, treatment needs and response, and decision-making strategies.
Developmental psychologists also tend to be based in academic, medical, and professional school
settings. They often become involved in legally relevant research and consultation with children and
adolescents. There are important questions regarding the testimony of children (accuracy and
influences, for example), the knowledge and decision-making of adolescents involved in the juvenile
justice system, and the needs of children and families involved in divorce or separation that are among
the areas addressed by the research and consultation of developmental psychologists. In addition, such
psychologists may become active in attempting to develop policy regarding children and families in the
forms of federal and state legislation, or the implementation of such law on the community level.

Social psychologists are more likely to work in academic positions, such as psychology departments,
medical schools, schools of criminal justice, or research and policy institutes. Frequently such
individuals are very active in research, graduate training, and undergraduate teaching. They may also be
involved in consulting with attorneys, courts, and agencies on issues relevant to their research in legal
areas; examples include witness credibility, jury selection, and decision-making influences. Some non-
university-based social psychologists work as consultants on a full-time basis, providing services to
trial attorneys, while others may be employed by state or federal agencies (e.g. corrections, mental
health) to conduct relevant research.

Cognitive psychologists are trained primarily as researchers and teachers in the areas of human
perception and memory, and tend to focus their research and consultation on such legally-relevant
questions as eyewitness identification, the accuracy of memory, and the detection of deception. Their
employment settings are typically university-based. Their research can be extremely important when
courts must weigh testimony about events that may have occurred months or even years ago. Providing
the results of such research to courts and legislators by summarizing the "state of science" on a given
question is a task of some cognitive psychologists. Recently, cognitive psychologists have begun to
work with law enforcement agencies to develop investigative procedures to enhance the likelihood of
accurate memory and testimony about crimes and accidents.

Community psychologists are likely to work in academia as well as out in the community. Community
positions include working in government agencies, non-profit agencies, foundations, and community-
based advocacy and service settings. For community psychologists who conduct law-related research,
activities can span the range of policy and law formulation, implementation, evaluation, and change.
For example, they might design and evaluate juvenile delinquency prevention and treatment programs,
research adolescents’ competence to participate in legal proceedings, investigate the impact of court
3
involvement on the functioning of crime victims, or evaluate the effects of health care and welfare
reform.

Finally, some psychologists receive more extensive training in law and obtain a JD (Juris Doctorate) or
MLS (Master of Legal Studies) in addition to their training in psychology. Such individuals may
become involved in legal scholarship in areas of law relevant to the behavioral sciences, and may work
in law schools as well as in other academic or applied settings described above. In addition to law
teaching and scholarship, such individuals may become involved in psychological research or practice
(depending on their specialization within psychology), or legal practice as an attorney.

Licensure and Certification

For psychologists who are primarily researchers, educators, consultants to courts, and policy-makers,
licensure or certification is usually not necessary. While such licensure might occasionally enhance the
credibility of a psychologist before an individual court, many psychological scientists do not need to
obtain licensure or certification status as a psychologist. It is accurate to describe them as experts on the
empirical evidence relevant to a specific question. It is not accurate to describe them as delivering a
diagnostic or forensic assessment service on a given individual, which is more closely related to the
kind of "health care" service for which a license would be important. However, psychological scientists
need to be well trained in their basic area of specialization, as well as familiar with the law (particularly
the applicable statutes, case law, rules of evidence, and general expectations in the legal context) in
order to be effective in consultation and testimony. They must also be knowledgeable about the law
when conducting their research, so they can design studies and use variables to address questions that
are particularly important and relevant to the law.

For psychologists whose practice tends to be with individuals, and involves the delivery of forensic
assessment or treatment services, several levels of training and licensure/certification are important.
First, it is important that such individuals be trained in the delivery of applied services (e.g., clinical,
counseling, or school psychology) to individuals, groups, and families. Second, it is necessary to be
trained specifically in the delivery of forensic services; such training should involve supervised
experience and didactic work, and should also incorporate information about the legal system,
applicable law and procedures, and standards and guidelines for forensic practice. Third, such
psychologists should become licensed in the jurisdictions in which they practice. Finally, for
psychologists wishing to specialize in the area of clinical-forensic practice, it is helpful to become
board certified by the American Board of Forensic Psychology, a specialty board of the American
Board of Professional Psychology.

Salaries and Compensation

Salaries for psychologists can vary according to the setting and nature of the work. In academic
settings, the salary for a beginning assistant professor in 2005 might initially be in the $40,000-$58,000
range in Departments of Psychology. Why the wide range? There are many complicating factors,
including whether institutions are private or public, whether they offer doctoral degrees, masters
degrees, or only bachelors degrees, whether they are located in states with strong economies, etc. But
generally, salaries will be somewhat higher at large research intensive universities as compared with
smaller teaching-oriented colleges. Salaries in medical school settings are typically somewhat higher,
as they are established in comparison with medical professionals. Medical school positions, however,
are very often limited in terms of the "hard money" they pay, meaning that an individual joining a
Department of Psychiatry as an assistant professor might be expected to "earn" between 50-100 percent
4
of his or her salary by obtaining grants, contracts, or through clinical services income. Even in
university and other interdisciplinary settings, however, there is growing pressure on psychologists to
generate sources of salary support to repay the department or school. Note that many academic
psychologists are on an institution’s payroll for only the academic year (9 or 10 months), and some
supplement their income by paying themselves additional summer salary from research grants, private
consulting, etc.

Salaries also vary in applied settings. Psychologists entering correctional settings will find striking
differences between different systems. The median annual salary in the Federal prison system was
$40,900 in 2002. Salaries are likely to be slightly lower in a state correctional facility or local jail,
although there can be a wide range of salary levels. Privately owned facilities compensate at much
lower rates (e.g., in 2002, the median annual salary was $21,390). There may also be discrepancies
according to the level of training; some correctional facilities will seek to hire masters-level
psychologists at salaries that may begin between $25,000 - $30,000 rather than doctoral-level
psychologists, to whom they might be expected to pay about $10,000 more.

There is variability as well in starting salaries in hospitals and community agencies. Currently, a
starting salary for a doctoral-level psychologist will be between $35,000 and $40,000 in most settings.
Occasionally it may be less, particularly in more rural settings, and salaries may be greater in some
states and urban settings.

Some psychologists should expect to see their salaries increase at a rate roughly consistent with
inflation (i.e., 3 percent a year), although this may not occur in universities or organizations
experiencing financial difficulties. Generally a good rule of thumb is to determine the cost of living
adjustments paid to staff of a particular organization during the last five years, in assessing the
prospects for the next five.

Psychologists also have the advantage of being able to establish a part-time practice or consulting
business in addition to working with an organization or at a university. For example, clinical
psychologists might see patients or do evaluations for courts. Experimental cognitive or social
psychologists might occasionally consult on legal cases and/or give expert testimony in court cases.
Some organizations and most universities have rules governing this, so it is important to know whether
this is permissible. Part-time private practice does allow a psychologist to earn income at an hourly rate
consistent with that charged by others in the field and geographic area. Such rates may vary a good deal
(e.g., between $100/hour and $300/hour). Obtaining work at private rates is typically dependent on the
psychologist's reputation, as well as the amount of private forensic work that is available in a given
area.

Employment Opportunities and Demand for the Specialty

Forensic psychology, and the larger area of psychology and law, have both enjoyed steady growth
during the last three decades. The field has not been affected by the changes in our health care system
to nearly the same extent as the "fee for service" delivery of psychological services in other areas.
Research, consultation, and practice in areas of psychology relevant to the law should continue to
expand over the next ten years. It is important to note, however, that while the need for services has
remained constant or expanded, there is increased effort within psychology to provide relevant training,
important research, and guidelines for the practice that should mean that those specializing in this area
will be among the highest in demand for the delivery of services to courts, attorneys, and law-makers.

Psychology and law has also grown steadily within academic areas. Although some programs are
specifically devoted to this specialty, it is more common to find faculties with one or two members who
5
are interested in some aspect of psychology and law (see Graduate Programs in Psychology and Law
for a listing of specialty programs). It is likely that the availability of these kinds of positions will be
subject to other influences (such as the availability of faculty positions generally), but such availability
should compare favorably with most other specialties.

