Intro Part III

Summary

This video script delves into the history and significance of forensic psychology in the United States and Canada. It highlights landmark cases like State vs. Driver and People vs. Hawthorne, where psychologists' testimonies began influencing legal proceedings. The speaker discusses the evolution from skepticism to acceptance of forensic psychology in courts, emphasizing its growing role in areas like risk assessment and jury decision-making. The script also touches on the field's recognition, including high-quality textbooks, academic journals, and professional associations, ultimately affirming forensic psychology as a legitimate and integral part of psychology.

Takeaways

• 📚 The speaker is discussing the history and impact of landmark cases involving psychologists in the U.S. judicial system, noting their relevance to Canada as well.
• 🚨 In State versus Driver (1921), a psychologist's testimony was rejected, marking a partial victory for the use of psychological tests in court.
• 🏛 People versus Hawthorne (1940) was significant because it allowed a psychologist to provide an opinion on a defendant's mental state during an appeal.
• 👨‍⚖️ Jenkins versus the United States (1962) was a turning point, with three psychologists testifying about a defendant's schizophrenia, leading to a broader acceptance of psychological testimony.
• 🧐 Forensic psychologists play various roles including clinicians, researchers, and legal scholars, contributing to the field's legitimacy.
• 📈 The field of forensic psychology has grown since the mid-1900s, with Canada being a leader in areas like risk assessment and corrections.
• 🇨🇦 Canadian courts tend to be more conservative, often relying on medical doctors (psychiatrists) rather than psychologists for expert testimony.
• 📊 There is ongoing debate about the definition of forensic psychology, with some favoring a narrow clinical focus and others a broader inclusion of research and practice.
• 🔍 The speaker emphasizes the importance of forensic psychology in areas such as risk assessment, traumatic brain injury impact, and eyewitness memory.
• 🔄 The speaker highlights the influence of U.S. legal developments on Canadian practices, despite differences in licensing standards and professional associations.

Q & A

What was the significance of the State versus Driver case in 1921?

The State versus Driver case in 1921 was significant because it marked the first time in recorded history that expert testimony was provided by a psychologist in the United States. However, it was a partial victory as the psychologist's testimony was ultimately rejected by the judge who questioned the practicality of psychological and medical tests to detect lies.

In what year did the People versus Hawthorne case occur, and what was its importance?

The People versus Hawthorne case occurred in 1940. It was important because it was an instance where a psychologist was allowed to provide an opinion on the mental state of a defendant at the time of his offense during an appeal, which was a significant step towards recognizing the role of psychologists in the judicial system.

What was the outcome of the Jenkins versus the United States case in 1962?

In the Jenkins versus the United States case in 1962, three psychologists testified that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia. Initially, the judge instructed the jury to disregard the testimony, stating that psychologists were not qualified to give expert testimony on mental disease. However, this decision was reversed on appeal, and the court ruled that some psychologists are indeed qualified to give their expert testimony, marking a significant shift in the recognition of psychologists in legal proceedings.

How does the speaker describe the role of psychologists in the courtroom in the United States?

The speaker describes that psychologists in the United States are more commonly seen in legal proceedings, discussing topics such as risk assessment, the impact of traumatic brain injury, and eyewitness memory. They are also involved in jury decision-making processes, considering the impact of group processes like conformity.

What is the speaker's view on the development of forensic psychology in Canada?

The speaker views the development of forensic psychology in Canada as having started later than in the United States, with significant progress since the mid-1900s. Canada is recognized as a leader in the field of corrections, particularly in risk assessment and treatment of individuals involved in the field.

Why does the speaker believe Canadian courts are more conservative than American courts regarding testimony?

The speaker suggests that Canadian courts are more conservative in allowing testimony and tend to rely more on medical doctors, such as psychiatrists, possibly due to different licensing standards and training requirements between the US and Canada.

What does the speaker say about the recognition of forensic psychology as a legitimate field?

The speaker asserts that forensic psychology is now recognized as a legitimate field within psychology, citing the existence of high-quality textbooks, academic journals with peer-review processes, professional associations like the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), and training opportunities at various educational levels.

What are the two primary ways of defining forensic psychology mentioned in the script?

The two primary ways of defining forensic psychology mentioned in the script are a narrow definition, which focuses on the clinical aspect of the field such as risk assessment and treatment, and a broad definition, which includes human behavior in relation to the legal system, encompassing research, experimentation, and practice from other areas of psychology applied to the legal arena.

What roles does the speaker discuss for forensic psychologists?

The speaker discusses forensic psychologists serving as clinicians, conducting assessments and providing treatment; as researchers, conducting necessary research in the field; and as legal scholars, a relatively new role that involves a deep understanding of the intersection between psychology and law.

What does the speaker imply about the future of forensic psychology?

The speaker implies that the future of forensic psychology is promising, given its recognition as a legitimate field, the existence of professional associations, and the ongoing research and educational opportunities that support its growth and integration into the legal system.