More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychology contributes to the Criminal Justice System
Psychology contributes to the Criminal Justice System
Psychology in criminal justice field
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
"Mind reading" technology is becoming increasingly accurate at detecting lies, and the article debates whether or not this evidence should be used in court. This article is based off of the scholarly article from the Journal of Law and Biosciences: “The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales” by Paul Catley and Lisa Claydon. The article starts off with the hypothetical case of a man stealing a blue diamond, which he claims to have never seen before, yet brain signals indicate he has. It is then asked if this can be used in court. In traditional lie detector tests, physiological responses to lying are analyzed, such as heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation, and sweat,
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
The Effect of Hypnosis on Eyewitness Testimony Works Cited Missing Under hypnosis an eyewitness could produce false information whist giving a statement to the police. This is because one of the characteristic of being hypnotised is being sensitive to suggestion. Therefore the witness can give suggestive information through leading question (even if this isn't intended). It could lead to an alteration. of the existing memory.
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law. New York: Worth Publishers.
One such case is, that of Engin Raghip of the so-called ‘Tottenham three’ will be discussed in the context of admissibility of psychological evidence in order to demonstrate how the judiciary has increasingly come to accept the psychological notion that most people, under certain circumstances, are susceptible to making false confessions. In order to better understand why people confess to crimes they have not committed, Kassin and Wrightman (1985) proposed a conceptual framework that divides false confessions in two main categories, voluntary or coerced. Voluntary false confessions are offered without any external pressure and coerced false confessions are elicited by the police.
Psychological research and application have established that it is not only people with learning disability or major mental illness that are susceptible to make false confessions. In order for a confession to be false, a person must either confess to a crime that he or she is completely innocent of or overstate his or her involvement in the crime. False confessions can be either voluntary or coerced. Although it is methodologically difficult to establish the frequency of false confessions, anecdotal evidence such as self-reports and case studies indicate that reported cases are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’. It appears that young people are particularly vulnerable and often make false confessions in order to protect others. Standardized psychological tests have been devised in order to assess personality factors such as suggestibility and compliance that render some people more vulnerable than others. The reason people make false confessions is typically due to a combination of factors such as psychological vulnerabilities, nature of the custodial confinement and the police interviewing tactics. Notorious cases of false confessions which have lead to the wrongful convictions of innocent people subsequently spending years in prison represent some of the worst cases of miscarriage of justice in Britain. One such cases, that of Engin Raghip of the so-called ‘Tottenham three’ will be discussed in the context of admissibility of psychological evidence in order to demonstrate how the judiciary has increasingly come to accept the psychological notion that most people, under certain circumstances, are susceptible to making false confessions.
In the court of law, eyewitnesses are expected to present evidence based upon information they acquired visually. However, due to memory processing, presenting this information accurately is not always possible. This paper will discuss the reliability of eyewitness testimony, its use in a relevant court case, and how the reasonable person standard relates to eyewitness testimony.
Heart rate, blood pressure, and skin conductivity are monitored during the lie detector test, those responses can be controlled. Steve Elias writes, “Some people are so divorced from morality or a guilty conscience that they may test honest – because they are really good
Psychological research shows, a witness's memory of details during the commission of a crime, has a high probability of containing significant errors. In response to these findings, the question is should witness testimony still be permissible in a court of law? Obviously, the answer to this question is an important one and is debatable. Consequently, what we know is many innocent people go to jail due to eyewitness misidentification. Therefore, it is imperative that all defense attorneys thoroughly evaluate the validity of eyewitness recollection events. Any defense attorney who does anything less is ignoring the findings of the psychological community and its’ study of how the brain functions. As a result, an intense analysis of an
A lie is a false statement with the purposely intentions to deceive, a falsehood or falsification. Since the beginning of time when Adam and Eve were created by god, and Adams fibbed about eating the apple, lying and deception has been the consistent future of human behavior or sin. The history of the polygraph has a similar long history with the reliable means of detecting deception. Researchers believed that this type of work must be viewed with care and cautiously being that the ones who tell the lies know that they are undergoing research and likewise know they do not comparatively behave as they would in real-life settings. There has been numerous of studies that attempt to identify specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors associated with lying. The polygraph does not detect a lie; it detects respiration and cardiovascular activity. The assumption is that liars will become more nervous that one who tells the truth. In the attempt to deceit the test through unconscious actions, many different behaviors have been associated with liars deception, including gazing aversion, the increase or decrease in movement, the amount of pauses or hesitations, slow of the speech rate, and speech errors.
The term that best explains the barriers to eyewitness memory is widely regarded as verbal overshadowing. The notion of verbal overshadowing has been coined as the inability to provide explicit memories due to the cognitive barriers people possess to depict accurately the events that have transpired. On a daily basis, individuals across the United States are sentenced to lengthy prison sentences resultant of wrongful convictions (Innocence Project, 2016). To illustrate the ambivalences caused by verbal overshadowing, if it even exists, behavioral scientists conducted a study to demonstrate the disparities. Many researchers have designed an experiment to measure a person’s cognitive ability to remember accurately a perpetrator that has committed a crime in a police lineup (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler,
This study took place because if memories are believed to be inaccurate then why are things such as eyewitnesses’, in legal proceedings, taken so seriously when their memory can easily be false
Memory is a cognitive function of the brain that is often taken for granted. Memory may have many purposes, but most importantly it is essentially a record of an entire life span. From this perspective memory is the most important aspect of consciousness. Unfortunately, through formal experimentation it has been shown that memory is fairly inaccurate, inconsistent, and often influenced by our own experiences as well as the bias of others. Memory is not only affected during an observed event, but there are instances where memory can be influenced after an event as well. There are also instances where memory can be affected retroactively due to personal experiences and biases. Incorrectly recalling the memories of one’s life is usually not detrimental, but the flawed nature of long-term and short-term memory functions becomes a serious matter in regards to criminal eyewitness testimony. In the justice system eyewitness reports are legitimate and can be crucial in the judging process. The justice system was constructed to rely on testimony that is often inaccurate and inconstant in many ways.
There is barely any counter evidence published which might be due to the effects not being published or simply there was no counter evidence found. We can also say that the given research seems reliable although most studies were in experiments and not in real life situations. Furthermore, other biases (e.g. gender bias, prejudice bias, emotional bias) have not been taken into account in this essay. However, despite all possibilities of how eyewitness testimony can be distorted, we can conclude that eyewitness testimony is a crucial part of the legal system and can be viewed as
Greenfield, D. (2007). Introduction to forensic psychology. issues and controversies in crime and justice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35(2), 201-201-204,105-106.
Sutliff, Usha. “‘Liars’ Brains Wired Differently.” USC News. USC University of Southern California. 19 Sept. 2005. Web. 11 December 2013.