How do Lawyers use Psychology?

The relevance of legal psychology can be seen in legal proceedings in different manners: Academics &
research. Legal psychologist basically conducts empirical research on new legal topics, which are yet to
be popularized. They also work as mentors & guide the upcoming legal representatives.
How is Psychology Related to Law?
Psychology & criminal justice system have together formed forensic psychology. The objective of
forensic psychology is to understand criminal law in relevant case verdicts to deal properly with judges,
attorneys & other legal person’s.
What is the Psychology of Crime?
Criminal psychology is the study of thoughts, intentions, actions or reactions of a criminal to analyze &
derive a pattern that would help police or other related agencies to apprehend criminals or help a court
during proceedings.
A major portion of criminal psychology deals with criminals profiling.

What is an Example of Psychology in Law?

For example, as their understanding of juries grows, psychologist will continue to investigate more
complex issues in jury decision making such as the structure of complex trials.
Other sources of extra-legal influence on jurors comprehension & the ways that proposed legal reforms
can affect jury behavior.
Law uses these for practices
1. Testimony
2. Empathizing
3. Attorney
4. Courtroom
5. Expert competency
6. Witness individual
7. Offense re -evaluation
8. Dangerousness
9. Interaction
Psychology uses these for practices
1. Assessments
2. Confidentiality
6
3. Appoints system
4. Police judge
5. State justice
6. Therapeutic psychologist
7. Information
8. Psychological tools
Different Fields of Law
1. Criminal law
2. Property law
3. Private law
4. International law
5. Business law
6. Jurisprudence law
The field of psychology & law uses resources & research methods & finding of social psychology &
cognitive psychology, developmental psychology & clinical psychology to examine legal assumptions
to evaluate whether they truly work or not & think in ways to expand them

Different Fields of Psychology are

1. Biopsychology
2. Social psychology
3. Industrial/organizational psychology
4. Educational psychology
5. Clinical psychology
6. Sports psychology
Psychologist study cognitive, emotional & social processes & behavior by observing, interpreting &
recording how individuals relates to one another & to their environments.
Some psychologist work independently conducting research, consulting with clients or working or with
patients.

Differences Between Psychology and Law

1. The emphasis in law is stare decisis (i.e. legal precedent), whereas in psychology the emphasis
is on creativity; In the law, past cases and matters such as constitutional interpretation rather than
innovation or creativity are painstakingly relied on for eh development of legal arguments. The
model adopted in law is one of legal precedent, in contrast, in psychology, the model is one of
7
 innovation, and psychologists, in both research and applied work, are encouraged continually to
explored new ideas and methods.

2. Law is hierarchical whereas psychology is empirical; Decision within the legal system are
hierarchically based and authoritative, with lower courts bound by the decision of higher courts, in
psychology, however, it is the accumulation of a body of consistent and supporting data that
confirms the validity of a particular position or claim, not its authoritative declaration.

3. Law relies on the adversarial method, whereas psychology relies on eh experimental method;
The law seeks “justice” which equates to procedural fairness. It is hoped that just procedures will
assist in arriving at the truth; however, knowing that the truth is elusive, it is seen as more important
to ensure that the principles of due process are followed. To arrive at the “truth” in law, conflicting
points of view are presented within the strict parameters of a trial or appellate hearing, with each
side putting its best case forward. Bias, self-interest, and advocacy are not only permitted but
heralded as one of the strengths of the process. Indeed, what is of immediate concern and the
driving force for the opposing lawyers is victory. Psychology, in contrast to law, attempts to arrive
at “truth” (i.e., an understanding of same phenomenon) using a variety of diverse data-gathering
methods . common to all of these methods is the systematic collection of data, using procedures that
attempt to “reduce bias, error and distortion in observation and inferences” (Haney, 1980, p. 162).
Although this is not to say that bias does not enter into the research process, the goal of the
psychologist is to attain an “objective” understanding of the phenomena rather than victory over a
particular viewpoint.

4. Law is prescriptive, whereas psychology is descriptive; The law is primarily prescriptive telling
“people how they should behave”, whereas psychology is “essentially a descriptive discipline,
seeking to describe behaviour as it actually occurs” (Haney, 1980, p, 163). This dimension captures
a difference in the value espoused in the disciplines, with law outlining how one ought to behave
and psychology adopting a more nonjudgmental orientation of how people do behave.

5. Law is Ideographic, Whereas Psychology is Nomothetic; Law operates on a case by-case basis,
with each case decided on the basis of its specific facts. In contrast, psychology is interested in
uncovering the general principles, relationship, and patterns that govern human behaviour. The
focus in psychology is not on a particular instance but rather on what transcend the particular
instance.

6. Decision making in law is based on the appearance of certainty, whereas decision making in
psychology is based on probabilistic evidence. The decisions made in the law typically take on a
dichotomous, all-or-nothing quality – the accused.

7. In a criminal trial, a defendant is deemed either guilty or not guilty, the defendant in a civil case is
found liable or not liable. Psychologists, in contrast, operate in terms of probabilities; for example,
claims are asserted on the basis of evidence associated with a probability level (i.e. level of
statistical significance). As a result, conclusions drawn by psychologist typically are qualified and
not categorical by nature.

8. Law is reactive, whereas psychology is proactive; The issues that arise in the law originate from
outside the system, namely case are brought to the attention of lawyers. In contrast, psychologist,
notwithstanding the presence of various external pressure (e.g. funding availability and the pressure
to publish), have considerable control over the issues they study.

8
9. Law Is Operational, whereas psychology is Academic; Law is an applied discipline, and it is
designed to deal with real-world problems. The players within the system (e.g. lawyers, parole
officers, etc.) have clearly defined roles that prescribe the issues on which they will concentrate. In
contrast, similar to the distinction noted previously, psychologist have considerable say over the
issues they pursue.

The driving force tends to be more of a quest for knowledge for its own sake (i.e., for academic reasons
rather than for purely pragmatic reasons). With these eight tensions in mind, included in what follows is
an expansive survey what can be characterized as forensic psychology. At a macro level, forensic
psychologist can assist the legal system in four ways;

1. Providing legal decision makers with information about complicated matters that they would not
otherwise have,
2. Assisting specific legal actors (3) researching the legal system and its operation, and
3. Researching psychological phenomena that are of particular interest or relevance to the legal
system.

Psychologist Assisting the Legal System

Psychologist assist the legal system in a number of ways including providing expert testimony in legal,
administrative, and legislative proceedings; conducting and testifying about research conducted in
anticipation of litigation, testifying about Research not conducted in connection with litigation but that
in nonetheless relevant; And researching the legal system’s operation.

Conflict Between Law and Psychology

Henry 1980 discussed many of the conflict that arise between law and forensic psychology.

1. Psychology is primarily and empirical enterprise “whose principles and the collection of consistent
supporting date”. The legal system in contrast is based on a hierarchical and authoritative system in
which the lower courts are bound by division of higher courts.

2. Psychology attempts to arrive at “truth” through the application of an experimental model, in which
empirical research is designed to test hypotheses research methodologies are designed to minimize
error or bias. New research can provide new evidence to support or disconfirm prior research. The
law uses an adversarial system to arrive at truth. Each side presents tis version of the case and the
ultimate goal is to win a case. As Hancy comments, “bias and self-interests are not only permitted,
they are assumed at the outset and thought to be very strength and motive force of the procedure.

3. Psychology is descriptive in nature, with a goal of describing behaviour as it naturally occurs. The
law is prescriptive in that laws are designed to tell people how they should behave, and what
punishment will be given if they do not.

4. Psychology is nomothetic (in which data are obtained through the investigation of groups) in
nature, “Concentrating upon general principle relationship, and patterns that transcend the case
studies and principles generated from single case. The law is ideographic (in which data are
obtained through the investigation of one individual, usually the individual under consideration) in
that it focuses on decision in an individual case, with the facts of each case forming the basis for the
decision. This difference often creates a conflicts for experts who testify because the empirical basis
for the testimony may lie in group data. For example, laboratory research on the reliability of
eyewitnesses report high error rates in certain conditions, but there is considerable individual
9
 variation. Some individuals are accurate even if the majority may not be. This presents a problem
for court testimony because the court want to know whether a single individual is accurate
psychology’s group data cannot be used to reach an opinion that a specific individual is not reliable.

