511 Midterm

Holmes and Holmes approach to offender profiling and the critiques of it

Another typology of serial murder put forward by Holmes and Holmes (1998) was a development of an earlier typology of Holmes and De Burger (1988). Holmes and Holmes' typology outlined five classifications of serial murderers, developed through the examination of 110 known serial murderers, through court transcripts, interview data, case studies, clinical reports and biographical accounts. The five types in their classification were: 1) the Visionary killer, 2) the Mission killer, 3) the Hedonistic-Thrill killer, 4) the Hedonistic-Lust killer, and 5) the Power/Control Oriented killer. The visionary killer murders because they are told to by the visions or voices they see and hear. Their offences tend to be chaotic and disordered. While the mission murderer kills those individuals they have judged as unworthy or undesirable. Their offences are swift, with no pre-mortem or post-mortem activities. The hedonistic-thrill killer murders for the pleasure and excitement of the kill, which is often a long process. Whereas, the hedonistic-lust killer kills for the sexual gratification, both while the victim is alive and after they have been killed. Both subtypes of the hedonistic killer plan and organise their offences. These killings focus on sexual gratification and sadistic acts. The fifth type of killer, the power or control killer is motivated by the need for power and dominance over another person, and they gain greater gratification the longer the offence goes on (Canter & Wentink, 2004). Holmes and Holmes' types are not mutually exclusive, although they claim that each offender's behaviour will have a dominate theme that would relate to their background characteristics and from this they would be able to be classified into a distinct category (Canter & Wentink, 2004). While, the Holmes and Holmes classification system may use different variables and words to describe the crimes and offenders, it is largely influenced by the original FBI organised/disorganised typology Critiques of it: Holmes and Holmes' serial murder typology has also come under scrutiny. Hicks and Sales (2006) have questioned the reliability and validity of the four main types as there is no indication of any theoretical or empirical derivation. Canter and Wentink (2004) had five major criticisms of Holmes and Holmes' serial murder typology. The first criticism is the lack of any systematic account of how the interviews with 110 serial murders were conducted, and how these interviews led to their classification system. Secondly, there has been no direct empirical testing of the five typologies (until Canter and Wentink's study) and therefore no verification of co-occurrence of any type. The terminology used to describe each typology is not fully described (i.e., act-focused versus process-focused) leading to uncertainty as to under what conditions and offender or offence should be assigned to one type or another. A further criticism was the overlap of features between the five typologies (i.e., controlled crime scene, body movement, specific victim were listed for both lust and power/control killer). The fifth criticism, is based around the inherent assumptions of a typology which Holmes and Holmes' typology fails to adhere to: ―with each type, the characteristics that define that specific type are likely to co-occur with one another with regularity...and specific characteristics of one type are assumed not to co-occur with any frequency with the specified characteristics of another type‖ (Canter & Wentink, p. 493). Upon testing the five types using a multidimensional approach they found little evidence to support the distinction between the serial murders based on Holmes and Holmes' 1989 typology

which is the main polygraph administered in the US

comparison question test

specific role: expert witness

Need to have expertise to be with. To differ from fact witness, expert witness can provide their opinion because they have knowledge that a regular juror/person would not have. Fact witness can only comment on things they've observed/the actual facts. Judge needs to approve the expert witness. Ideally theyre not there to be a decision maker or an advocate ...theyre just there to provide intel.

Accuracy of GKT exams - four possible outcomes

True positives (which means a hit on deception): means that the examinee is truly guilty/has the orienting reflex : False negative: they were guilty but accidentally classified as passing the polygraph True negative: innocent person was correctly classified as innocent False positive: innocent person was incorrectly classified as guilty No inconclusive GKT data does a good job at classifying innocent people. And a quarter of guilty individuals are classified as innocent.

critiques of theory led approach to criminal profiling

While the above approaches highlight possible motivations for sexual offending, such as power, anger and sadistic pleasure, attributed from the crime scene analysis, the classification lacks empirical support and evidence (Fisher & Beech, 2007). To be able to infer statistical associations there needs to be in place a system of analysis and measurement. This is where the classifications within this approach fall down - they provide descriptions of abstract concepts (e.g., anger; power), but do not provide a concrete way of measuring them (Cheshire, 2004). T

Theory-Led Approach to Offender Profiling

While the original profiling and reports produced by the FBI might have been more experience-led, other endeavours incorporated theory, by trying to address the behaviours, motivational continuum and the effects of learning on the offender (e.g., Fisher & Beech, 2007). These tried to address the criticism of the pragmatic approach of not being scientific (falsifiable) by producing and submitting their works into the criminal investigative approach to be peer-reviewed. Sex and aggression have been two categories of motivating factors that have been used to categorise rape (Cohen, Garfalo, Boucher, & Seghorn, 1971; Cohen, Seghorn, & Calamas, 1969). Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom (1977) and Groth and Birnbaum (1979) also argue that power and anger are primary non-sexual motivations for rape. Each of these occur in a variety of different forms throughout the rape literature. For example, anger and aggression may be evident in different forms of hostility, or destructive acts, such as verbal violence, gratuitous violence, tearing the victim's clothing, and acts meant to humiliate the victim (Canter et al., 2003; Canter & Heritage, 1990). Offenders driven primarily by sex may be preoccupied with sexual fantasies and sexual gratification or pleasure (Mann & Hollin, 2007). Power as a motivation may be expressed through behaviours that demonstrate the offender's control over the victim and control of the offence. These may include the use of various levels of coercion, the binding or gagging of the victim, and actions that suggest pre-planning and preparation. - For the power rapist, the desire of the offender is to possess their victim sexually, not physically harm them. The sexual attacks of the power rapists are often fantasised about beforehand, with the offender imaging the victim initially resisting and then in spite of themselves, becoming less resistant and more receptive, and even gratefully submitting, to the offender's sexual prowess and embrace - The Anger rapists' offences are characterised by physical brutality, with excessive amounts of violence and force while the sexual component is used as a means to express and discharge the offender's built up feelings of anger and rage. - In the third type, the sadistic rapist, sexuality becomes fused with aggression in a manner that transforms anger and power into something that becomes erotic, although interconnected and often at the extremes of the various motivations and corresponding behaviours

macro level Recommendations to reform false confessions

replace reid completely PEACE Preparation and planning Engage and explain Account (bing up things) Closure Evaluate Used in UK, New Zealand, Norway and Canada No evidence of decline in confession rates Reality: reid likely wont get abolished because that would require all new training, policies, time spent, etc

legal implications of the GKT

review slides

Confessions video notes

starts off by describing good cop bad cop tactics. Says that interrogation rooms smell of fear and are intimidating. Gave heather a cigarette to soften her up Then investigators lied to her and told her that her friend already confessed, which leads Heather to cave in Frank's case: one officer rubs his back while another holds his hand while he falsely confesses to his crime He confessed out of pure exhaustion. He said he just wanted to go home and sleep. Talk about jfk smiling after saying he didnt sleep with monica lewinsky Thomas (accused of killing sister). Sat him in a room for hours on end with no food. Made him confess by telling him he was going to get the death penalty. Wrongfully conducted confessions

Research in on the BAI in the field (even less than there is in the lab) - Horvath, Blair and Buckley (1994)

(buckley president of reid association, meaning he might bring bias to this study) Real videotaped suspect interviews Real evaluators with experience in BAI 86% total accuracy rate 915 for truthful 80% for liars However, when inconclusive accounted for 78 for truthful, 66 for deceptive Major limitations: ground truth (confessions) (meaning, difficulty in figuring out how much something happens without having much control. This study didn't have much control) (example: if people are truly guilty but don't confess, that messes up this study's ground truth) Systematic factual analysis (biographical information Sample size Researchers stated that they were unable to determine ground truth on most of the cases they looked at

