Chapter 1

An Introduction to
Forensic
Psychology

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-1

1
 Definitions of Forensic Psychology

• There are two primary ways of defining forensic

psychology:
– Narrow definitions:
– highlight certain aspects of the profession
while ignoring other aspects

– Broad definitions:
– are more inclusive

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-2

2
 Narrow Definition

• A field of psychology that includes:

• Clinical practices in forensic psychology:
• assessment
• consultation
• treatment
• Excludes psychologists who primarily conduct
forensic research

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-3

3
 Broad Definition

• A research endeavor and/or a professional practice that

examines:
• human behaviour in relation to the legal system

• Includes application and research

• Includes areas such as social, cognitive, personality,

organizational and developmental psychology

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-4

4
 Roles of a Forensic Psychologist

Clinical Experimental Legal Scholar

Role Research and Research Research and
practice analysis

Focus Mental health Human behaviour Mental health law

and the law and the law and policy

Training M.A. or Ph.D. in Ph.D. in Ph.D. in psychology

clinical psychology and training in law
psychology and (e.g., LL.B)
internships

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-5

5
 Relationships Between Psychology &
Law
• Psychology and the law
– The use of psychology to study the operation of the
legal system

• Psychology in the law

– The use of psychology within the legal system as it
currently operates

• Psychology of the law

– The use of psychology to study the law itself
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-6
6
 History of Forensic Psychology

• Early research in forensic psychology

• Early court cases in Europe
• Forensic psychology in North America
• Landmark U.S. courts cases
• A legitimate field of psychology
• Progress in Canada

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-7

7
 Early Research in Forensic
Psychology
• Cattell (1895):
– The accuracy of everyday
observations

• Binet (1900):
– Suggestibility in children

• Stern (1910):
– The eyewitness ‘reality experiment’
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-8
8
 Early Court Cases in Europe

• Von Schrenck-Notzing (1896)

– Pre-trial press can result in retroactive memory
falsification
(what was observed versus what was heard)

• Varendonck (1911)
– Children can provide inaccurate testimony due to
suggestive questioning techniques

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-9

9
 Forensic Psychology in North
America
• On the Witness Stand by Munsterberg (1908):
– Discusses the role of psychology in the legal system
including issues involving:
– eyewitness testimony, crime detection, false
confessions, suggestibility, hypnotism, and even
crime prevention

– Pushes psychology into diverse areas of criminal justice

system, including prisons and police forces

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-10

10
 Landmark U.S. Court Cases

• State v. Driver (1921):

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954):

• Jenkins v. United States (1962):

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-11

11
 State v. Driver (1921)

• First court case in the U.S. where expert testimony was

provided by a psychologist:

– Represented a partial victory for psychology in that

the court accepts only a portion of the psychologist’s
testimony

– Relevance of psychological and medical tests in

detecting lies was in question

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-12

12
 Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• The U.S. Supreme Court, for the first time, refers to

psychological research in their ruling on a case:

– The case dealt with the constitutionality of school

segregation and the research examined how
discrimination affects personality development

– Helped to validate psychology as a science

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-13

13
 Jenkins v. United States (1962)

• Court rules psychologists are sometimes qualified to

give expert testimony on the issue of mental disease:

– Jury instructed to disregard initial testimony

– Reversed on appeal with reference to APA
report
– Helped to increase the extent to which
psychologists can contribute to legal
proceedings

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-14

14
 Progress in Canada

• Similar contributions to eyewitness testimony and

jury decision making

• Research and advances in corrections:

• Constructing better risk assessment tools and
developing effective treatment approaches

• Canadian courts slower to recognize psychologists

• Partially explained by different licensing
standards
Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-15
15
 A Legitimate Field of Psychology

• High quality textbooks

• Academic journals
• Professional associations
• Training opportunities
• Recognition as a specialty discipline

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-16

16
 Psychological Experts in Court

• Functions of an expert witness

• Challenges of providing expert testimony
• Admissibility criteria

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-17

17
 Functions of an Expert Witness

• Two primary functions:

– Aid in understanding a particular issue relevant to
the case
– Provide an opinion

• This contrasts with regular witnesses who can only

testify about what they have directly observed

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-18

18
 Challenges of Providing Expert Testimony

• Providing effective testimony to the courts is

difficult because of differences that exist
between the fields of psychology and law

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-19

19
 Admissibility Criteria

• Frye v. United States (1923)

• Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Inc. (1993)
• R v. Mohan (1994)

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-20

20
 Frye v. United States (1923)

• Resulted in the general acceptance test:

• In order for novel scientific evidence to be
admissible, it must be established that the
procedures used to arrive at the testimony are
generally accepted in the scientific community

• Major criticism is vagueness of terms general

acceptance and the particular field in which it
belongs

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-21

21
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow, Inc. (1993)

• Testimony is admissible if it is:

(1) provided by an expert,
(2) relevant, and
(3) valid (determined by the Daubert criteria).
• The Daubert criteria requires the research:
– Be peer reviewed
– Be testable (falsifiable through experimentation)
– Have a known error rate
– Adhere to professional standards

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 22

1-22
 R v. Mohan (1994)

• In addition to requiring that testimony be reliable,

the Mohan criteria in Canada states that the
testimony:

– Must be relevant
– Must assist the trier of fact
– Must not violate any rules of exclusion
– Must be provided by a qualified expert

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Canada Inc. 1-23

23