Psychology research is based on methods relying on probabilistic models. Psychologies characterize

the relationship between cause and effect using statistic and the tools of probability theory. Hypotheses
are tested with the express acknowledgement that there is always a chance of reaching the wrong
condition for example, choosing a probability level of 95% chance that the null hypothesis will be
rejected when it was actually correct. Thus, psychological research is based on the principle of
probability rather than certainty. The law, in contrast operates on a principle of certainty, in large part
because the legal system demands a final definitive outcome. Criminal defendants are either quality or
not guilty. Plaintiffs in civil cases are either negligent or not of course, these certain decision can be
wrong, as shown in the many cases of convicted defendants who were later exonerated by DNA
evidence.

5. Psychology is a proactive discipline. Researchers decide what hypotheses to address, and then
design studies to test those hypothesis. The law is reactive, in that it waits until issues (or page) are
brought to it.

Psychologist Role in Law

Forensic psychologists are trained to apply the principles of psychology to the justice system.

(1) Competency to stand trail: they ascertain whether the defendant’s mental state meets requisite
legal standards i.e. in criminal trails. If he or she has the mental capacity to stand trial and face
his accuser. The forensic psychologist is chosen to perform a competency evaluation on the
defendant, determine whether the defendant will be able to consult his lawyer, maintain a
reasonable degree of understanding of the proceedings. They find out if the defendant meet
criteria for involuntary commitment to a mental facility and the likelihood that the defendant
will be able to stand trial after receiving treatment. The findings are submitted to a judge in an
official report followed by a competency hearing.

(2) State of Mind: The role of Forensic Psychology is to research the elements of criminal intent. In
any criminal case, the defendant must have the requisite state to be found guilty of all elements
of crime. In other words, most crimes contain an “intent” requirement that limits the finding of
quilt to defendants who, prior to committing the act, made up their mind to commit the crime.
This can become controversial inn some cases where the defendant may have been suffering
from a mental condition at the time of the crime, making it impossible for him to form the
required intent.

State of mind question can also come into play when a defendant was intoxicated or under severe
duress during the crime. The forensic psychologist will review the evidence and patient history so as to
testify before the court as to whether the defendant had the capacity to form criminal trial.

(3) Testimony and Evaluation regarding civil such as personal injury, child custody, mental
disability, professional malpractice civil commitment and guardianship.

(4) Consultation to lawmakers about public policy issues with psychological implications.

10
(5) Research, testimony and consultation on psychological issues impacting on the legal process
such as eyewitness testimony, jury selection, child’s testimony, repressed memories and pretrial
publicity.

Psychologist’s Interest in Law

The law is about human behavior, and psychologists are expert at studying that behavior and
intervening on the basis of a psychological science foundation. So the eventual marriage of psychology
and law was not only inevitable but needed, although it did not occur immediately. For example, Hugo
Munsterberg’s book On the Witness Stand (1908), noted earlier, is often cited as the first attempt by
psychology and a prominent psychologist to directly influence the law. He called for the law to
recognize the experimental strides that psychology had made in understanding eyewitness identification
and memory and to integrate these and other findings into the practice of law. His argument, however,
fell largely on deaf ears among legal scholars and policymakers. It would not be until well over a half-
century later that the intersection of law and psychological science would be discussed widely in the
professional and scholarly literatures. The interest in the intersection of psychology and law has likely
grown because of law’s fundamental importance to society and all aspects of our behavior.

Consider this example from the criminal law and criminal process:

In 2008, the economic loss to victims of violent and property crime was approximately $17.4 billion
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011). Not surprisingly, law enforcement investigators attempted to
develop profiles of the likely offenders in order to facilitate their investigations. Despite sometimes
grandiose claims by profilers, how accurate are they? One careful assessment of both profiler practices
and the supposed science of profiling showed that although a science could be developed, what
currently passed as profiling was professional opinion and not scientifically derived facts (Hicks &
Sales, 2006).

Many people are outraged that violent criminals can claim that they were insane at the time of the crime
and therefore should not go to prison. Over the years, lawmakers have attempted to respond to this
citizen concern by revising the test for insanity multiple times. However, psychological research has
shown that jurors who have to apply this law to the facts of criminal cases do not decide differently
when different legal tests are applied (Finkel, 1988). In addition, research has shown that fewer than
1% of felony cases involve the insanity defense, few of these actually go to trial, and fewer than a
quarter of those that go to trial result in a finding of insanity. Even those who win their claim of
insanity do not go free. Typically, they are sent to a secure facility for the criminally mentally ill and
kept there until they are no longer dangerous to society (Borum & Fulero, 1999).

Given the substantial level of crime in America, the effectiveness of incarceration is critically
important. According to research, we have more people in prison than any other country, with some
states imprisoning up to 6 times as many people as do countries with populations of a comparable size
(Hartney, 2006). To judge incarceration’s success, we need to ask what goal or goals criminal justice
policy is trying to achieve. Although there are multiple accepted reasons to incarcerate an offender
(retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation), some mental health scholars would argue
that rehabilitation is in the long term the most important. Rehabilitation can reduce the incidence of
suicide in prison, increase the effectiveness prison management, and reduce recidivism of released
offenders (e.g., Ashford, Sales, & Reid, 2001).

Moreover, psychologists’ interest in contributing to studies of health, parenting, marriage, the

environment, interpersonal relationships, business organization and behavior, aggression, violence, and
crime and criminality, to name but a few topics, will always naturally lead many of them to have an
11
interest in contributing to the law. Although some psychologists wish to serve as experts who provide
scientific or professional knowledge to legislators or other legal forums, others wish to study the law to
understand why it is created and implemented in the way it is, the consequences of the implementation
process, and how law can be improved by using psychological information (Brest & Krieger’s (2010)
book on the use of decision science for aiding lawyers and policymakers in understanding and
improving problem solving, decision making, and professional judgment).

Types of Interactions Between Psychology and Law

Potential topics for interactions between psychology and law are extensive (Sales, 1983), however,
those interactions can be parsimoniously grouped into three categories:

 Law of Psychology
 Psychology in Law
 Psychology of Law

Law of Psychology

Some legal (Perlin, 1985) and psychological (Wulach, 1998) scholars study and write about the law
affecting the practice and science of psychology (aka law of psychology). For example, to name but a
few topics, law can affect whether individuals can call themselves psychologists (e.g., laws providing
for the licensure and regulation of psychologists), the organization of psychological practices (e.g.,
professional incorporation; health maintenance organizations), and the reimbursement for services (e.g.,
insurance law, Medicare and Medicaid laws). Law can also impose practice requirements (e.g., on
providing informed consent, recordkeeping, confidentiality, the right of patients to refuse service) and
limit or specify the types of professional questions that psychologists may address (e.g., competency to
stand trial and insanity defense assessments and interventions; Sales, Miller, & Hall, 2005; Shapiro &
Smith, 2011). Professional psychologists who provide clinical services must be aware of and
understand this law so that they can conform their professional behavior to its requirements.

The law also affects other types of psychological services (e.g., educational psychologists) and
psychological scientists. For example, psychologist researchers are required to conform to the federal
requirements of their institutional review board when planning to conduct research (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, 1993). Some scholars have even
suggested that the law ought to be used in psychology in a more fundamental way. For example, Levine
(1974) discussed the possibility of using legal adversarial procedures for resolving arguments about the
appropriateness of competing theories in psychology. The notion that such dispute resolution
procedures could facilitate the discovery of scientific truth is intriguing, but it would take careful
theorizing and empirical study of the truth-finding process to determine the best procedures for
advancing scientific knowledge. This development has yet to occur.

Psychological scientists who study law (psychology of law) can address Levine’s recommendations and
the application of other legal concepts and procedures to psychological work (e.g., the law’s concerns
with fairness, justice, and autonomy as applied to psychological services and the treatment of subjects
in research). Similarly, psychology of law research can address how law affects professional
psychologists, their practices, their professional behaviors and services, their patients, and the clients of
their services if other than the patients. For example, does the legal obligation to issue warnings to

12
intended victims of potentially dangerous patients decrease the likelihood of patients fully revealing
their ideation and cognitions to their therapists?