READING - the problem of interrogation induced false confessions - davis and leo

- For over 2 days, Austin police detectives interrogated Ochoa offtape. As later events proved, he was not actually involved in the crime. In Ochoa's recounting, the detectives yelled at, harassed, and threatened him for hours; denied his requests for an attorney; told him, falsely, that he failed three separate polygraph tests; claimed that a codefendant was in the next room and about to implicate him; threatened to throw the book at him if he did not cooperate; threw a chair that missed him; threatened him with more violence if he continued to deny their accusations; threatened to put him in a jail cell where he was likely to be homosexually raped by jail inmates; and threatened, repeatedly, that he would be sent to death row and "given the needle" if he did not confess - Among the many results of these efforts is a rising tide of cases, documented by media, social scientists, and attorneys, in which persons who were prosecuted, and often convicted, on the basis of false incriminating statements or full false confessions have later been proven innocent - Along with the many documented individual case histories involving false confessions, these analyses of collections of wrongful convictions reveal interrogation-induced false confessions to be a systemic feature of American criminal justice. Despite procedural safeguards such as legal rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to refuse interrogation altogether or to have an attorney present during questioning, and a constitutional prohibition against legally coercive interrogation techniques, American law enforcement continues to elicit false confessions. Moreover, these false confessions continue to go unrecognized by police, prosecutors, judges, and juries, and to play a signifi cant role in convicting the innocent - The answer to the question of why interrogationinduced false confessions occur, though complicated, lies largely in the most basic goal of interrogation, that of ensuring conviction. The justice system relies heavily upon confessions for obtaining convictions. Absent a confession, many cases lack suffi cient evidence to convict, and most others would be much more costly to investigate and to develop suffi cient evidence for conviction. I - The interrogator, whether intending to gather intelligence from a hostile combatant or from a criminal suspect, is faced with the diffi cult task of trying to elicit accurate information from a potentially hostile target. As one might expect, this task is quite different than that of an interviewer with a fully cooperative witness who wants to disclose as much accurate information as possible. For interrogators throughout the world and throughout history, a primary choice for overcoming the resistance of a reluctant target has been physical intimidation and coercion - The deliberate infl iction of physical and psychological distress upon criminal suspects— colloquially referred to as the "third degree. But the 1930s witnessed a sharp escalation in widespread investigation and condemnation of these practices, in media, in US Supreme Court decisions, and in a government commission that provided an extensive and detailed report (from President Herbert Hoover's National Commission of Law Observance and Law Enforcement) of the widespread use of third degree practices: the "Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement," popularly known as the "Wickersham Report" after former attorney general and chair of the committee, George Wickersham. The Wickersham report and subsequent lurid depictions of the horrifi c brutality of third degree methods in the media created a national scandal providing considerable impetus to the nascent movement toward interrogation reform. Thereafter, third degree practices steadily declined until the 1960s, when the worst of the third degree methods became virtually nonexistent (President's Commission on Criminal Justice and the Administration of Justice, 1967), and the newly taught interrogation strategies became almost entirely psychological in nature - As they evolved from the 1940s forward, these and other interrogation training materials and practices sought to solve three central problems created by the previous use of the third degree. First was the problem of public relations. The new methods sought to remove incompetence, ineffi ciency, corruption, and brutality from police practices, replace them with clear professional standards, and, in doing so, to repair the severe damage done to police credibility in the preceding decades. Second, the new methods sought to avoid the legal problems created by the third degree— prominently, the fact that confessions obtained through third degree tactics were often ruled involuntary and inadmissible as evidence in trial, thus impairing the ability to achieve convictions. Third, the new methods purported to increase the quality of the results. Claiming to evolve from an "art" to create a "science" of interrogation, the manuals presented the new methods as a structured, tested, and empirically supported techniques that, if done according to protocol, would reliably yield valid results. - Modern interrogation methods developed in part on the basis of the imminently reasonable assumption that one could avoid the elicitation of false confessions if one avoided interrogation of innocent suspects. The best way to avoid interrogation of innocents is, of course, to have signifi cant probable cause suggesting guilt before subjecting the suspect to a powerfully persuasive interrogation that may elicit both true and false confessions. Ideally, this would entail having substantial evidence linking the suspect to the crime. Given this situation, interrogators turned to efforts to classify suspects as guilty or innocent before the interrogation, through use of various lie detection methods. - As the technology of lie detection developed into the twentieth century and purported to become more scientifi c, it focused upon two primary strategies: identifi cation of physical measurements associated with deception (as, for example, with the polygraph or voice stress analyzer), and identifi cation of overt behavioral indicators of deception (such as nonverbal responses or features of verbal statements). - Therefore, it is not surprising that many alleged indicators of deception are not related to deception at all. At best, some indicators are probabilistically associated with truth or deception—sometimes differentially so for individuals in specifi c social categories, as is the case for the polygraph (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2003 ). A number of scholars have noted, for example, that defendants belonging to social categories stigmatized by stereotypes linking them to criminal behavior may experience "identity threat" when interviewed about criminal activity—leading them to display more anxiety and arousal, as well as increased cognitive load due to efforts to manage the thoughts and emotions provoked by the threat that the stereotype may be applied to them - Vrij and his colleagues (Vrij, 2008 ; Vrij, Fisher, et al., 2010 ; Vrij, Granhag, & Porter, 2010 ) reviewed substantial evidence that lie detection is a very diffi cult task, highly prone to error. They pointed to seven common errors among would-be lie detectors, particularly police: (1) examining the wrong cues, (2) undue emphasis on nonverbal cues, (3) overinterpretation of D. Davis and R.A. Leo 55 signs of nervousness as indicating deception, (4) use of simplistic rules of thumb, (5) neglect of inter- and intrapersonal differences, (6) strategies advocated in interrogation manuals actually impair detection of deception, and (7) the overconfi dence of professionals in their own ability to detect deceit. Generally, the fi rst fi ve cause the sixth, but the apparently professional "sciencey" nature of the training contributes to the seventh. - As shown by Kassin and his colleagues, for example police and students trained in the BAI are less accurate than untrained controls, and police are biased toward fi nding deception. Yet police are more confi dent in their judgments, and even when interrogating an innocent suspect, fail to recognize that innocence, and subject these innocent suspects to more forceful interrogation. This, in turn, leads the innocent suspect to appear more deceptive to uninvolved observers. The confi dent misclassifi cation of innocents as guilty, in effect, leads the offi cer to try harder to get the innocent to admit guilt, and in doing so increases the suspect's anxiety, defensiveness, and appearance of guilt. - Leo (Leo, 2008 ; Leo & Davis, 2010 ; Leo & Drizin, 2010 ) has argued that the error of misclassifi cation of innocents as likely suspects is the fundamental error on the path to interrogationinduced false confession and wrongful conviction. This misclassifi cation occurs for a variety of reasons. Intuitive profi les or stereotypes associating a specifi c class of persons with specifi c crimes may lead police to suspect an innocent in the absence of any evidence linking him to the crime—as when a husband may be automatically suspected of his wife's death (Davis & Follette, 2002 , 2003 ). The source of suspicion may also be circumstantial, such as motive or opportunity; or may be the result of association with other suspicious suspects. Apparently strong evidence, such as mistaken witness identifi cations or the presence of forensic match evidence, may also put an innocent under suspicion. But by the time the detective. - Suspects are known to confess (truly or falsely) primarily for two reasons: distress intolerance and the need to escape the aversive interrogation notwithstanding the consequences, and/or the mistaken belief that confession is either entirely without negative consequences or that it will achieve the best available legal (or other) outcomes - Police interrogation in America remains a procedure with considerable risk to elicit false confessions from the innocent. The reforms that characterized the progression from third degree tactics in the 1930s and beyond retained two problematic features that facilitate the elicitation of false confessions (1) an assumption of guilt that promotes the misclassifi cation of innocent suspects as likely guilty, and (2) the still-coercive nature of interrogation tactics that include strong incentives promoting confession as the mechanism to achieve the best legal outcomes, and that contaminate the content of the confessions they elicit. At the same time, the appearance of coercion has been lessened by the elimination of third degree tactics, while the actual nature and power of the new strategies to promote confession have become more subtle and less recognizable to observers. Thus, the risks of coercion and false confessions remain, but the challenge of recognizing them is greater. Although reforms have been enacted in Europe, and are beginning in other countries such as Canada, the USA seems entrenched in the practice and acceptance of Reid and Reid-like interrogation methods. It remains to be seen whether the fl ood of documented false confessions and wrongful convictions can overcome the widespread preeminence of concerns for crime control over those for due process and further the evolution of our still-coercive interrogation practices toward the more evidence-gathering strategies adopted in European reforms.

Reid 9 steps of interrogation

1. positive confrontation 2. theme development 3. Handling denials 4. Overcoming objections 5. procurement of attention 6. the passive mood 7. alternative question 8. oral confession 9. written confession

Concerns when it comes to criminal investigative analysis/criminal profiling

A disorganized crime scene might not always mean a disorganize killer. Things happen and a offender might switch up. Example, if they're usually organized, they make get randomly distracted and then it ends up being disorganized. Generalization to other crimes. Cant relay on one model for everything. Weighted items: some people might weigh things more heavily than others. Have conflictions. Its left up to the profiler to determine the importance of things. Self reports. People could be lying. May not remember correctly. May just want to mess with the interviewers. Very little inter reliability. Important to have people do multiple interviews to see if things line up. Also was not a lot of research to replicate at the time. Fluctuation. Offenders can go back and forth on being organized and disorganized.

generally how a polygraph works

A person's physiological responses at a normal state, and then you compare to their answers when being asked about the crime they're investigating

Problems with using confessions as sampling criterion in CQT

A problem with this is that it might be a biased sample Can lead to accuracy rates being incorrect

what is criminal profiling?

A way to identity major personality and behavioral characteristics of an individual based on analysis of the crimes they committed. Trying to develop an understanding of who may have committed a certain crime to arrest them.

BAI uses theoretical basis that is most closely akin to the _______________ approach to behavior prediction

BAI mainly used emotional arousal approach to predict innocence/guilty

what is inductive profiling

Based on statistical/correlational reasoning (probabilities). You're engaging in this profiling based on the known cases that are similar Has to do with statistical and correlational reasoning. Uses open datasets and public records. Simply, you base this profiling on the types of people who have committed this crime in the past

BAI Analyzed within framework of 4 criteria

Baseline: obtain this when a person is in their resting state. Then you compare their responses to the BAI questions to their resting rate Timing Consistency; the responses need to recur as answers to the same question. Cant just look at one response some gives and assume whether they're innocent Context: need to make sure everything is taken in context. Need to always look into verbal and nonverbal actions based on the question and responses. First person on the slide appears more innocent. Context Question: Mike, have you ever been questioned before concerning theft from an employer? Response: Well, um, two years ago I worked at a hardware store and they had an inventory shortage so all of the employees were questioned and, in fact, I did take some things from there. [Subject crosses his legs, looks down at the floor, and dusts his shirt sleeve.] Question: Joe, have you ever been questioned before concerning theft from an employer? Response: No, I have not. [Subject crosses his legs, looks down at the floor, and dusts his shirt sleeve.]

types of expert witnesses and the central dilemma

Central dilemma - is the expert witness loyal to their field, or to the outcome of the case.? Depending on what is determined, expert witness fall into three categories: Conduit -educator: they're loyal to their field of expertise (the outcome of the case is secondary to them. They will mainly try to educate the jury on their field. They are forthcoming with what the research says about the particular issue at hand). This is the ideal. Philosopher-ruler/advocate - this person only provides information that supports their particular views. They will withhold opposing evidence or info that does not support their position. They're largely advocating for a particular outcome. Hired gun - extreme version of the advocate. They're trying to enhance the values of the employer who retained them.

Theoretical approaches to predicting nonverbal behavior - 2

Complexity - meaning it is just more difficult to tell a lie. If you life, you need to make sure its believable and need to make sure all your lies are consistent. Should also be more emphasis on illustrators (use your hands while youre talking), those who are engaging in illustrators are more likely to be truthful. Response latency, gaze aversion (with lying, there will be less eye contact)

4 criticisms of GKT

Countermeasures (purpose is to throw the polygrapher off to skew results) Physical countermeasures: people will put thumb tacs in their shoes. Tightening your sphinkter muscle - trying to hold in your farts. Biting your tongue Mental countermeasures: harder to learn. Thinking of something really complex like counting backwards. Thinking about something very meaningful or traumatic that happened in your life.

Daubert Vs Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals

Daubert vs merill dow pharmaceuticals. In this case, supreme court recognized that Frye test was outdated. Said that in order for expert witness to be admissible in court, it needed to be: Relevant Legally sufficient (Needs to be probative, and serving to prove. Shouldn't be confusing to those in the court room. Reliable (tested, error rate (want this to be lower than 20%), peer review and publication, general acceptance)

criminal profiling 1980s-2000s

David canter created investigative psychology He was considered an environmental psychologist...how environments effect ones psychology. He initially didnt have anything to do with profiling. He was consulted to assist with the railway rapist case. Canters does not look at motives, instead looks at the locations they did it, where they work etc. His profiling is more statistically based. Largely makes use of geospatial principles and spacing. There is no why in canters. Uses the A to C equation = crime scene actions help you in determining the offender's characteristics.

