4.8 • +11k Ratings
Save
Print
Edit
The main goals of psychology are to describe, explain, predict, and improve human thoughts, behaviours and processes.
As you can imagine, this can offer some interesting insights into the courtroom. How a witness or defendant behaves, their characteristics and how easily they are persuaded can all have an influence over the decisions made in the courtroom. Using psychology, we can explore these different areas of human behaviour.
Although it has been mostly disproven or dismissed, one of the most infamous examples of implementing psychological techniques in the courtroom can be seen in the use of a lie detector! Let's explore some other examples of psychology and the courtroom.
Psychology in the Justice System, freepik.com
There are several ways that psychology affects the justice system. One example that is very famous in psychology is the research by Loftus and Palmer (1974) who discovered that when questions are asked to witnesses in a certain way (misleading questions), they can alter their memories and cause their eyewitness testimonies to become less accurate.
Here we will be focusing on different things in psychology that affect what occurs specifically in the courtroom.
The jury's decision varies depending on the situation, but other factors can also influence their judgment, sometimes without them being aware of it. These factors can include the appearance, race, accent and type of crime of the defendant, and even the level of confidence of the witness. Both forensic and social psychology is involved in the courtroom.
Forensic psychologists have responsibilities in the civil and criminal court systems, such as doing mental health checks, giving legal opinions regarding topics like child custody, and providing expert testimonies on the stand. One of the main responsibilities is letting the court know about the fallibility of memory which affects the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies.
Research has investigated and proven how inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be (e.g. Loftus and Palmer, 1974).
Howe and Knott (2015) explained that memories aren't encoded in our brains like recordings, but are subject to change based on our experiences (schemas). Lacy and Stark (2013) concluded in a review that memories in a stressful event are not encoded very accurately. The main gist of the event is strongly encoded, but the peripheral, minor details are weakly encoded.
Memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion - Lacy and Stark (2013)
The amount of confidence a witness has in their eyewitness testimony can have an effect on the jury's evaluation of how accurate it is, and therefore, affects their decision of judging the defendant.
Penrod and Cutler (1995) conducted a study where they did a mock trial with a witness of a robbery, who gave their testimony on a videotape recording. When the witness claimed they were 100% confident about their testimony, the participants acting as jurors gave guilty verdicts to the robber 67% of the time. When the witness claimed they were only 80% accurate, the participants gave a guilty verdict to the robber 60% of the time.
Therefore, the higher the confidence of the witness, the more likely jurors were to pass a guilty verdict on the defendant. This may be because truthfulness, knowledge and reliability may be associated with confidence, whilst being nervous and shy may be associated with the feeling that the witness is lying.
Psychology in the courtroom, freepik.com/rawpixel
Social Psychology is also involved in the courtroom and different social characteristics of defendants and witnesses can influence the jury's opinions and decisions.
The Halo effect is when people assume that attractive characteristics/people are good. This is based on the idea that if something has one good/positive characteristic, then it has others too.
Castellow et al. (1990) conducted a mock trial and told participants acting as the jury to read a sexual harassment case. It had pictures of the victim and defendant included, where both would be considered either attractive or unattractive. They then asked the participants to give the defendant a guilty or non-guilty verdict.
When the victim was considered attractive but the defendant unattractive, the guilty verdicts were given 77% of the time. But when the victim was considered unattractive and the defendant attractive, guilty verdicts dramatically decreased to 56%. This provides support for the halo effect. It also supports the opposite implied effect, which would be that unattractive people have other negative qualities too. Mock jurors were ready to believe what they perceived as a beautiful woman who accused an unattractive man of sexual assault but was not ready to believe an unattractive woman accusing a handsome man of sexual assault.
However, attractiveness doesn't always influence the jury. This effect depends on the type of crime committed.
Outline of a woman and flowers, freepik.com/rawpixel
Sigall and Ostrove (1995) made participants read a case in which a female defendant either committed a burglary or fraud. She was described as either attractive or unattractive. The attractive defendant was given a shorter sentence for burglary, but a longer sentence for fraud.
This may be because the jury participants thought she used her beauty to commit the crime by manipulating people. Therefore, this shows that attractiveness makes people assume other characteristics are good too until the attractiveness is misused by committing bad deeds since the person is then thought to be more dangerous and manipulative.