What is important for our purposes is that we recognize that law affects psychology and psychologists
and that knowledge of this law is essential so that psychologists can conform their behavior to these
legal requirements. In addition, knowledge of this law should be used to encourage the scientific study
of how these laws impact psychological work and its outcomes and whether other legal arrangements
would be more effective for achieving societal needs. For example, psychological scientists can
determine the impact of specific laws on psychologists’ professional and scientific decision-making,
such as whether confidentiality, privileged communication, and mandatory reporting laws affect
psychologists and their patients’ behaviors (Wise, 1978). Knowledge about the consequences of
different laws can improve the capabilities of legal decision makers (legislators) to create new more
effective laws or refine existing ones relevant to psychological practice and services.

Psychology in Law

Psychology is used to provide services in law (aka psychology in law). Professional and research
psychologists provide expert testimony in court (Brodsky, 1991, 1999; Sales & Shuman, 2005), before
legislatures (Sales & VandenBos, 1994), and before administrative agencies (Sternberg, 2006). This
type of information can be used as background for the need for a new law or a revision in the existing
law, and psychologists can serve as policy analysts for legal agencies helping to evaluate the effects of
current laws or the need for new ones. Perhaps more visibly, professional psychologists provide
assessment
(Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007) and therapeutic services in legal settings (Harden &
Hill, 1998). Some psychologists have even written about why the law should admit such information in
legal settings and the types of admissibility standards that should be applied to it (Monahan & Walker,
2009).

The use, misuse, and nonuse of psychological information in law (psychology in law) raise important
and complex issues for both psychology and the legal process. For example, consider the case that
attempted to use psychological knowledge in law. It demonstrated some of the value and problems in
using psychological knowledge for this purpose as well as the intricacies and nuances of the issues that
need to be addressed when discussing the application of psychology in law.

Consider the case of Roper v. Simmons (2005). In the early 21st century, the U.S. Supreme Court in
Roper faced the question of whether the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment when
it was applied to juveniles. The case revolved around Christopher Simmons, 17, who with a friend,
Charles Benjamin, age 15, had broken into the home of Shirley Cook, tied her up with duct tape, placed
her in a minivan, drove her to a park, and dropped her still bound and alive body off a bridge into the
Meramec River where she drowned. Simmons told his accomplice in advance of the crime that they
might get off if they were caught because they were minors. Simmons was later arrested after he
bragged about what he had done. Confessing his crime to the police and agreeing to videotape a
reenactment of the event, Simmons was tried as an adult, found guilty of murder in the first degree, and
sentenced to death.

Following his sentencing at trial, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which
found that it was “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to execute individuals who were mentally retarded (Court’s phrasing). Simmons’s
attorneys argued that a similar rationale should exist for barring the execution of juveniles. Although 25
13
years earlier the U.S. Supreme Court had held that application of the death penalty to 16- and 17-year-
old juvenile offenders was constitutional (Stanford v. Kentucky, 1989), the Court in Roper found this
practice to be unconstitutional on the basis of its review of relevant developmental psychological
science.

Although the psychological science cited by the court was methodologically sound, the policy
conclusions that the Court reached extended far beyond what was justified by the data. Most of the
developmental research presented in the Amicus Brief of the American Psychological Association
(2004) suggested important differences in the decision-making and cognitive abilities of adolescents
(minors who have entered puberty and have not reached 18 years of age) and adults (those 18 years and
over). The brief argued that this research supported prohibiting the application of the death penalty to
adolescents on the basis of the logic that adolescents who lack adult like decision-making capabilities
are arguably more similar to mentally retarded persons discussed in Atkins. However, courts respond to
specific fact situations and not generalities, with the Court in Roper concerned with the segment of
adolescents who are 16 and 17 years old. Therefore, the real question the Court should have focused on
is what has the research on 16- and 17-year-olds shown when their decision-making abilities are
compared with those of adults. The American Psychological Association brief was not that specific,
using the broader adolescent research (i.e., puberty to 18 years of age) to justify policy conclusions
about 16- and 17-year-olds. In fact, the research specific to this segment of adolescents revealed in
some studies few significant differences between the decision-making capabilities of 16- and 17-year-
olds and those 18 years old and older (American Psychological Association, 2004), which would
support at least a partial continuation of the policy set forth in Stanford (i.e., the constitutionality of the
application of the death penalty to older adolescents).

As this case exemplify, although psychological information is used in law, understanding the
appropriateness of using psychology in legal settings is a complex, nuanced task that requires detailed
consideration in its own right.

Psychology of Law

The third type of interaction between psychology and law is where psychological science studies
written law and law-related issues. This type of scholarship is particularly important because lawyers
typically employ a lay theory of human behavior that is untested and may be markedly inaccurate. Such
lay theory is likely to lead to fallacious assumptions about human behavior, how best to regulate it to
achieve societal goals, and the behavioral consequences of those regulations. For example, which laws
achieve their goals and under what conditions are they most likely to do so? Are there symbolic or
indirect effects of each law and, if yes, to what consequence? Are there unintended negative effects of
the law? Law can also provide entitlements to citizens, so psychological science also needs to
understand their impact, value, and behavioral effects. Lawyers are ill prepared to address these types
of questions and issues.

Not surprisingly, psychological scientists now regularly study the law (aka psychology of law). Law
journals (Diamond, Rose, & Murphy, 2006), social science journals, interdisciplinary journals (e.g.,
Krauss, 2006), and scholarly books (Findley & Sales, 2012) carry writings that empirically examine the
law or critically review empirical evidence relevant to it.

Although some of the writings by psychological scientists suggest the need for modifications of current
law, why should legal professionals care about what psychological science has to say about law? Some
legal scholars may argue that the law should not be dependent on the results of the work of scientists
because law is based on a legal-normative framework that trumps all other considerations. Indeed, legal

14
professionals typically craft their arguments and reach their decisions without the benefit of scientific
analysis or scientific information.

However, there are serious problems with ignoring reliable and valid scientific knowledge. If law is the
product of behavioral and social assumptions made by legal decision makers, ineffective or less than
ideal legal arrangements will result, even within its normative framework, unless we have scientific
research to identify how the law works in action and why it is working the way it does. For example,
requiring mandatory divorce mediation makes superficial sense on the assumption that mediation can
lower the costs of divorce compared with relying on litigation. However, psychological research has
shown that for couples in an abusive relationship, mandatory divorce mediation increases the chances
that the victimized spouse will be further abused and possibly even murdered (Beck & Sales, 2001).
Therefore, one of the normative goals on which the law relies in this instance, efficiency, should not be
immune from the lessons that can be learned from empirical study. Psychological science can even help
us understand what is normative in society and in law.

Substantive Law

Law is based upon "an underlying set of assumptions about how people act and how their actions can
be controlled" (National Science Board 1969). These fundamentally empirical assumptions are of two
types. Some are descriptive of human behavior or personality (" . . . how people act"), such as the
"facts" that normal people intend their actions, but mentally ill people may not, or that children lack the
capacity to make informed decisions about their lives. Other assumptions are of a consequential sort (" .
. . how their actions can be controlled"). Criminal law assumes that if people expect punishment to
follow from certain actions, then they will be less likely to do them. Tax law assumes that if people are
allowed to deduct mortgage interest payments, then they will be more likely to buy houses.

In the largest sense, all of psychology is relevant to substantive law, since any aspect of human
behavior may be the subject of legal regulation. Basic research in psychopathology. Child development,
and statistics, for example, may have legal ramifications for the insanity defense, child custody, and
employment discrimination. We shall concentrate here on forms of psychological research whose
relevance to substantive law is more direct. Studies of competence to make decisions will be taken as
illustrative of research bearing on descriptive assumptions and studies of the effects of the criminal
sanction will exemplify research relevant to consequential assumptions.

Competence

"Most children," the Supreme Court observed in Parham JR (1979) "even in adolescence, simply are
not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions . . . Parents can and must make those
judgments." Descriptive assumptions like this regarding the "competence" of two groups, children and
the psychologically disordered, at various decision-making tasks, such as making a contract, marrying,
or serving on a jury, are common in law. The standard against which competence is measured is usually
the decision-making ability of "normal" adults. Recent psychological research on the assumption of
competence has focused upon decisions regarding medical and psychological treatment and regarding
the waiver of legal rights.