Research on the BAI: Lab and field

DePaulo, et al 2003 meta analysis of 100+ studies on deception Very few nonverbal behaviors were consistently indicative of deception (aka, there is no giveaway que) Found that illustrates, adapters, and pitch is most significant ...meaning, they will tell you more information.

what is the guilty knowledge test (aka concealed information test)

Developed by David Lykken in the 50s Even though it was developed in the US, it is mainly only used in Japan Its based on principles of the orienting reflex/response approach Cocktail party phenomenon (if youre at a part ywith a lot of talking and hear something that intrigues you, youll orient yourself/pick up on that information because it's meaningful to you) He found that when people experience orienting reflex, people become sweatier and have an increased heart rate. CQT is based on the concern approach Youre nervous theyre gonna find out youre lying Technically, the GKT you are assessing for recognition (recognition test) You can tell theyre guilty when they react to the orienting factor but you respond in a way that deviates from that. Guilty knowledge test is multiple choice format Examinee are always instructed to answer no to every choice. Guilty people will show orienting reflex to the correct choice There should be more questions because say if theres a knife shown on the screen, someone may have an orienting reflex to it bc they had one of those growing up in childhood, instead of them murdering with it. More questions rules out more flukes. Any deviation in how you read the questions can contribute to orienting reflex

advantages of inductive profiling

Dont need forensic knowledge and training

origins of criminal profiling 1950s-1970s

Dr james brussel came up with diagnostic evaluation. He helped nypd and bpd in constructing profiles of unknown suspects. Helped profile the mad bomber (form con edison employee who felt they didn't listen to him when he said he was injured on the job) and the boston strangler. The work of brussels caught the eye of howard teten and pat mullany. These two are credited with coming up with offender profiling at the FBI. had to keep it on the low because Hoover did not think psychology had a place in law enforcement. Then it progressed and robert ressler and john douglas. They developed mindhunter. They went around interviewing serial killers to understand them. They developed the organized/disorganized typologies.

Recommendations to reform false confessions

Electronically record both interviews and interrogations. They use a two camera set up, one faces the suspect and the other faces the interviewer. Benefits: reduces swearing contests ((interviewers dont have to take as details of notes because they can just replay the footage), reduce defense claims (helps someone prove they didnt say something), helps judges and juries have more credible information when in court.

Theoretical approaches to predicting nonverbal behavior - 1

Emotional reactions/arousal Feelings of guilt fear and excitement: leads to an increase in anxiety, which shows itsself via the suspects non verbal behaviors (such as looking away, increase in speech fillers or speech errors, facial expressions and a higher pitched voice Othello error - even if a person is truthful about something, they can and do still engage in these nonverbal behaviors Cultural issues

origins of criminal profiling 1800s

First began in the 1800s by dr thomas bond. He was a police pathologist. He performed an autopsy on the last victim of the white chapel murders (jack the ripper). He also attempted to reconstruct the crime scene to try to garner leads. He came up with signature personality characteristics for the offender. Satyriasis: refers to extensive sexual need in males and extensive sexual mutilation.

READING What is forensic and legal psychology - Huss

Forensic psychology is a discipline based on the scientific practice of psychology. Forensic psychology deals with the intersection of psychology and the legal process. The American Board of Forensic Psychology and the American Psychology-Law Society define forensic psychology as the professional practice by psychologists within the areas of clinical psychology, counseling psychology, neuropsychology, and school psychology, when they are engaged regularly as experts and represent themselves as such, in an activity primarily intended to provide professional psychological expertise to the judicial system. Examples that necessitate the involvement of a forensic psychologist may include pleading insanity, raising issues of competency to stand trial, assessment of future violence potential during sentencing, or treatment of sex offenders

assumptions of inductive profiling

Homology, unknown offenders are very similar to known offenders. No proven tho. Generalization of characteristics of known offenders to unknown offenders Cultural similarity Behavior and motivation are static/predictable

criminal investigative analysis vs investigative psychology

IA: developed by investigators, characteristics and motivation, small sample sizes, little peer review, intuition and professional experience. IP: developed by academics, characteristics and location, large sample size, much peer review publication, statistical analyses

Theoretical approaches to predicting nonverbal behavior - 3

Image control (impression management) Suppression of nervous behavior. No nervous behaviors/no behaviors don't suggest innocence Response duration. Guilty people will have a short response duration. Meaning, the less you talk, the less likely you are to slip up.

READING - The social psychology of false confessions - Kassin

In 1985, Lawrence Wrightsman and I wrote a chapter on "Confession Evidence" in which we reviewed the law, described common social influence practices of police interrogation, reviewed the scant research literature, and introduced a taxonomy that is now widely used to distinguish three types of false confessions—voluntary, coerced-compliant, and coerced-internalized we distinguished, first, between the types of false confessions that arise when innocent people volunteer self-incriminating statements without pressure (often to high-profile crimes, as when 200 people volunteered false confessions to the 1932 kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's baby son) and those that come about through the interpersonal process of interrogation. Within the latter category, we then distinguished between cases in which innocent people are moved from denial to confession in an act of mere behavioral compliance, to escape a harsh interrogation or because they are led to perceive that confession serves their own self-interest (when it comes to stress, discomfort, and the deprivation of need states, everyone has a breaking point) and those rarer instances of internalization in which innocent people, subjected to highly misleading claims about the evidence, question their own innocence, come to infer their own guilt, and in some cases confabulate memories to support that inference. This article reviews the current theoretical and empirical research literature on false confessions. In particular, this review is framed around four social psychologically loaded questions concerning the processes by which false confessions occur and wreak havoc on individuals and the criminal justice system as a whole: (1) why are innocent people often misidentified for suspicion during a preinterrogation interview? (2) What situational forces during the structure and tactics of interrogation lead innocent people confess to crimes they did not commit? (3) What adverse consequences follow from confession—both in the effects on judges and juries in the courtroom, and in the effects on witnesses, forensic examiners, and the truth-seeking process itself? Following a review of research on these questions, this article addresses the social policy implications—namely, (4) what can be done to prevent future miscarriages of justice based on false confessions? Experiments specifically designed to test the BAI have also failed to support the efficacy of the approach. One study showed that the verbal and nonverbal demeanor cues that investigators are instructed to use do not increase judgment accuracy Reasonably, proponents of the Reid technique and others have suggested that laboratory experiments lack external validity because they often involve college student participants lying or telling the truth in a low stakes situation (Buckley, 2012; O'Sullivan, Frank, Hurley, & Tiwana, 2009). In a meta-analysis of studies spanning over 40 years, however, Hartwig and Bond (2014) found that the detectability of deception did not differ as a function of whether the speaker was a college student or nonstudent, whether the speaker's motivation level was high or low, or whether the speaker lied in a monologue or in a question-and-answer interview. In one important line of research, for example, Vrij, Fisher, Mann, and Leal (2006) theorized that because lying is more effortful than telling the truth, interviewers should tax a suspect's cognitive load and attend to cues that betray cognitive effort. Thus, when interviewers challenge truth tellers and liars—for example, by having them recount their stories in reverse chronological order—observers become more accurate in their ability to distinguish between truthful and deceptive accounts When the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) sought to understand what transpires during an in-custody police interrogation, a process that the Court ultimately described as "inherently coercive," it turned to Inbau and Reid's (1962) manual, Criminal Interrogations and Confessions (see Inbau et al., 2013). In this approach, investigators are advised to isolate the suspect in a small, private, windowless room, which increases anxiety and, hence, the incentive to escape. A nine-step process then ensues involving the interplay of negative and positive incentives It goes without saying that individuals differ in the extent to which they comply or can resist figures of authority pressing for a confession. Over the years, individual differences research has focused on suspect characteristics that are associated with compliance, suggestibility, and other forms of social influence. Individual differences notwithstanding, there are two structural aspects of a typical police interrogation that are striking to this social psychologist. The first concerns the fact that interrogation is, by definition, a guilt-presumptive process— a theory-driven social interaction led by an authority figure who has formed a strong belief about the suspect, sometimes through a pre-interrogation interview, and who single-mindedly measures success by whether he or she is able to extract a confession. The parallels between police interrogations and the protocol that Milgram established to elicit obedience are striking. In both venues, the subject is isolated— without access to friends, family, or other means of social support—in a specially designed space, whether the laboratory or an interrogation room. In both venues, the subject is confronted by a figure of authority—a psychology experimenter or a detective; the subject then engages a contractual agreement with that authority figure to proceed—volunteering and receiving payment in advance of participation in Milgram's paradigm As to why anyone would confess to police, research on human decisionmaking has shown that people make choices that they think will maximize their well-being given the constraints they face (Herrnstein, Rachlin, & Laibson, 1997). In addition, studies on temporal discounting show that people tend to be impulsive in their orientation, preferring outcomes that are immediate rather than delayed, with delayed consequences depreciating over time in their subjective value (Rachlin, 2000). In this context, it is easy to appreciate the power of a psychological approach to interrogation—which is explicitly designed to increase the anxiety associated with denial and to decrease the anxiety associated with confession, thereby making it easier for the rational suspect to make the decision to confess This tendency toward short-sighted decision making has been used to characterize what suspects face in a police interrogation setting and can be exacerbated by a number of factors, such as the expected length of an interrogation and being sleep deprived, or questioned during "off-peak" periods of alertness Looking to study the "Milgramesque" interrogation tactics sanctioned by the Reid technique, my colleagues and I sought to develop an ethical laboratory paradigm that would both meet with IRB approval and confront innocent participants with a personally meaningful decision to confess. It was clear that entrapping people to cheat, steal, or otherwise commit an act that would cast them in a negative light would not be permitted. With these limits in mind, Kassin and Kiechel (1996) devised an experimental paradigm now variously referred to as the computer crash or ALT key experiment in which the experimenter accused participants typing on a desktop computer of causing the hard drive to crash by inadvertently pressing the ALT key he had explicitly instructed them to avoid. Despite their actual innocence and initial denials, participants were asked to sign a confession. The purpose of the study was to test the hypothesis that police lies about evidence can lead innocent people both to confess and to internalize a belief in their own guilt. In some sessions but not others, therefore, a confederate said she witnessed the participant hit the forbidden key. This false evidence manipulation nearly doubled the number of students who signed a written confession, from 48% to 94%. Many of those who signed also internalized the erroneous belief in their own culpability and confabulated false memories of how it happened Using a completely different paradigm, Nash and Wade (2009) then used digital editing software to fabricate video evidence of participants in a computerized gambling experiment "stealing" money from the "bank" during a losing round. Presented with this false evidence, all participants confessed—and most internalized the belief in their own guilt. Together, these studies serve as a basis for a critical analysis of police-induced false confessions—and, in particular, the coercive effects of the false evidence ploy, which American police are permitted to use A second potentially problematic police tactic concerns the use of minimization. Among suspects feeling trapped by the highly False Confessions 35 confrontational stages of interrogation, interrogators are trained to minimize the crime through "theme development"—a process of providing moral justification or face-saving excuses, making confession seem like an expedient means of escape. Interrogators may suggest to suspects that their actions were spontaneous, accidental, provoked, peer pressured, or otherwise justifiable by external factors. In a series of paper-and-pencil studies, Kassin and McNall (1991) had participants read transcripts of suspect interrogations. In each case, three versions were produced in which the detective: (1) made a conditional promise of leniency, (2) used minimization by blaming the victim, or (3) used neither technique. Participants read one version and estimated the sentence that they thought would be imposed on the suspect upon confession. The result: Minimization tactics led people to infer by pragmatic implication that leniency in sentencing will follow from confession—as if an explicit promise had been made. If people infer leniency from minimization remarks, it stands to reason that minimization would encourage false confessions from innocent suspects who feel trapped and unable to extricate themselves. Effects of actual innocence. On the basis of anecdotal evidence suggesting that innocent people think and behave differently from guilty suspects in an interrogation setting, Kassin (2005) proposed that innocence itself could be a risk factor for confession. Noting that innocent people believe that the truth will prevail, Kassin and Norwick (2004) found, in a mock crime experiment, that innocent suspects are more likely to waive their Miranda rights to silence and to counsel even when in the presence of an officer who appears guilt-presumptive, hostile, and closed-minded In the plea bargaining domain, experiments have shown that most participants who are accused of a transgression they did not commit—compared to those who are guilty—refuse to accept a plea offer, often to their own detriment, because they are confident of acquittal Innocence as a mental state can have nonintuitive effects on a suspect's response to various interrogation tactics. In a series of experiments, Perillo and Kassin (2011) examined the relatively benign bluff technique by which interrogators pretend to have evidence without further claiming that it implicates the suspect (e.g., stating that biological materials were collected and sent for testing). The theory underlying the bluff is simple: Fearing the evidence to be processed, perpetrators will succumb to pressure and confess; not fearing that alleged evidence, innocents would not succumb and confess. Yet in two experiments, Perillo and Kassin found that innocent participants were substantially more likely to confess to pressing a forbidden key, causing a computer to crash, when told that their keystrokes had been recorded for later review. Research has also shown that people do not adequately discount confession evidence even when the confessions are perceived to have been coerced by police (Kassin & Sukel, 1997); even when jurors are told that the defendant suffers from a mental illness or interrogationinduced stress (Henkel, 2008); even when the defendant is a juvenile (Redlich, Ghetti, & Quas, 2008; Redlich, Quas, & Ghetti, 2008); even when the confession was given not by the defendant but by a second-hand informant who was motivated to lie (Neuschatz, Lawson, Swanner, Meissner, & Neuschatz, 2008; Neuschatz et al., 2012); and even, at times, when the confession is contradicted by exculpatory DNA. As with lay juries, it appears that judges are so influenced by confession evidence that they do not discount it when it is coerced and hence they are legally required to do so. Surveys show that most people believe that they would never confess to a crime they did not commit—and that they evaluate others accordingly (Henkel, Coffman, & Dailey, 2008; Leo & Liu, 2009). Part of the problem is that people are ignorant of the interrogation tactics that are used by police and the dispositional and situational risk factors that would lead someone to make a false Just as confessions are trusted by judges and juries, often providing a sufficient basis for conviction, basic social cognition research suggests that confessions may also influence the way in which other evidence is interpreted—for example, by tainting the perceptions of eyewitnesses, forensic scientists, and others. To sum up, an emerging body of research has suggested that "forensic confirmation biases" are pervasive and has inspired the recommendation that all lay witnesses and forensic examiners, as a matter of practice, be blinded to case information concerning confessions and other contextual cues In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court described custodial police interrogation as "inherently coercive" and ruled that police must inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights to silence and to counsel. Only if suspects waive these rights "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently," said the Court, can the statements they produce be admitted into evidence. To sum up, it appears that Miranda warnings do not adequately protect the citizens who need it most— those accused of crimes they did not commit. Therefore, other safeguards are needed. I believe that the most important possible safeguard is to require the video recording of interrogations—the entire process, not just the confession. The second added safeguard concerns the use of expert testimony at trial. There is now an ample body of research—derived from basic principles of social psychology, recent research specifically focused on confessions, and case studies of wrongful convictions—to inform the courts on the dispositional and suspect factors that put innocent people at risk to confess as a function of interrogation (for a three-tiered framework for expert testimony, see Kassin, 2007a). A good deal of research has also shown that the laypeople do not intuitively understand false confessions and their risk factors as a matter of common knowledge.

