Forensic 1

Based on the lecture slides provided, here is the summary of Class 1.

Keys to Success – The slides explicitly state that the two things required to succeed in the course (and life) are Attendance and Attention (avoiding distractions like phones).
Admissibility of Expert Testimony – The specific legal standard for expert testimony in Canada comes from R. v. Mohan (1994). The criteria are: evidence must be relevant, necessary (beyond common knowledge), not violate exclusion rules, be presented by a qualified expert, and be independent/impartial (the latter added in 2015).
Expert Witness Roles – It is important to distinguish between the three roles assumed by experts: Hired Gun (opinions bought/biased), Advocate (biased toward their side), and Impartial (neutral/whole truth).
Myths and Realities – The lecture dedicated significant space to debunking common myths: police are not good at detecting deception (no better than chance); eyewitnesses are not always accurate (leading cause of wrongful conviction); it is possible to commit murder while sleepwalking (automatism); and it is not possible to predict who will become a serial killer.

Forensic Psychology Definitions: The “Narrow” definition focuses on the professional practice of clinical psychology (assessment/treatment) in a legal context, while the “Broad” definition includes both clinical practice and experimental research related to the legal process.
Psychiatrist vs. Psychologist: A Forensic Psychiatrist is a medical doctor who operates on a physical disease model and can prescribe medication; a Forensic Psychologist holds a Ph.D., operates on a psychological model, and focuses heavily on research, assessment, and treatment.
Forensic Disciplines:
- Forensic Anthropology: Examining bones to determine facts about the deceased.
- Forensic Linguistics: Examining spoken or written words (e.g., suicide notes).
- Forensic Odontology: Studying dental records or bite marks.
- Forensic Entomology: Studying insects at crime scenes to assist investigation.
- Forensic Pathology: Performing autopsies to determine cause of death.
- Forensic Toxicology: Analyzing the effects of drugs, poisons, and chemicals.
Sleepwalking Defense: Research supports that complex activities (like driving or cooking) can occur during sleepwalking, allowing for a legal plea of automatism in murder cases.
Psychopathy and Violence: Contrary to the myth that all psychopaths are violent, some use charm and deceit rather than physical violence to achieve their ends.

Haney’s Taxonomy (1980): A framework describing the relationship between psychology and law:
- Psychology AND the Law: Using psychology to research aspects relevant to the legal system (e.g., risk factors for recidivism).
- Psychology IN the Law: Using psychology within legal proceedings (e.g., police interviewing techniques).
- Psychology OF the Law: Using psychology to critically evaluate the law itself (e.g., judicial discretion in sentencing).
Hess’s Dimensions (2006): A comparison of the conflicting cultures of Law and Psychology:
- Psychology: Based on replicated research, group findings, descriptive in nature, and considers multiple explanations.
- Law: Based on case law, single cases, prescriptive in nature, and seeks one explanation.

James McKeen Cattell (1895): Conducted early experiments on the “psychology of testimony,” revealing a disconnect between confidence and accuracy.
Alfred Binet (1900): Researched suggestibility in children, demonstrating how leading questions (e.g., about a button) influence answers.
William Stern (1901): Conducted “reality experiments” on eyewitness testimony to demonstrate its fallibility.
Albert von Schrenck-Notzing (1896): Testified as an expert on the effects of pre-trial media publicity, coining “retroactive memory-falsification”.
Julian Varendonck (1911): Testified in a murder case that children are unreliable witnesses and should not testify.
Hugo Munsterberg (1908): Considered the “father” of forensic psychology; published On the Witness Stand.
John Wigmore (1909): A legal scholar known for his scathing critique of Munsterberg’s claims about psychology’s role in law.

Resources