 Consent to Treatment: Grisso & Vierling (1978) and Melton (1981), in comprehensive reviews of
developmental research on decisionmaking capabilities, conclude that children under the age of 11
do not give adult-like reasons when deciding upon their medical or psychological treatment. At age
15 and above, however, there is no substantial difference between children and adults. Ages 11-14
appear to be a transition period in the development of cognitive and social abilities, and individual
differences are pronounced. In the most sophisticated study to date on the competence of children to
15
 consent to treatment, Weithorn (1980) compared 9-and 14-year-olds to adults on four legal
standards of competency:
(a). capacity to express a treatment preference
(b). capacity to reach a "reasonable" decision (regardless of how the decision was reached)
(c). capacity to reason logically in reaching a decision
(d). capacity to understand relevant information regarding treatment alternatives (Roth et al 1977).

She found 14-year-olds to be as competent as adults according to these four standards, and 9-year-
olds to be less competent than 14-year-olds and adults in terms of logical reasoning and the
understanding of information. The 9-year-olds, however, were as likely to express a preference for
treatment as were the older subjects and the direction of the preferences did not differ among the
groups. Research on the competence of psychologically disordered adults to admit themselves
voluntarily to mental hospitals has produced similar findings: they make the "right" choice as
judged by others (i.e; they seek treatment), but for reasons that are unclear. Appelbaum et al (1981)
found that half of those who had voluntarily admitted themselves to a mental hospital denied that
they had mental health problems or needed hospitalization. Only 38 percent of these patients were
judged to meet minimal clinical criteria of competence (e.g. appreciating the nature of hospital
treatment) and only 14 percent met the more stringent legally oriented definition of competence
(e.g. awareness of possible adverse effects of hospitalization). The researchers suggest that rather
than a competency-based "informed consent" test for hospital admission (which most
psychologically disordered persons could not pass), a less rigorous "assent" procedure be imposed,
requiring only that the prospective patient "voluntarily" agree to hospitalization, without inquiring
into the cognitive processes that mediated the decision.

 To Waive Rights: In the 1967 Gault case, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that judges must take "the
greatest care" in evaluating whether a waiver of rights by a child was voluntary "in the sense not
only that it was not coerced or suggested, but also that it was not the product of ignorance of rights
or of adolescent fantasy, fright, or despair" (p. 55). One of the most comprehensive programs of
psychological research on children's competence to waive legal rights has been that of Grisso
(1980, 1981). He found that over half of a large sample of incarcerated juveniles aged 11-16 did not
comprehend at least one of their Miranda rights. The two most common misunderstandings
concerned the warning that statements made to the police "can and will be used against you in a
court of law" (often understood to mean that disrespect to a police officer would be punished) and
the warning of a right to consult an attorney before and during an interrogation (often understood to
apply only to future court appearances). Comprehension of rights increased with age through age
13, and began a plateau at age 14, thus paralleling the findings on juvenile competence to consent to
treatment. Prior experience with the juvenile justice system, however, had no direct effect on
comprehension. Psychological research on competence to consent to treatment and to waive rights
is of very recent origin and has yet to capture the attention of the courts. Research on competence
can both validate and refine substantive law, and serves as an exemplar of the contribution
psychology has to make in analyzing other descriptive assumptions of the law, such as the
assumption that mental health professionals can predict violent behavior or that various groups of
people "intend" the consequences of their acts.

The Criminal Sanction

While Gibbs (1975) has identified numerous consequences of the criminal sanction, most accounts
focus on three of them. The punishment of a criminal offender may:

(a) deter both the offender in question ("special deterrence") and other persons ("general
deterrence") from engaging in prohibited behavior in the future
16
(b) incapacitate the offender in prison, thus making certain crimes temporarily impossible (or
permanently so, in the case of a life or death sentence)

(c) rehabilitate the offender, so that he or she will not be motivated to commit additional crime.

Recent psychological research has focused upon the first and last of these consequences. It should be
noted that there is another assumption underlying the existence of the criminal sanction that is not
consequential in nature, but rather reflects explicitly moral considerations. The assumption is that
people who commit crime should be punished because they deserve it, regardless of any utilitarian
consequences (Vidmar & Miller 1980). Modern retributive theories, such as the currently influential
"just deserts" model (von Hirsch & Hanrahan 1979), however, incorporate deterrence as a limiting
principle (i.e; punish only because offenders deserve it, but punish no more than necessary to deter
others.)

 Deterrence: A major development in the study of deterrence has been the report of the National
Academy of Sciences Panel On Research On Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects (Blumstein et al
1978; cf. Ehrlich 1979). The Panel noted four obstacles in interpreting as "deterrence" the
frequently found negative correlation between crime rates and the probability of punishment:

a. common third causes (e.g. a changing age distribution in society might influence both crimes and
sanctions)

b. error in measuring crimes (many crimes are not reported)

c. the confounding of deterrence and incapacitation (imprisoning offenders can lower the crime rate
through incapacitation without any deterrent effect)

d. simultaneous effects (the crime rate may affect the level of sanction, rather than vice versa, due to
an overburdening of police and court resources).

The Panel concluded that given the above methodological problems, the general question of deterrent
effects is still an open one. In particular, the Panel stressed that "the available studies provide no useful
evidence On the deterrent effect of capital punishment". Since it is intuitively clear that some criminal
sanctions do deter some criminal behavior by some people (as anyone who has ever lightened a foot on
a gas pedal after observing a police car in the rear-view mirror can attest), the question for research is
best put as what sanctions deter what crimes by what people, under what conditions, and how much.

Carroll (1978a), in one of the few explicitly psychological studies of deterrence, found that both
offenders and nonoffenders evaluated the desirability of crime opportunities along simple dimensions,
with those dimensions varying greatly across subjects. Both offenders and nonoffenders were generally
more responsive to changes in the rewards produced by crime than in the punishments for it if caught.
"This suggests that social policies might be directed toward the relative profits of criminal and
noncriminal activities as well as toward traditional punitive ends".

 Rehabilitation: The National Academy of Sciences followed its Panel on Deterrence with another
on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques (Sechrest et a1 1979, Martin et al 1981). Rehabilitation
was defined as "the result of any planned intervention that reduces an offender's further criminal
activity, whether that reduction is mediated by personality, behavior, abilities, attitudes, values, or
other factors". The effects of maturation and the effects associated with "fear" were specifically
excluded, lest long or cruel sentences be viewed as "rehabilitative" per se (Wilson 1980). This

17
 group took as its starting point the work of Lipton et al, which spawned the now common wisdom
that "nothing works" in criminal rehabilitation. While concluding that Lipton et al (1975) were
"reasonably accurate and fair in their appraisal of the rehabilitation literature", the Panel noted two
qualifications to the "nothing works" interpretation: the interventions studied to date have been
insipid and poorly implemented (Quay 1977), and there are "suggestions" among the mass of
negative results that some treatments may be effective for some groups of offenders. Specifically,
work and financial support programs for certain types of released offenders were targeted as
promising approaches. The rehabilitative consequence of the criminal sanction is a maturing area of
research, but psychological analysis of deterrence is in its infancy and of incapacitation is as yet
unborn. Given the recognized limitations on the use of aggregate data, and the need for analyses of
these topics at the level of the individual (Blumstein et al 1978), psychological approaches to
deterrence and incapacitation can be expected to come of age in this decade. As Carroll (1978) has
noted, "the debate between sociologists and economists has now become a forum." In addition to
analyzing the effects of the criminal sanction, this forum is addressing many other consequential
assumptions of substantive law, such as the effect of school desegregation on student attitudes and
achievement (Stephan 1978).

The Legal Process

Research on the legal process considers the more formal aspects of how the law resolves conflicts
between individuals (as in contract or tort law) or between an individual and the state (as in criminal or
administrative law) in the application of substantive legal principles. Its primary focus, therefore, is on
the trial as the ritualized crucible in which conflicts are resolved, rather than on less formal or rule-
bound procedures such as police discretion, out-of-court negotiation, or parole (Wrightsman 1978,
McGillis 1980, Elwork et al 1981).