perspective about the BAI by the scientific community

In general, the research suggests that liars are not more likely than truth tellers to looks away, shift their chair, cross their legs, or make grooming gestures. In fact, it suggests liars tend to decrease their movement, rather than increase (this is because liars are trying to remain impressionable) Truth tellers may engage in illusion of transparency (meaning when they engage in these non verbal behaviors, their innocence shines through)

five factor model

Investigative psychology focuses on 5 factors in order to develop a profile Interpersonal coherence: how do you interact with other individuals Significance of time and place: time and place is specifically chose. This provides further insight into an offender's actions. Typically people will commit crimes in places they are familiar with. Forensic awareness. What they do to not get caught (wear gloves) Criminal career: an offender will basically refine their offenses but there will still be similarities there. Also known as behavioral consistency. Criminal characteristics.

3 criticism of GKT

Issues with guilty examinees If people showed the knife on tv for example, the examinee might see that info and then have a reflex for it Police might show someone the knife during the course of the interrogation In japan, they control for leakage on the part of law enforcement during investigation by administering the polygraph before hand If post-interrogation administration of the polygraph, the polygrapher must ask law enforcement what they told or showed to the interviewee in the interrogation. Then they will modify their questions. Issues with innocent examinees If info is leaked to them, it is not uncommon for someone to have a reflex to what they're being presented with Might ask them, what do you know about the crime?

concerns of geographical profiling

Its statistically used. So, it may be difficult to identity offenders who commute to areas of killings. Belief is that at least 50 percent of offenders are commuters. Also an issue with linkage. But what if you have two people committing the same crimes. Positive linkage assumption Static base and typical routines assumption.

3 types of false confessions

Kassman and Riseman did research in the 80s on false confessions which included three different types of false confessions. First type: Voluntary confessions Occur when there is no prompting of LE (due to notoriety, self-punishment (they feel guilty for something else), aid/protect the real criminal, breakdown in reality monitoring) Second type: Coerced-compliant (this is the most common) Occurs due to escape aversive situation, avoid threat, gain a reward. Short term benefits outweigh long term costs. This gets problematic when the suspects are younger, people are claustrophobic, mentally ill. Third type: Coerced-internalized Begin to believe that they actually did it, confabulation of memories (you start to make memories about things that never happened), memory distrust syndrome. On screen: michael crow. Accused of murdering his 12yo sister stephanie. Stabbed nine times and died. Police took him to a youth shelter bc his actions didnt line up. Was then interrogated 6 hours in a row multiple times. Was told that her blood was found in his room and his parents believed he was guilty but they were lying. Michael over time became convinced he had split personality. LE told him he had "good michael" and "bad michael". Wanted them to remember what bad michael did. He then confessed. It didnt go to trial though so he wasnt convicted.

known lie questions on a polygraph

Known lie questions - have you ever taken anything, have you ever used an illegal substance before. The thought it, people who answer those truthfully, they're nervous because they don't want people with authority to know this.

legal system's criticism of psychology

Legal system's criticism of psychology. 1.) lack of ecological validity (aka generalizability) of psychological research, 2.) ignoring the date to make moral judgements (can be detrimental to the field...example would be a psychologist not speaking to a client/assessing them and then declaring them guilty only based on police reports, historical documentation) and 3.) intruding upon the legitimate activities of the legal system.

disadvantages of inductive profiling

Limited population samples, not specifically related to one case. Only based on known, apprehended offenders Generalization can lead to implicating innocent people Certainty issue "the offender usually" or "it would be typical to find"

geographical profiling

Mainly just focusing on location of crimes. Not motivations. Least effort principle: given two different options, people will choose an easier location to offend. People will pick easiest options. Distance decay. The farther it is away, the less likely it is someone will offend there. Buffer zone. Dont shit where you eat. Youre not going to commit crimes where you live because people will recognize you. Mental maps/schemata. People create their own mental maps of the area of killings. People need familiarity.

Generally what is BAI technique

One of the main non-verbal lie detection tools: facial microexpressions. People who have certain microexpressions in their face depict whether they're guilty. BAI is used pre-interrogation, but after Fact Analysis It's useful for actual suspects as well as helpful Three major question sets with BAI: non-accusatory, non-confrontational Initial questions - try to establish a baseline with these questions. See how the person responds to questions without them knowing they're under investigation. Investigative questions Behavior provoking questions

origins of criminal profiling 1940s

Profiling took a hault until about 1880s and picked up in 1940s OSS (now CIA), asked Dr Langer to conduct a profile of hitler. He then developed a dynamic profile of him. He said that hitler did it to gain attention of his mother. Also said that he had a sexual interest in human feces. He also predicted that hitler would commit suicide.

15 questions on the BAI

Purpose (ask if in non-custodial situation; if in custodial situation, suspect must already know why s/he's there) o What is your understanding of the purpose of this interview? History/You: state the issue under investigation (hx) and ask subj if were involved in crime (you) o Did you take the money? Knowledge: ask subj if knows who committed the crime o Do you know who took the money? Suspicion: inquire about possible suspicions the subj harbors toward others o Who do you suspect might have taken the money? Vouch: ask subj whom s/he could vouch for in order to assess subj's helpfulness and determine if subj's thoughts are more typical of guilty or innocent o Is there anyone other than yourself who you feel certain did not take the money? Credibility: evaluate whether or not the subj is realistic in assessment of crime o Do you think that someone did actually purposefully take the money? Opportunity: ask who subj believes would have had the best opportunity to commit the crime o Who would have had the best opportunity to have taken the money if they had wanted to? Attitude: ask how subj feels about being interviewed o How do you feel about being interviewed about the missing money? Think: ask subj if has ever thought about doing something similar to issue under investigation o Have you ever thought about doing something like taking the money from a wallet that is just lying around? .Motive: ask subj to speculate why the crime was committed o Why do you think someone did take the money? Punishment: ask subj about suitable punishment o What do you think should happen to the person who took the money? Second Chance: ask if guilty deserves a 2nd chance o Do you think there are any circumstances under which the person who took the money should be given a reprieve? Objection: ask subj why he would not commit the crime o Tell me what would stop you from form taking the money Results: ask subj to predict what the outcome of the investigation will be on him o Once we complete our investigation, what do you think the results will be in respect to your involvement in taking the money? Tell Loved Ones: ask to whom the subj has talked to about the crime o Who did you tell about the interview with me today?

investigative analysis approach used by the FBI

Ressler et al. (1988) have outlined the stages of generating a criminal profile used by the FBI. Stage one, profiling inputs, is about gathering and studying all the information that is relevant to solving the crime. Any information that deals with possible suspects should not be examined or included; as such information may unconsciously prejudice the profile and distort the impartiality and objectivity of the profile. Stage two is the decision process models in which all the profiling inputs are organised and arranged into significant patterns. It is during this stage that aspects of the type of homicide (e.g., single, double, triple, mass, spree, serial), the primary objective of the offender (e.g., whether homicide was primary or secondary motivation), the victim risk level (e.g., victim age, life style), and the risk of apprehension for the offender are being evaluated. The levels of escalation, the amount of time for the committing of the crime and location factors are also assessed during this stage. Stage three, crime assessment, involves the profiler reconstructing the sequences of events of the crime to establish just how certain things happened, how the people involved interacted with each other and to determine which category the crime fits into, organised vs. disorganised. The offender's motivation is considered at this stage and combined with the overall assessment of the crime scene. The fourth stage is the generation of the criminal profile. The background information, physical characteristics, habits, beliefs and values, preoffending behaviour will be included and commented on based on the crime scene information provided. It is at this stage that investigative recommendations might also be made. The fifth stage in profile generation is the application of the profile to the investigation. The criminal profile is written into a report, provided to the agency and added into the investigation. The profiler will re-evaluate the profile if or when new information becomes available. In the sixth and final stage, apprehension, the profile is evaluated for its accuracy and success at identifying the suspect.

Generally, is criminal profiling effective?

So, is offender profiling effective? This is an important question when one considers the faith put in profiles, and the status offender profiling can be given in forensic investigations . While, some of the preceding studies may have limited results, they show there is the possibility of inferring some offender characteristics from crime scene behaviour and providing (albeit limited) support to the underlying assumptions of offender 378 Shannon Vettor, Jessica Woodhams and Anthony R. Beech profiling. The area of offender profiling generates a lot of interest in both the academic field and the everyday world as a result of a few highly prolific cases (e.g., Jack the Ripper, Boston strangler). Historically profiling has been based on ‗intuition' and experience, but as the field of offender profiling has matured the need to be more scientific in approach has led to the development of models/typologies of offender behaviour based around the findings of empirical studies. Different approaches have attempted to define, and operationalize offender profiling based on the individual principles inherent in the approach. The Criminal Investigative approach initially relied heavily on intuition and experience of the FBI agents and who researchers who started publishing in the area of profiling. Although, the development of large databases and systems containing information on serial and violent crime/criminals, such as the FBI's Violent Criminal Apprehension Program and the Violent Crime Linkage System (ViCLAS) in Canada has allowed for the utilisation of a lot of information and data, and the drawing upon of many of the same theories and models that many in the academic field and other areas of investigative psychology use. The Clinical approach developed a model of offender profiling centered on the concept of motives. While, the Statistical approach aimed to provide a testable psychological and scientific framework for inferring characteristics. None of the approaches alone explain the complexities of offending. The FBI/Pragmatic approaches bring with them a multitude of investigative experience; the Clinical an abundance of medical and intimate client-based knowledge; while the Statistical approach provides a means in which to more objectively measure and examine offending behaviour. Without the experience, knowledge, and information that is engrained and gathered in the first two approaches, the ability to know which variables to look for or code for would be lost. While the latter statistical approach, allows for the removal of the individual, the individual opinions and biases, and for an objective examination of the patterns and findings. Therefore, the way forward should seek to integrate all of the approaches. Together the approaches strengthen each other and give weight and support to each other and more importantly, offender profiling as a whole.

READING Dangerous Minds - Gladwell

Talked about how the FBI profiles criminals when they're trying to catch them but they basically guess and arent always right. A lot isnt based in facts and is guesses. they came up with the organized vs disorganized killer. they heavily look at crime scenes.

READING Employing polygraph assessment - Icano and Patrick

The polygraph instrument is not capable of detecting lies, and no pattern of physiological response is unique to lying. Consequently, all polygraph techniques involve asking different types of questions, with differential responding to those pertinent to the issue at hand determining outcome. The techniques, all of which have multiple variants, fall into two categories involving either specific incident or personnel screening applications. SPECIFIC INCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS There are three types of specific incident polygraph tests. These procedures are applied when polygraph examiners are aware that an event has occurred but are uncertain what role the examinee played in the incident. Control (Comparison) Question Technique. The typical CQT has three parts: (1) a pretest interview (lasting between 30 minutes and 2 hours) during which the question list is formulated, (2) the presentation of the question list (usually repeated three times with the question order varied for each of the three "charts") while physiological responses are recorded, and (3) a posttest interrogation. Directed Lie Technique. The directed lie technique (DLT) is considered a subtype of the CQT. The chief difference lies in the nature of the control questions. For a DLT, the "probable lie" control questions of the CQT are replaced with "directed lie" questions. Directed lies are statements that the subject admits involve a lie before the test begins. As with the CQT, guilty subjects are expected to respond more strongly to the relevant questions, and innocent subjects should react more strongly to the directed lies Guilty Knowledge or Concealed Information Test. An alternative to the CQT for specific incident investigations is the guilty knowledge test (GKT; Lykken, 1959, 1960), sometimes referred to as a concealed information or knowledge test. Rather than asking directly whether the examinee was responsible for the crime under investigation, the GKT probes for knowledge indicative of guilt—details regarding a crime or incident that only the person who did it would know about. The first study of the GKT (Lykken, 1959) and most others conducted since have utilized peripheral response measures, most commonly skin resistance or skin conductance, as indices of stimulus orienting. More recently, brain potentials recorded from the electroencephalogram have been utilized to detect deception within a GKT format. PERSONNEL SCREENING Modern screening tests differ from specific incident tests in that it is not known whether any particular transgression has taken place. Consequently, the relevant questions typically cover extended periods of time and many topics, leaving ambiguous what form an adequate "control" question should have Relevant/Irrelevant Technique. In the original RIT, relevant questions (like those used on the CQT) were each preceded and followed by an irrelevant question (e.g., "Is your name Ralph?" or "Is today Tuesday?"). Consistently greater reactions to the relevant items of the test were interpreted as evidence of deceptiveness For purposes of employment screening, polygraph examiners now commonly use a variant of the RIT procedure that might more appropriately be called the relevant/relevant technique, because interpretation of test outcome depends on the pattern of responses across all of the relevant questions. National security organizations use both periodic and aperiodic screening tests. Periodic screening tests are conducted at regular intervals to determine whether existing employees have been honest in their work and remain loyal to the agency. Aperiodic screenings are conducted less frequently and with minimal advance warning. Besides being more economical, this practice is thought to produce a more powerful deterrent to malfeasance. The knowledge that they may be asked to submit to a polygraph test at any time is believed to dissuade existing employees from engaging in misconduct. In effect, the polygraph establishes a climate of fear in which employees presumably are less inclined to be dishonest because they fear detection We also found that original examiner opinions were likely to be more accurate than their numerical scores, indicating that examiners improved their accuracy when they relied on case facts and other extraneous information. Although one may be tempted to use such data to argue that blind chart scoring underestimates the accuracy of polygraph verdicts (e.g., see Honts, Raskin, & Kircher, 2002), the probative value of the CQT derives from the possibility that the psychophysiological measurements provide a scientifically valid method for detecting liars Field studies, like our study with the RCMP just discussed, involve real-life cases and circumstances. The subjects are actual criminal suspects. Laboratory studies require naive volunteers to simulate criminal behavior by enacting a mock crime. The latter approach provides unambiguous criteria for establishing ground truth but cannot be used to establish the real-life error rate, because the motivational and emotional concerns of the suspects are too dissimilar from those involved in real-life examinations. Although the GKT is used in Israel and exclusively in Japan, there are two reasons why it is seldom used in real-life investigations in North America. First, there is a prevailing belief among field examiners that the CQT is virtually infallible (Patrick & Iacono, 1991b). Thus, there is no need to develop an alternative procedure, especially one that is more complicated to administer than the CQT. Second, to construct a valid GKT, there must be salient details of the crime known only to the perpetrator. Not all crimes meet this criterion, in part because often pertinent facts are generally known. Ironically, the one procedure they seldom use, the GKT, has high potential validity. Thermal imaging has also been used to detect deception by employing a high-speed motion picture camera sensitive to rapid changes in facial regional blood flow. For example, in a mock crime study by Pavlidis, Eberhardt, and Levine (2002), 6 of 8 guilty and 11 of 12 innocent subjects were correctly identified based on an undescribed "thermal signature," apparently involving changes in blood flow around the eyes, in relation to an incident involving theft of $20. Polygraph tests often find their way into criminal court through one of two routes. One involves the stipulated test in which polygraph examinations are administered with the prior agreement of prosecutor and defense attorney. Often the prosecution will agree to a stipulated test when the case against the defendant is weak. In these circumstances, if the suspect passes the test, the charges are dismissed. If the suspect fails the test, the prosecution reserves the right to submit the polygraph findings to the court. About half of U.S. states endorse the use of stipulated tests, but Canadian courts refuse them. Another way that polygraph results may enter a courtroom is over the objection of the prosecution in cases where it is argued that polygraph results constitute valid scientific evidence. in Frye v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court established the rules for determining the admissibility of testimony based on novel scientific techniques in federal proceedings. In this case, James Frye was denied the opportunity to have considered as evidence the results of a polygraph test administered by psychologist William Marston, the "father" of modern polygraphy. A Despite this scientific skepticism, the use of polygraph tests continues unabated, presumably reflecting beliefs among law enforcement and national security policy makers that their utility benefits outweigh concerns regarding costs associated with their misuse. There appears to be little dispute about the utility of polygraph testing, although only anecdotal, not scientific evidence, exists to support this contention (NRC, 2003). Nevertheless, many criminal suspects confess following failed tests, providing a means to resolve criminal investigations that otherwise would go unprosecuted.