While relatively few cases that enter the legal system ever reach the stage of a formal trial-an
observation that can be taken either as testimony to the sufficiency of informal mechanisms of
resolution (Saks & Hastie 1978) or as an indictment of duplicity in the law (Haney & Lowry 1979)-in
absolute terms the numbers are large. An estimated 2 million persons serve as jurors in some 200,000
civil and criminal cases each year (Abraham 1980). The reason that trial processes have so captured the
attention of both lay and scholarly audiences, however, has more to do with their symbolic than their
numeric importance (Nemeth 1976). Through its ability to establish legal precedent, one trial whose
verdict is appealed may have consequences vastly more far reaching than many cases informally
disposed (Silberman 1978). As well, the behavior of prosecutors and defense attorneys in plea
bargaining and of opposing counsel in private disputes is heavily influenced by expectations of what
would happen if negotiation broke down and trial had to be invoked (Heumann 1978).

While some pioneering studies have addressed the role of judges (Ryan et a1 1981) and lawyers
(Partridge & Bermant 1978) at trial, most recent research on the legal process has converged on two
role components jurors and defendants-and three process components evidence, procedure, and
decision rules.

Role Components

 Jurors: Juror characteristics have been studied both in their own right with numerous reports that
the more similar the juror to the defendant in race, gender, occupation, or attitudes, the more lenient
the treatment accorded and for their relevance to jury selection procedures (Bermant & Shapard
1981). They have studied in the latter context for two seemingly contradictory reasons. On the one
hand, surveys and demographic data have been analyzed to demonstrate that the pool from which
jurors were selected was biased in either its racial (McConahay et al 1977) or attitudinal (Vidmar &
18
 Judson 1981) composition. On the other hand, some proponents of "scientific jury selection" have
researched the relationship between the characteristics of jurors and the decisions they reach in
order to bias the jury in favor of a desired decision (Saks 1976). This second enterprise has
generated much empirical debate, concluding that the composition of a jury is "a relatively minor
determinant" of the verdict reached, especially in comparison with the evidence presented to the
jury (Saks & Hastie, 1978, Hepburn 1980). It has also engendered ethical concerns (Herbsleb et a1
1979) focusing upon the potential imbalance created when only one side has access to
psychological technology.

Jury size is a second topic that has captured much psychological research attention (Davis et al
1977, Suggs 1979) with studies tending to show that the smaller the jury, the less adequate the
deliberation and the greater the probability of convicting an innocent person. The use of this
research, particularly that of Saks (1977), by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Ballew v. Georgia
(1978) case has been subjected to a barrage of criticism. The research, for example, showed 12-
person juries superior to 6-person juries and not, as the Court claimed, 6-person juries superior to 5-
person juries (Lermack 1979, Kaye 1980).

 Defendants: A highly popular research topic in the legal process, particularly with social
psychologists, has been the effect of defendant characteristics upon juror (sometimes jury)
judgments (Izzett & Sales 1981, Greenberg & Ruback in press). Both factors relevant to one's status
and history with the law, and factors presumed by the law to be irrelevant have been studied.
Among the law-related defendant characteristics that have been found to raise the probability of
guilty verdicts by simulated jurors are being in custody, rather than free on bail (Koza & Doob
1975); having evidence of extenuating circumstances offered personally by the defendant rather
than by an impartial witness (Frankel & Morris 1976; cf Suggs & Berman 1979); and protesting
innocence too severely (Yandell 1979).

Research on extralegal characteristics has not found defendant sex, race, or socioeconomic status
consistently to affect simulated juror decisions. The one extralegal variable that has preoccupied
simulation researchers has been the defendant's physical or social attractiveness. The modal finding
is that attractive defendants receive more lenient treatment than unattractive ones. Exceptions to this
tendency are found when the defendant is perceived to have used his or her attractiveness to further
criminal aims, as in swindle cases (Sigall & Ostrove 1975) or in cases of physicians using their role
to facilitate murder (Bray et al 1978). The few nonsimulation studies investigating attractiveness,
however, find that it has little (Kalven & Zeise1 1966) or no effect (Konecni & Ebbesen 1982a) on
the treatment of defendants.

Process Components

 Evidence: Recent research on the evidence introduced at civil and criminal trials and its effect on
jury decision making has centered on the mode (e.g. live versus videotaped) by which evidence in
general is presented to the jury and the adequacy of evidence produced by eyewitnesses in
particular. Other studies have found that jurors do not ignore evidence they have heard that is later
ruled inadmissible (Fontes et aI 1977, Thompson et al in press), give reduced weight to witnesses
who qualify their speech (Erickson et al 1978), and are affected by pretrial publicity (Loftus 1979).
Changing the mode by which evidence is presented to the jury from "live" participants to videotape
would facilitate the testimony of witnesses (e.g. when they are ill) and reduce the probability of a
mistrial, since inadmissible evidence would be edited from the tape before it was played to the jury
(Iacoubovitch et aI1977). Research generally has been supportive of the use of videotape. It has
been found to be more effective than written transcripts in affecting juror judgments (Farmer et al

19
 1977) and as effective as live testimony in keeping the jurors' interest and motivation and in
fostering witness credibility (Miller 1976).

With its solid grounding in the fields of perception and memory, research on evidence produced by
eyewitnesses to an event is among the most systematic and theoretically developed in the
psychology of law (Clifford & Bull 1978, Loftus 1979b, Yarmey 1979, Penrod & Loftus in press,
Wells 1980). Among the factors that have been found to affect the reliability of eyewitness
identifications are age, with adults being more accurate than children or the elderly (Smith &
Winograd 1978), and race, with crossracial identifications being poorer than same-race ones
(Goldstein 1979). The manner of questioning by which a recognition is elicited can have a great
effect on its reliability (Loftus et al 1978) while training witnesses in recognition techniques does
not appear to be effective (Woodhead et al 1979). Despite the fact that jurors give great weight to
the "confidence" of an eyewitness in assessing his or her credibility, confidence in recognition has
been found unrelated to accuracy of recognition (Deffenbacher 1980).

A substantial discrepancy, therefore, exists between the research literature, which has demonstrated
the frequent unreliability of eyewitness identification, and the traditions of the legal process, which
highly value such evidence (Wells et al 1979, Hatvany & Strack in press). This discrepancy has led
to the increasing use of eyewitness researchers as expert witnesses in trials that revolve around
issues of perceptual accuracy (Fishman & Loftus 1978, Woocher 1977. Loftus 1980, Wells et al
1980). The question of "who to believe"-the eyewitness or the eyewitness researcher-is then left for
the jury to decide.

 Procedure: The towering figures in the psychological study of how procedures affect the resolution
of legal disputes have been (Hayden & Anderson 1979). The early research (Thibaut & Walker
1975) contrasted an "adversary" model, in which the parties to a dispute controlled the procedures
for its resolution, to an "inquisitorial" model (common in some European countries), in which
procedural discretion rested with a third-party decision maker. Results indicated that people both in
the United States and in Europe perceived the adversarial model to be more "fair" than the
inquisitorial one (La Tour et al 1976). More recent studies have distinguished between process
control (i.e. control of the presentation of information) and decision control (i.e. control of the
ultimate judgment), and between the objective of establishing truth (i.e. a correct view of some set
of facts) and that of providing justice (i.e. an equitable distribution of resources or losses). Where
the primary disagreement concerns the distribution of resources or losses, as in most legal disputes,
justice is the goal and it is best obtained by a procedure that places control of the process in the
hands of the disputants and control of the decision in the hands of a third party (e.g. a judge). When
the disagreement concerns the nature of facts rather than the distribution of resources or losses, as
in many scientific or technological disputes, the goal is truth, and it is best achieved when both
process and decision control are in the hands of a third party. Cases in which there is a significant
conflict about both facts and the distribution of resources, as in some environmental disputes, may
require a two-stage resolution in which truth is first determined and justice then pursued (Thibaut &
Walker 1978, Lind et al 1980).

Finally, Walker et al (1979) have investigated the relationship between perceptions of the fairness
of a procedure and the perceptions of the fairness of an outcome reached through that procedure.
Perceptions of the fairness of a procedure were found to enhance perceptions of the fairness of out-
come, but only when subjects actually participated in the decision-making process. The relationship
did not obtain for observers nor for persons affected by the decision but not participating in the
process of reaching it.

20
 Decision-Rules: Before they retire to deliberate on civil or criminal cases, jurors are presented by
the judge with what are in effect decision-rules concerning how the law applies to the factual issues
before them (Kerr et al 1976, Kassin & Wrightsman 1979, Penrod & Hastie 1979, 1980, Levine et
al 1981). Several studies have found these instructions almost wholly incomprehensible to jurors.
Strawn & Buchanan (1976) reported that only half the jurors instructed in the burden of proof in a
criminal trial understood that the defendant did not have to prove his or her innocence. Likewise,
Charrow & Charrow (1979) found jurors to understand only half of what was explained to them,
largely due to the prolix construction of what passes in the law for prose. Multiple negatives, as in
"innocent misrecollection is not uncommon," were a frequent obstacle to comprehension. Happily,
studies have found that when instructions are rewritten with attention to clarity, comprehension
markedly improves (Elwork et al). Comprehension, however, is not the only issue in instructing
juries. Borgida (Borgida 1979, 1980) found that simulated jurors in a rape case who were explicitly
instructed that admission of prior sexual history on the part of the victim did not prove that she
consented to the act at issue were less likely to convict the defendant than jurors who were not so
instructed. He hypothesized that the more explicit the judicial instruction, the stronger the threat to
the jury's decision freedom, and thus the development of a reactance response.

The Legal System

Studies of the legal process have tended to focus on formal rules, to employ a variety of theoretical
frameworks, and to favor simulation methods. In contrast, recent research on the legal system on the
ways in which the law actually disposes of individual cases-has been characterized by an emphasis
upon informal discretion, a reliance upon decision making as the analytic framework of choice, and a
preference for naturalistic rather than laboratory settings. While many discrete "systems" of law are
now receiving research attention (Arvey 1979 on employment law; Clingempeel & Reppucci and
Mulvey). Most recent scholarly activity has been clustered in the criminal justice system, the mental
health system, and that hybrid system in which the jurisdictions of criminal law and mental health law
overlap.

 Criminal Justice System: Surely "criminal justice" has been the mainstay of psychological research
on the legal system (Bickman & Rosenbaum 1977, Sales 1977, Toch 1979, Cohn & Udolf 1979),
deriving in part from psychologists' long-standing interest in crime and delinquency as forms of
abnormal behavior. While psychologists have been active in studying law enforcement they have
focused in greatest depth upon judicial and quasi-judicial decisions regarding whether and for how
long an offender should be confined.

The perceived problem that has given rise to much of this research has been that of disparity.
Findings that persons convicted of the same offense, with similar criminal histories, receive
drastically different sentences have motivated a search for the sources of this disparity and for
methods to reduce it. Diamond (1981) has characterized sentencing decisions as highly complex.
Disparity may occur because judges differ in their overall levels of severity, in how they weigh
particular aspects of a case, or simply because they are inconsistent in applying their own decision
rules. Ebbesen & Konecni (1981), on the other hand, report that judges employ a simple decision
strategy in sentencing. They found that the severity of the offense for which an individual was
convicted, the extent of the individual's prior record, and whether he or she was released or
remained in jail during the period between arrest and conviction largely determined the probation
officer's recommended sentence. This, in turn, was generally rubberstamped by the judge. Such
"disparity" as existed was accounted for more by different judges receiving different types of cases
than by disagreements among judges on how to decide them.

21
 Despite the growing movement in the United States to substitute sentences of a determinate length,
such as 5 years, for sentences of relatively indeterminate duration, such as I to 10 years, the precise
length of time an offender spends in prison is still usually fixed by an administrative parole board.
Here, too, concern with disparity or "unfairness" has been intense (Berman 1977). Carroll, in a
systematic series of studies (e.g. 1978b; Carroll & Payne 1977), found that decision making in the
context of parole differed from that employed in sentencing in that parole decisions were primarily
predictive in nature rather than concerned with punishment for past behavior. Ratings of
disciplinary infractions in prison, which could be viewed either as a justification for punishment or
as a predictive variable, were strongly related to parole decisions.

Likewise, Gottfredson, Wilkins, and their colleagues (e.g. Gottfredson et al 1978) have studied the
decision making processes of the U.S. Board of Parole and concluded that three factors, parole
prognosis, institutional behavior, and offense seriousness could account for time served in prison.
(That "offense seriousness" was a factor in these studies but not in Carroll's reflects the fact that in
the federal system inmates were eligible for parole almost immediately, whereas in Carroll's state
system the parole board did not receive cases until inmates had already served a minimum sentence
based on the seriousness of their offense.) Gottfredson & Wilkins then fed their information back to
the decision makers in the form of a matrix that made explicit the factors and weights that had
previously been the implicit bases of their judgments. Decisions made with the use of this
informational device were substantially more uniform than those made without it. The "guidelines"
approach to structuring discretion has now become a major researched-based approach to parole
and sentencing reform.

 Mental Health System: Since the late 1960s, 48 states have changed the legal criterion for
involuntary mental hospitalization from one emphasizing a professional judgment that a "need for
treatment" exists to one focusing upon a prediction that a person found to be mentally ill is
"dangerous" to him or herself or to others (Schwitzgebel & Schwitzgebel 1980). As well, courts
have promulgated a wide variety of both "positive rights," e.g. the right to treatment, and "negative
rights," e.g. the right to refuse certain treatments, for committed persons. These wholesale shifts in
policy have been the subject of vigorous political and professional debate and the object of active
research attention.

Nowhere is the "gap problem" approach (Abel 1980) to social science research on law better
illustrated than in civil commitment. Without exception, each study lays claim to the discovery of a
new discrepancy or "gap" between the legal rhetoric of increased patient autonomy and improved
patient care, and the reality encountered by those in contact with the mental health system.
Attorneys, for example, tend not to act as advocates for patients at commitment hearings, but rather
to defer to the decisions of mental health professionals (Stier & Stoebe 1979), which are made on
the traditional grounds of a perceived need for treatment (Lipsitt 1980). Training attorneys in
techniques for challenging mental health professionals appears not to increase the likelihood that
they will do so. Judges, in turn, confirm the decisions that mental health professionals have reached,
seemingly without regard to whether these decisions comport with statutory requirements (Warren
1977).

If there is one overarching impression to be gleaned from the research of psychologists and others
on the mental health system, it is the difficulty of achieving fundamental change through law in a
system where decisions of psychologists and psychiatrists and of judges and attorneys are so
unstructured and inaccessible to direct legal regulation. Saks & Miller (1979, p. 80) are correct
when they state that "it is not true that we cannot legislate behavior change; it is only that the
legislation must change the conditions that maintain the behavior in question." In the case of
initiating civil commitment, however, these conditions appear entrenched. Zwerling et al (1978), in
22
 this regard, persuaded the staff at a mental health center to agree to abstain from involuntarily
committing anyone for a one week experimental period. Only one exception was allowed: if a
prospective patient was believed to be one of the rare cases in clear danger of immediate suicide or
other violence, a staff member could ask for approval from his or her superior, and, if they both
agreed, commitment would be permitted. Results showed that there were no differences between
the number of persons committed during "no commitment week" and the weeks prior and
subsequent to it! Every prospective patient was found to be the "rare" exception that clearly
demanded commitment. The "guidelines" approach, so successful in structuring decision in the
context of sentencing and parole, has yet to be applied to decision making in the mental health
system, perhaps due in part to the traditional antipathy of mental health professionals to placing
statistical constraints upon clinical judgment (Meehl 1973).

Interactions Between Criminal Justice and Mental Health Penrose observed in 1939 that rates of
imprisonment and rates of mental hospitalization were inversely correlated, with the total volume of
institutionalization remaining constant (Grabosky 1980). Work on the interaction of the two
systems remained dormant for several decades while researchers examined each in isolation. The
past several years, however, have seen an awakening of interest in their relationship, first by
sociologists (Scull 1977) and now by psychologists as well. Research has congealed upon how
judges decide which individuals should be hospitalized before trial or instead of trial and how juries
decide which offenders after trial should be sent to a hospital rather than a prison.