quality of data in offender profiling critique

The quality of data used in profiling research is often limited by what is available, how it can be coded and how rich and/or robust they are. Many studies have limited sample sizes due to the nature of the data collection. Much of the research in this area is conducted by academics that collaborate with law enforcement agencies. With the sharing of data between law enforcement and academia there are many data protection issues which must be addressed. Even after access has been granted, the quality of the data still must be taken into consideration. These data can only be as good as what is available to the officers at the time of the investigation. What is collected is often inaccurate and not in a form that is conducive for empirical research (Mokros & Alison, 2002). The data from law enforcement agencies may vary as a result of disparities in collection protocols across different agencies (e.g., no systematic guidelines for information collection; time constraints), thus lowering internal validity. The evidence is collected for the purpose of a police investigation, not for research purposes, and often with little contextual grounding. Equally, the main advantage in using evidence collected during an investigation is that it represents naturally occurring behaviours exhibited by an actual offender; not a controlled subject in a controlled laboratory (Alison et al., 2001). At present, the effective utilisation of the data requires careful consideration of the biases potentially inherent, and any conclusions drawn from research must keep these limitations in mind when making generalisations

what is Statistical Approach to Offender Profiling and its critiques

The statistical approach, which asserts to be grounded in scientific methodology, is based on the multivariate analysis of the behavioural and other crime scene information to infer the characteristics, and psychological process, of unknown offenders (Ainsworth, 2001). The predictions are derived from the analysis of the characteristics and crime scene information of offenders who have previously committed crimes and who have been apprehended, and applying these results to those unknown offenders being investigated. critiques: Copson et al. (1997) make the point that statistics alone do not predict the future, and extrapolation from them does not support the notion that the past will be identical to the future, nor do they inherently support the underlying assumption that similar people will do things, such as committing crime, in similar ways. The use of statistics does not guarantee the inferences drawn will be valid or reliable, as these are assuming the data, itself, are consisting of relevant and significant components, and that the statistics applied are appropriate

READING Offender Profiling - Vetter woodham and Beech

There are two assumptions that must be met if inferences about an offender's characteristics are to be derived from crime scene actions. The first is the Behavioural Consistency assumption, which implies that an offender will show similar behaviours across their offences (Canter, 1995a; Green, Booth, & Biderman, 1976). The second is the Homology assumption, which states that if two perpetrators exhibit similar crime scene behaviour, they will also possess similar characteristics While studies have shown that offenders (of various types) exhibit behavioural consistency across crimes (e.g., Bennell & Jones, 2005; Grubin et al., 2001; Woodhams et al., 2007), there has been little conclusive support for the assumption of homology. Alison argue that the homology assumption, as a simple behaviour-to-characteristics model, fails because it is too simplistic and neglects the moderating influence of a third factor; namely, the situation. In support of this assumption, Goodwill and Alison (2007) have shown that the incorporation of context (e.g., the level of planning or aggression used) allows for the prediction of rapists' characteristics (i.e., such as age) from their crime scene information (i.e., victim age). The lack of substantial support for the assumption of homology, and the imperfect support found for behavioural consistency is evidence of this - there are other influencing factors not being considered or included in this relationship. A better definition of offender profiling might be ―the application of psychological theory and behavioural evidence analysis to the investigation and reconstruction of physical evidence that relates to a particular offender's crime scene characteristics, victimology, motivation and behaviour patterns‖ (Gee & Belofastov, 2007; p. 62). However, even this definition leaves out key aspects of information that many profiles overlook - offender perception and offence context. The influence of such factors is recognised in models of personality (e.g., Mischel and Shoda's [1995] CAPS model) Allport (1961) acknowledged that our personality dispositions are never completely consistent, but also empathised that we do exhibit relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviour Although, if the situation in which the offender's crimes are committed are similar, and have the same or similar psychological meaning for them, it would follow that behavioural consistency in this circumstance would be expected (Mischel & Shoda, 1995; Shoda et al., 1994). Even when the same discernible behaviour is observed there can be several different reasons for why and how this behaviour was brought about - similar acts can occur for different reasons, and different acts can happen to serve similar purposes In an attempt to integrate the approaches to personality theory, and understand the stable intra-individual patterns of variability inherent in an individual's behaviour across situations more dynamic conceptualisations of trait theory have been developed. One such model is Mischel and Shoda (1995; 1998) cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS)1 . CAPS places the conception of personality within the social world in order to contextualise the individual and allow the examination of the reciprocal interaction between personenvironment CAPS theory assumes that people differ in the ease with which cognitive and affective mental representations or units, CAUs, become active, but also that individual differences reflect the accessibility of CAUs as well as the distinctive organisation of relationships among them (this is the stable structure of the personality system) (Mischel & Shoda, 2008). The CAUs are comprised of constructs, expectations, and beliefs of how the person sees themselves, people and events around them, and the situations they encounter. They encompass the affects, the feelings, emotions and affective responses, as well as, the desired outcomes and goals of the individual. The potential behaviours and the if...then scripts and strategies for attaining outcomes, and one's own behaviour and internal states are also a part of the CAUs The CAPS theory postulates that the meanings of situations will vary and have different impacts between people, as well as within an individual, and on different occasions (Eaton, South, & Krueger, 2009). This means that different situations will activate different CAUs; producing an if.....then behavioural contingency. Therefore, when the situations (the ifs) change, so will the thens (Mischel & Shoda, 2008). CAPS theory highlights three points: 1) personality systems are understood in terms of their cognitive-affective units, as well as, the coherent organisation of those units; 2) this system functions and interacts with the social environment. Lastly, 3) people will behave in variable and distinctive manners which characterise that individual (Cervone, 2005). The CAPS model is one paradigm for theoretically testing and supporting the assumptions of offender profiling as it allows for both behavioural consistency within the individual, even cross-situationally. In addition, it provides logical underpinning for the hypotheses of behavioural distinctiveness and similarities across crime types and between offenders. Dowden et al.'s review shows there's been an advancement of academic peer-reviewed offender profiling research (both in volume and statistical sophistication). Even with the advancements in the offender profiling research, there is still a need for further empirical testing of the assumptions underpinning profiling (Snook et al., 2007). The various approaches to profiling are commonly grouped into three schools of thought: a criminal investigative approach, a clinical practitioner approach, and a scientific statistical approach (Alison et al., 2010; Muller, 2000). For the current chapter, the criminal investigative approach will be further partitioned into the pragmatic and theory-led approaches. The emphasis of this chapter will be on these four approaches of offender profiling as their explicit aim and focus is on predicting personal characteristics, not always the case with other forms of behavioural investigative advice (e.g., linkage analysis; geographical profiling; equivocal death analysis), and will centre around sexual aggressors of adult women Holmes and Holmes' typology outlined five classifications of serial murderers, developed through the examination of 110 known serial murderers, through court transcripts, interview data, case studies, clinical reports and biographical accounts. The five types in their classification were: 1) the Visionary killer, 2) the Mission killer, 3) the Hedonistic-Thrill killer, 4) the Hedonistic-Lust killer, and 5) the Power/Control Oriented killer. Based on the examination of clinical and criminal files, standardised tests, clinical interviews, and selfreport measures, The MTC: R3 includes four typologies: the opportunistic offender (low/high social competence) whose offences are impulsive and unplanned predatory acts, with immediate sexual gratification as the motivating factor; the pervasively angry offender, who Offender Profiling 363 is motivated by anger and hatred, and will use violence regardless of victim resistance; and the vindictive offender (low/high social competence) motivated by power, control, and hatred, who is likely to physically harm, humiliate, and degrade his/her victims. The sexual offenders are subdivided into non-sadistic (low/high social competence) and the sadistic (fantasy/nonfantasy), both are preoccupied with sex and aggression, as well as physical inadequacy Ressler et al. (1988) have outlined the stages of generating a criminal profile used by the FBI. Stage one, profiling inputs, is about gathering and studying all the information that is relevant to solving the crime (e.g., crime scene information, victimology, forensic information, police reports, photos). Any information that deals with possible suspects should not be examined or included; as such information may unconsciously prejudice the profile and distort the impartiality and objectivity of the profile. Stage two is the decision process models in which all the profiling inputs are organised and arranged into significant patterns. It is during this stage that aspects of the type of homicide (e.g., single, double, triple, mass, spree, serial), the primary objective of the offender (e.g., whether homicide was primary or secondary motivation), the victim risk level (e.g., victim age, life style), and the risk of apprehension for the offender are being evaluated. The levels of escalation, the amount of time for the committing of the crime and location factors are also assessed during this stage. Stage three, crime assessment, involves the profiler reconstructing the sequences of events of the crime to establish just how certain things happened, how the people involved interacted with each other and to determine which category the crime fits into, organised vs. disorganised. The offender's motivation is considered at this stage and combined with the overall assessment of the crime scene. The fourth stage is the generation of the criminal profile. The background information, physical characteristics, habits, beliefs and values, preoffending behaviour will be included and commented on based on the crime scene information provided. It is at this stage that investigative recommendations might also be made. The fifth stage in profile generation is the application of the profile to the investigation. The criminal profile is written into a report, provided to the agency and added into the investigation. The profiler will re-evaluate the profile if or when new information becomes available. In the sixth and final stage, apprehension, the profile is evaluated for its accuracy and success at identifying the suspect. Groth, Burgess, and Holmstrom (1977) and Groth and Birnbaum (1979) also argue that power and anger are primary non-sexual motivations for rape. Critique of the Theory-Led Approach While the above approaches highlight possible motivations for sexual offending, such as power, anger and sadistic pleasure, attributed from the crime scene analysis, the classification lacks empirical support and evidence. To be able to infer statistical associations there needs to be in place a system of analysis and measurement. This is where the classifications within this approach fall down - they provide descriptions of abstract concepts (e.g., anger; power), but do not provide a concrete way of measuring them (Cheshire, 2004). In an attempt to set out a more systematic approach to profiling, in collaboration, Copson, Badcock, Boon and Britton (1997) compared their individual methodology and produced a ―series of steps and set[s] of features, principles and dangers which...other clinical profilers might care to subscribe to‖ (p. 14). What developed out of this meeting was a 10-step procedural model (see Table 1.2), with the centrepiece of the model being the inference of motive, which is seen as the key to understanding the offender. The inferred motive ―allows the importation of factors from relevant literature as starting points for the development of suggested offender characteristics‖ (p. 15). The principles of clinical profiling as described by Copson et al. (1997, p. 16) instruct that ―each piece of advice should be: (1) Custom made: the advice should not rely on the recycling of some kind of generic violent anti-social criminal stereotype; (2) Interactive: at a range of levels of sophistication, depending on the officers' understanding of the psychological concepts at issue; and (3) Reflexive: the advice should be dynamic, in so far as every element has a knock-on effect on every other element, and evolving, in that new information must lead to reconsideration not only of the element(s) of advice directly affected but of the construct as a whole.‖ (p. 16). In the same manner that the pragmatic approach relies on practical experience, knowledge, and intuition, so too does the clinical approach. This approach is primarily based Offender Profiling 371 on the individual clinician's experience and knowledge gained through working with individual clients, and the application of this to drawing conclusions or inferences from crime scene information The statistical approach, which asserts to be grounded in scientific methodology, is based on the multivariate analysis of the behavioural and other crime scene information to infer the characteristics, and psychological process, of unknown offenders (Ainsworth, 2001). T Each of the approaches to offender profiling has its inherent strengths and weaknesses, which have been outlined above. That said there are more general critiques of offender profiling that are consistent across the different approaches. Two of the main areas of critical Offender Profiling 375 evaluation are the pragmatic use and validity of profiles, and the quality of data used in profile development. There are a number of general drawbacks within offender profiling research as a whole. Two important concepts that need to be considered are 1) the validity of the profile, the accuracy of predicting the characteristics of unknown offenders, and 2) the utility of the information contained within the profile, whether it can be used pragmatically by investigators One such change has been the replacing of the term ‗Offender Profiler' with ‗Behavioural Investigative Advise(r)' (BIA) - an indication of the Offender Profiling 377 evolution and recognition of the range of input and contributions psychologists might provide during criminal investigations (Rainbow, 2008). BIAs can provide not only profiling advice, but investigative support and recommendations which are grounded in behavioural sciences, investigative knowledge, and in theory. They are a professional group of individuals with vast experience of serious crime and the knowledge to integrate their behavioural advice into an investigation