Judges become involved in deciding between mental health and criminal justice processing when
confronted with a defendant who alleges or appears to be incompetent to stand trial, or one who
may qualify by virtue of the crime charged and the state of mind present during it as a "mentally
disordered sex offender." Research on incompetence to stand trial repeatedly has found, as did
research on commitment, that judges rubber-stamp the conclusory opinions of psychologists and
psychiatrists, whose opinions are strongly affected by a diagnosis of psychosis or a history of
mental hospitalization (Roesch & Golding 1980). The question of a defendant's competence to
stand trial is often raised as a matter of trial strategy rather than a genuinely perceived issue in its
own right. Defense attorneys raise it to assist in plea bargaining or to test the court's receptivity to
an insanity plea. Prosecutors raise it to lengthen the period the defendant will be institutionalized,
since the examination itself may entail several months of hospitalization. Persons charged with
violent felonies are highly overrepresented in findings of incompetence, indicating either that such
persons are, in fact, more likely to be incompetent or that incompetency procedures are more likely
to be used as legal maneuvers in cases where long sentences are possible (Steadman 1979).

The recent literature on judicial decision making in mentally disordered sex offender cases parallels
in several ways that on incompetence to stand trial. Raising the issue of mental disorder at all is
often a question of legal strategy; judges tend overwhelmingly to endorse the decisions of the
examining mental health professionals, and the decisions of these psychologists and psychiatrists
are predictable from knowledge of a few simple variables.

Jury decision-making studies on the relationship between the criminal justice and the mental health
systems have focused on the insanity defense. Despite the public impression that the use of the
insanity plea is widespread, it is actually raised in only about 1 percent of criminal cases brought to
trial, and it is usually unsuccessful in persuading jurors to decide for "acquittal." Those who raise
the insanity plea tend to be older, more often white, and more often female than the general
population of offenders, but to have relationships with their victims similar to defendants who do
not plead insanity, i.e. they are often related or acquaintances.

CONCLUSION
23
In conclusion, forensic psychologists have many performance in the criminal justice system which
focus on three areas, law enforcement, corrections and courts. Three examples, one for each part, are
police psychologist who work in police agencies, prison psychologist who work in correctional
institutions in our country and expert witnesses who provide information to the courts.

The effects of the legal system extend to citizens and noncitizens alike, and the power of the law to
proscribe behavior suggests that it will be a central research topic for psychology into the indefinite
future. Although the methods and goals of psychological science differ from those of the law in many
important ways, researchers and lawmakers share similar goals. Broadly speaking, they want a more
accurate and efficient legal system that better fits what psychologists have learned about human
behavior. Students in this field have a wide variety of careers from which to choose. The dynamic
history of the field attests to the potential for rapid change and the significant influence of productive
individuals such as Loftus, Kassin, Greene, and Bornstein, to name only a few. The relationship
between the use of psychology and the law are getting closer everyday, this opens the possibility to new
careers and areas in which it must be perfected. The topic areas briefly described previously elucidate
some possible areas, but the field is expanding rapidly, and new ideas and innovative research from
today's students will shape the future of the discipline.

24
 Reference

Abel, R L. (1980). Redirecting social studies of law. Low Sac. Rev. 14:805-29 Abraham, H. J. 1980.
The Judicial Process.

New York: Oxford Addington v. Texas, 99 S. CL 1804 (1979). American Psychological Association.
1978. Report of the Task Force on the Role of Psychology in the Criminal Justice System. Am.
Psychol 33:1099-1113.

Anderson, J. K., Hayden, R. M 1980. Questions of validity and drawing conclusions from simulation
studies in procedural justice: A comment Law Soc Rev. 15:293-303

Anderten, P., Staulcup, V., Grisso, T. 1980. On being ethical in legal places. Prof. Psychol 11:764-73
Appelbaum, P. S., Mir kin, S. A., Bateman,

A. L. (1981). Empirical assessment of competency to consent to psychiatric hospitalization. Am. J.

Psychiatry 138: 1170-76

Arvey, R. D. (1979). Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological
aspects. Psychol Bull 86:736-65

Austin, W. (1979). Justice, freedom, and self- interest in intergroup conflict In The Social Psychology
of Intergroup Relations, ed. W. Austin, S. Worcnel, pp. 121-41 Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole

Baldwin, J, McConvillc, M. (1979). Jury Trials. Oxford Oxford Univ. Press

Baldwin, J„ McConville, M. (1981). Criminal juries. In Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of
Research, ed. N. Morris, M. Tonry, Vol. 2. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. In press Ballew v.
Georgia 435 U.S. 223 (1978) Bard, M., Connolly, H. 1978. The police and family violence:
Policy and practice. In Battered Women: Issues of Public Policy. Washington DC US Comm.
Civil Rights.

Bern, D. J, Lord, C G. (1979). Template matching A proposal for probing the ecological validity of
experimental settings m social psychology. J. Pen. Soc. PSychol 37:833-46

Berman, J. (1977). Aspects of the parole experience. In Psychology in the Legal Process. ed. B. D.
Sales, pp. 111—25. New York: Spectrum

Bermant, G. (1975). Data in search of theory in search of policy: Behavioral re-to videotape in the
courtroom. Brigham Young Univ. Law. Rev. 1975:467-85.

Bermant G, McGuire, M, McKinley, W., Salo, C. 1974. The logic of simulation in jury research. Crim.
Just. Behav. 1:224-33

Bermant G-, Shapard, J. (1981). The voir dire examination, juror challenges, and adversary advocacy.
In The Trial Process, ed. R D Sales, pp. 69-114. New York: Plenum

Bersoff, D. N. (1980). Regarding psychologists testily. Legal regulation of psychological assessment in

the public schools. Aid Law Rev. 39:27-120

25
Bickman, L., Rosenbaum, D. P. (1977). Crimereporting as a function of bystander encouragement
surveillance, and credibility. /. Pen Soc. Psychol 35:577-86 Bloom, B. L, Asher, S. J. eds. 1981.
Patient Rights and Patient Advocacy: Issues and Evidence. New York: Hum. ScL Press. In
press

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J, Nagin, D. (1978). Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of
Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates Washington, DC: NatL Acad ScL

Bonnie, R. J., Slobogin, G (1980). The role of mental health professionals in the criminal process: The
case for informed speculation. Va. Law Rev. 66:427-522

Borgida, E. (1979). Character proof and the fireside induction. Law Hum. Behav. 3:189-202

Borgida, E (1980). Evidentiary reform of rape laws: A psychological approach. See Lipsitt 1980, pp.
171-97

Borgida, E. (1981). Legal reform of rape laws: Social psychological and constitutional considerations.
In Applied Social Psychology Annual. ed. L. Bickman, VoL 2.

Bray, R. M., Kerr, N. L. 1979. Use of the simulation method in the study of junrtion. J. Pen Soc
Psychol 12:1424-30

Bray, R. M., Struckman-Johnson, C, Osborne, M. D.. McFarlane, J. B, Scott I. (1978). The effects of
defendant status on the decisions of student and community juries. Soc Psychol 41:256-60
Brodsky. S. L 1977. The mental health professional on the witness stand A survival guide. See
Berman 1977, pp. 269-76

Brodsky, S. L-, Fowler, R. D. (1979). Social psychological consequences of confinement In Social

Psychology and Discretionary Law, ed L E Abt I R Stuart pp. 260-69. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold

Brody, B. A. 1970. Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Brown
v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Bukstel, L H., Kilmann, P. R (1980). Psychological effects of imprisonment on confined individuals.

Psychol Bull. 88:469-83

Caplam G. 1964. Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. New York: Buie Books Carroll, J. S. 1978a. A
psychological approach to deterrence: The evaluation of crime opportunities. J. Pen Soc
Psychol 36:1512-20.

Carroll, J. S. 1978b. Causal attributions in expert parole decisions. J. Pen Soc Psychol 36:1501-11

Carroll, J. S., Payne, J. P. 1977. Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in
judgments of prison term by students and experts. J. AppL Psychol 62:595-602

Charrow, R P., Charrow, V. R 1979. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study
of jury instructions. Columbia Law Rev. 79:1306-74

Clark, K. B. 1950. Effect of prejudice and discrimination on personality development Midcentury white
House Conference on Children and Youth.
26