READING - Offender Profiling - two major assumptions

There are two assumptions that must be met if inferences about an offender's characteristics are to be derived from crime scene actions. The first is the Behavioural Consistency assumption, which implies that an offender will show similar behaviours across their offences . The second is the Homology assumption, which states that if two perpetrators exhibit similar crime scene behaviour, they will also possess similar characteristics. With regards to behavioural consistency, the body of supporting research comes from the area of case linkage, comparative case analysis, or linkage analysis . These different terms refer to a form of behavioural analysis based on the behavioural similarity and distinctiveness of the offence. It is used to identify a series of crimes committed by the same offender, often when there is a lack of physical evidence (e.g., DNA) to identify the offender Research from this area supports the assumption that some offenders behave consistently within crime types, including sexual assault, homicide , burglary , robbery , and arson). Common features exist between linkage analysis and offender profiling, and some consider linkage analysis to be another type of offender profiling. The main similarity is that both share the underlying assumption of offender behavioural consistency; the hypothesis that offenders will display in their behaviour consistency across a series of offences. - The concept of homology was borrowed and adapted from comparative biology. Its adapted use in offender profiling lies in the concept of similarity between crime scene actions (loosely analogous to structure) and the characteristics that give rise to the actions (loosely analogous to ancestry). the homologous behaviours exhibited in a crime can be linked back to a similar characteristic possessed across different offenders. While studies have shown that offenders (of various types) exhibit behavioural consistency across crimes, there has been little conclusive support for the assumption of homology - The assumption of behavioural consistency is not dependent upon the assumption of homology being met or of it being valid; as consistent behaviour across actions does not necessitate the sameness or similarity of characteristics across offenders (Alison et al., 2002). That said behavioural consistency is necessary for offender profiling to work. Put differently, the offender's actions have to remain consistent for similarities to be found between their personal characteristics and behaviour (Mokros & Alison, 2002). However, the assumption of behavioural consistency would be valid if the assumption of homology is found to be valid, due to the implication that similar characteristics imply a consistency of behaviours across actions

1 Criticisms/Limitations of the GKT

There is lack of applicability in certain situations (main criticism). Situations where it cannot be used: If examinee is not claiming lack of knowledge (in the case of a sexual assault (he said/she said crimes)). Some people may state that they were at the crime scene but they say they're a witness, not because they committed a crime. If examiner knows few facts about the case. If this is the case, they have less questions they can ask, and thus less information is gathered. When there's no specific event (when you need it for work..then they'll ask about numerous things, looking to see if youre a moral person which is not a specific event)

Research on the BAI in the field

They showed real videotaped suspects Real law enforcement officers Asked to judge veracity of statements (see slide) They found a negative relationship between the officers reporting to BAI queues and accuracy in the lie detector tests

what is Clinical Approach to Offender Profiling and its critiques

This approach to profiling is heavily reliant on clinical judgment, training, knowledge, experience, and/or intuition, with the methods used varying according to the individual practitioner (Alison et al., 2010). The primary focus is on the specific details of each particular case. Profilers of this approach see each case as unique and believe they should be treated as such (Boon, 1997). As a result, this individualistic clinical approach leaves very few models to assess its scientific merit. In the first step, the profiler considers the crime in its entirety, looking for the underlying psychodynamic processes. In the second step, the crime scene is assessed for any signs of a neurological or brain disorder. Thirdly, the profiler is required to analyse the crime scene in terms of the separationindividuation phase of the offender. Lastly, in an attempt to construct and compose a profile of the unknown offender, the demographic characteristics of the offender and victim are analysed. - critiques: In the same manner that the pragmatic approach relies on practical experience, knowledge, and intuition, so too does the clinical approach. This approach is primarily based Offender Profiling 371 on the individual clinician's experience and knowledge gained through working with individual clients, and the application of this to drawing conclusions or inferences from crime scene information. and to some extent Turco (1990), provide the building blocks of providing investigative advice, yet they fail to explicitly provide guidance on how one would actually produce a profile

3 channels of communication

Verbal (word choice, what is actually said) With guilty ppl according to reid: they will display frequent naivety, non committal, unrealistic or vague With innocent ppl according to reid: they are more direct, unambiguous, more emphatic, and realistic Nonverbal (what is not said, movement) With guilty ppl: they will be more inclined to display nervous behaviors (play with your hair, lean to the side in your hair, pick at lint on clothes, cross your arms: all known as grooming behaviors) With innocent ppl: they Paralinguistic (how people say things) Response duration Response latency Rate of speech Pitch (innocent people have higher pitch)

signature

a way someone leaves their mark. Something u dont have to do to commit the crime. If its present, it gives you more of an idea of who the person potentially is. Cutting off specific pieces of bodies, posing someone in a certain way. Unique characteristics that give you insight into who the person is. Rituals are a big part of this.

micro level Recommendations to reform false confessions

address specific risk factors Interrogation time Most are brief (30 min - 2 hours). False confession average time is 16 hours, 8x longer than what it should normally be. Prolonged isolation - incentive to remove self from the situation Sleep deprivation Recommendation: limit interrogation to no more than 4 hours. Let the person take a bathroom break and give them food and drink break. Presentation of false evidence Effect of misinformation Trapped by the weight of the evidence. People revealed that they confessed because they thought the evidence was too overwhelming. Recommendation: ban false evidence as an entirety, or at least ban it among certain population. Reid agrees with this recommendation. Minimization tactics (theme development) Spontaneous, accidental, provoked, peer pressured, drug-induced Processing of information "between the lines" Recommendation: outright ban, or only allow moral minimizations (like, youre still a good person because you did it, this does not define you) of psychological minimizations (like, you'll feel better if you just confess). Recommendation is to avoid legal minimation (like, it was spontaneous or an accident) Protection of vulnerable suspect populations Juveniles, people with mental disabilities or illnesses. They dont understand legal terms as well. Juveniles represent a large majority of those who provide false confessions They may have factual but not rational understanding Submission bias Faulty reality monitoring, distorted perceptions, impaired judgements, anxiety Depressed: more likely to confess because they have low threshold for stress Co-occuring disorders: like having substance use, recommendations : false evidence ply Mandatory presence of an attorney, not a guardian, bc attorneys know your rights Investigator training on the risks to these populations In defense of reid: Treat suspects with dignity and respect Honor suspects rights Afford the suspect an opportunity to satisfy their physical needs Do not engage in any coercive behavior such as threatening the suspect or making promises of leniency

frye test

came about because of frye v united states 1923. Asked if a psychologist named william marsdon can come in and testify for the systolic blood pressure deception test (precursor to the polygraph test). Courts said no because they weren't aware of it. Frye test also known as general acceptance test.

Reid - deception grooming gestures

cosmetic adjustments, rubbing hands, rearrange jewelry, stroking head

reid - general interview techniques

develop cooperation with the person being questioned, phrase the question so it does not suggest an answer, separate witnesses from another, environment should be free of distractions

2 Criticisms/Limitations of the GKT

difficulty in formulating proper GKT questions Guilty examinees need to recognize it. They need to possess the guilty knowledge May not recognize because they were under the influence of drugs. Also if they didnt see it, their brains wouldn't have processed it and they won't recognize it, forgetting stuff due to it being a long time ago, if they're a serial offender they may get their crimes mixed up Strength of orienting reflex. The stronger recognition to u, the stronger reflex. What examiners in japan do to help mediate this issue (try to get people to most strongly recognize the thing): they refer to information that law enforcement is going to give them about the crime (police reports, case files) as well as go to the crime scene, talk to witnesses/victims if they're alive Innocent examinees need to not have an orienting reflex Selection of appropriate fillers Need to have the guilty individual be able to discern between things. If you have pictures of knives, make sure there is enough variation in the way they look so the guilty individual can have a reflex

READING History of forensic and legal psychology - bartol

forensic psychology is being viewed broadly. It is both (1) the research endeavor that examines aspects of human behavior directly related to the legal process (e.g., eyewitness memory and testimony, jury decision making, and criminal behavior) and (2) the professional practice of psychology within or in consultation with a legal system that encompasses both criminal and civil law and the numerous areas where they intersect. Therefore, the term forensic psychology refers broadly to the production of psychological knowledge and its application to the civil and criminal justice systems. It includes activities as varied as these: courtroom testimony, child custody evaluations, law enforcement candidate screening, treatment of offenders in correctional facilities, assessment of plaintiffs with disability claims, research and theory building in the area of criminal behavior, and the design and implementation of intervention and prevention programs for youthful offenders. Legal psychology refers to psychological theory, research, and practice directly pertinent to the law and legal issues. It focuses on psycholegal research and contacts with judges, lawyers, and other law-related professionals in a wide range of contexts. Talked about how when people recount stories for testimonies theyre often inaccurate even when the person thinks they are telling the truth "Subjective sincerity does not guarantee objective truthfulness," In his research, Stern concluded among other things that: (1) leading and suggestive questions contaminate the accuracy of eyewitness accounts of critical events; (2) there are important differences between adult and child witnesses; (3) lineups are of limited value when the members are not matched for age and physical appearance; and (4) interceding events between an initial event and its recall can have drastic effects on memory. Therefore, modern forensic psychology began as legal psychology with empirical research on the psychology of testimony Hale (1980) suggests that the earliest testimony by a psychologist in a criminal court occurred in 1896, when Albert von Schrenck-Notzing testified at the trial of a Munich man accused of murdering three women. In contrast, both Binet (1900) and Stern (1939) believed that errors in recollection, whether by children or adults, were more a reflection of leading, suggestive courtroom questioning than of any "natural" tendency to distort reality. One of Wundt's not-so-cautious students was the German psychologist Hugo Munsterberg, who arrived in the United States in 1892 at the invitation of William ¨ James to direct the psychology laboratory at Harvard University. Munsterberg ¨ spent 24 years trying to persuade the public that psychology had something to offer virtually every area of human endeavor. As a laboratory assistant in psychology at Radcliffe College, Marston (1917) had discovered a significant positive correlation between systolic blood pressure and lying, which became the basis of the modern polygraph. In fact, Marston was the psychologist who testified in the landmark case Frye v. U.S. (1923), the case that set the original standard for the acceptance of expert testimony in federal courts. Marston also conducted the first serious research on the jury system (Winick, 1961). Using subjects in simulated jury conditions, he found in a series of studies (Marston, 1924) that written evidence was superior to oral evidence; free narration, though less complete, was more accurate than cross-examination or direct questioning; a witness's caution in answering was a good indicator of accuracy; and female jurors considered evidence more carefully than male jurors (compare with Munsterberg's conclusions about female jurors, mentioned earlier). . In 1954, the Council of the American Psychiatric Association, the Executive Council of the American Psychoanalytical Association, and the American Medical Association joined in a resolution stating that only physicians were legitimate experts in the field of mental illness for purposes of courtroom testimony. Other individuals could participate only if their testimony was coordinated by medical authority. The resolution greatly influenced trial courts (Miller, Lower, & Bleechmore, 1978), which became reluctant to accept independent psychological testimony. Overall people werent accepting that psychologists with a lot of credentials could be used as credible people in court rooms Finally, in Jenkins v. United States (1962), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave its own direct, although conditional, support to the use of psychologists as experts on the issue of mental illness. Although the court was sharply divided, its decision remains the predominant authority for the use of psychologists in the area of criminal responsibility. Following that opinion, federal courts and increasingly more state courts certified psychologists as expert witnesses in both criminal and civil cases In 1909, clinical psychologist Grace M. Fernald worked with psychiatrist William Healy to establish the first clinic designed for youthful offenders, the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute. It was initially developed to serve the newly established Juvenile Court of Chicago by offering diagnoses of "problem" children. The institute, which extended its services rapidly to include treatment and research as well as diagnosis, became a public agency in 1914, the Institute for Juvenile Research. Arguably, it also provided the earliest formal internships in forensic psychology in the country (Resnick, 1997). During the first third of the 20th century, most psychologists providing regular services to the courts were psychometrists associated with clinics. The term forensic psychology had not been minted, and legal psychologists were in the halls of academe or consulting sporadically with judges and lawyers. Thus, it seems that much of the forensic work of psychologists during this period consisted of cognitive and personality assessments of individuals, both juveniles and adults, who were to come before the courts New Jersey also became the first state to hire a full-time correctional psychologist. The first state in the United States to provide comprehensive psychological examinations of all admissions to its prison system and applications for parole was Wisconsin, in 1924 (Bodemar, 1956). He estimated that during the 1940s, there were approximately 200,000 individuals confined in U.S. correctional facilities who were served by a mere 80 psychologists. Their work consisted of (1) testing (personality, aptitude, and academic progress); (2) providing educational, vocational, and personal guidance (usually at the inmate's request); and (3) maintaining working relationships with all members of the prison staff (see Box 1.2). Best known, however, was the system proposed by Edwin Megargee and based on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Megargee (1977), using his research on overcontrolled and undercontrolled personalities as a springboard, identified 10 "inmate types." Prison officials then made use of these groupings to assign inmates to custody levels, job assignments, and rehabilitation programs. Megargee's system is still in use in some prison system psychologists who consult with police in numerous capacities (e.g., investigation, candidate screening, hostage-taking incidents, interviewing strategies) are connected with the legal system - police psychology In the United States, in keeping with the psychometric movement of the early 20th century, contributions centered around assessment, particularly cognitive assessment administered to candidates for law enforcement positions. Four discernible but overlapping historical trends in American police psychology can be identified: (1) cognitive and aptitude screening, (2) personality assessment and the search for the "police personality," (3) stress management and other clinical services, and (4) fairness in screening and selection In the early years of the 20th century, psychologists began to offer psychological perspectives on criminal behavior and to speculate about the causes of crime. Like the police psychology discussed earlier, criminal psychology typically is not considered in the narrow definitions of forensic psychology, primarily because it appears more theoretical than clinical in nature. However, in its youth, criminal psychology was essentially clinical in nature, as the theories often centered on the measurable mental capacities of offenders. Furthermore, forensic psychology devoid of a theoretical base—such as that provided by criminal psychology—is difficult to justify and support. British psychologist Hans J. Eysenck, in Crime and Personality (1964), formulated the first comprehensive theoretical statement on criminal behavior advanced by a psychologist. Eysenck's theory focused on the personality characteristics of extraversion and introversion, which he believed could be attributed to both a biological predisposition to seek (extravert) or avoid (introvert) sensation and the learning experiences obtained in one's social environment. All indicators suggest that forensic psychology has an extremely promising future as we continue into the 21st century

reid - deception protective gestures

hand over mouth or eyes, arms crossed, hands under or between legs

a criminal's MO

how they commit the crime. What type of gun did they use, stabbing, type of weapons.

READING Validity of polygraph techniques

look into CQT

1990 study by pinnizzotto and finkel

look into this - has to deal with criminal profiling

what is staging

making a crime scene look like something it isnt. If someone commits a murder they'll make it look like a burglary even though their main motive was to kill someone.

Kuhmo Tire Co vc Charmicheal 1999

one asked if an engineer could come in and testify...does this fall under Daubert because daubert allows scientific people to testify, whereas engineers would be considered technical. This court case ruled that this would be okay, thus broadening the scope of who could testify/which disciplines are allowed to testify, and this is what paved the way for psychology to be allowed to testify. This court case can also be limiting to psychology.

organized vs disorganized offender

organized: average to above average intelligence, socially competent, skilled occupation, sexually competent, high birth order status, father's work stable, controlled mood during the crime, use of alcohol during the crime. disorganized: below average intelligence, socially inadequate, unskilled occupation, sexually incompetent, low birth order, father's work unstable, hard discipline as a child, alcohol not used, living alone.

organized vs disorganized crime scenes

organized: offense planned, victim is targeted stranger, controlled crime scene and conversation, aggressive acts prior to death, body hidden or moved from the crime scene, weapon/evidence absent. disorganized: spontaneous offender, victim is known by the offender, crime scene is sloppy, sexual acts after death, body left in view at crime scene, weapon/evidence often present.

tension between psychology and law

psychology: emphasis on innovation and creativity whereas law has stare decisis. empirical epistemology vs authoritarian epistemology. experimental methodology vs adversarial process. descriptive discourse vs prescriptive discourse. nomothetic focus vs ideographic focus. probabilistic and tentative conclusions vs emphasis on certainty/absolutes (Can't always prove things...can only strongly suggest. Whereas the legal system has an emphasis on certainty/absolute answers (is the person going to re-offend?, is the person guilty?). proactive orientation vs reactive orientation.

legal implications of the CQT

see slides

reid - deception posture changes

sudden body movements, turning away from interviewer

comparison question test results

tells us that it incorrectly classifies innocent individuals.

broad definition of FP

the application of psychological knowledge and expertise to the legal system. Legal system includes courts, juvenile facilities...a wide variety of legal institutions. You can use psychology and the law and forensic psychology interchangeably...both are very broad topics

narrow definition of FP

the professional practice by psychologists within the areas of clinical psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology, when they are engaged regularly as experts in an activity primarily intended to provide professional psychological expertise to the judicial system. For example, might mean clinicians providing expertise to the judicial system (the courts). Roles include forensic assessment and testifying in court (mental status at the time of the offense, is the person dangerous/will they re-offend). Some treatment but not a lot...might include trying to restore someone's competency, like if they are on trial. Definition mainly revolves around clinicians.

Research on the BAI: Lab - Vrij, Mann and Fisher (2006-2007)

they tested BAI in the lab by using a mock set scenario. Participants were interviewed by actual LEO. Results found the opposite of what reid suggests. They found that liars are less likely to engage in shift posture. Also found that truth tellers were also found to be evasive when answering the "purpose" question. Less likely to name someone when it came to the "vouch" question. Then, they took the videos from the 2006 study above, they conducted a new research in 2007 where they showed LEOs those videos. In total, there was 51% accuracy. Not good odds.

daubert criteria

under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4)the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The Daubert standard is the test currently used in the federal courts and some state courts. In the federal court system, it replaced the Frye standard, which is still used in some states