Ogloff (1991) found that white uni students were more likely to give a defendant a guilty verdict if they were black, and even more so if their victim was white. It was found that this finding was present in real trials, too, and it was only when the courtroom stressed the need for a fair, prejudice-free verdict that this was affected.
Black defendants are more likely to face a longer sentence than a white person who has committed the same crime.
In America, the murderer of a white victim is more likely to get the death penalty than the murderer of a black victim.
Eberhardt (2006) investigated the correlation between defendants receiving the death penalty and having stereotypically black features. She looked at death penalty eligible cases in Philadelphia between 1997-1999 in which a black defendant had killed a white victim.
Analysis showed that defendants with stereotypically black features were given the death penalty significantly more often (57.5%) than those with less stereotypically black features (24.4%), even though they, too, were black. This shows that Ethnocentrism plays a role in juries' decisions.
Ethnocentrism is a way of perceiving the world based on your own values and cultures. This is used as a frame of reference when judging all behaviours both in and outside of your own culture, instead of adopting an objective approach. Other cultures are perceived through the lens of what is and aren't acceptable in your own culture, and this applies to behaviours, religious beliefs, societal rules, and so on.
Black Defendant, freepik.com
White Defendant, freepik.com
In cases where there are only sensitive child witnesses that require protection against the stress and trauma of being in a courtroom due to the nature of the crime, videotape/video call testimonies or testimonies given behind a protective screen are sometimes allowed. However, defence lawyers have argued that this makes the defendant seem more dangerous, and hence, more guilty.
Ross et al. (1994) investigated this argument by doing an experiment in which participants either saw a child's testimony given via videotape, behind a protective shield or in open court. However, the findings showed no significant differences between the conditions, meaning there's no harm in a child giving testimony behind a protective shield or videotape since it has no effect on the perception of how guilty the defendant is.
The following study explored the effect of accent, race, and crime type on guilty verdicts.
Dixon et al. (2002) aimed to investigate the halo effect by looking at different characteristics in defendants that they hypothesised would play a role in influencing the decision of the jury.
This was a lab experiment and the 3 Independent Variables were:
The Dependent Variables were:
Overall there were 119 white undergraduate psychology students from the University of Worcester. 24 males and 95 females participated, with a mean age of 25.2 years. Participants who grew up in Birmingham were excluded to avoid bias.
A 2 minute pre-recorded transcript that was based on a real case was played for the participants. It included a conversation between a young male suspect and a middle-aged policeman. Participants heard the suspect having one of the 2 accents.
They found that suspects with a Birmingham accent were rated significantly more guilty than suspects with Standard English accents.
Black suspects were not rated significantly more guilty than white suspects. This implies that race alone doesn't lead to guilty verdicts. Blue-collar crimes were not rated significantly more guilty than white-collar crimes. However, an interaction effect was found between Birmingham accent, black and blue-collar crime, that when these variables interacted (i.e. were all present) guilt was rated significantly higher.
Having a Birmingham accent was rated low on the SEI in 'Superiority'. 'Superiority' and 'Attractiveness' were accurate predictors of guilt, but 'Dynamism' wasn't.
When different social-psychological features are present in a suspect and the crime they committed, it can have an effect on the judgments of the jury and make them find the suspect more or less guilty than others of the same type, e.g. finding a black suspect that has a Birmingham accent and committed a blue-collar crime (robbery) more guilty than a white suspect with a standard English accent who committed a white-collar crime (cheque fraud).
This has quite serious implications because even though both crimes included stealing money, the first suspect will be found more guilty and could be charged with a longer sentence than the second suspect. The combination of the above factors influenced the outcome of the verdict, despite these factors not having much to do with the actual crime, a worrying conclusion on the fairness of trials and the potential biases involved.
There are different ways in which research about psychology in the courtroom could have an influence on how things actually happen in the courtroom, specifically, by improving things.
As Castello's (1990) research suggests, appearances influence the jury's verdict about the defendant's guilt, so it's advised that the defendant dress formally and clean up for the trial proceedings.
Witness confidence can be increased by using witness familiarisation (explaining what will happen in court and how) as to not affect the opinions of the jury about the guilt of the defendant.
Loftus (1980) also did a mock trial of a violent crime where half the jury participants read an expert's testimony and the other half didn't. The expert testimony had written that witnesses find it harder to identify people of a different race and that the witness being drunk, or having stress caused by a weapon being present, can interfere with accurate identification. Jurors spent longer scrutinising the ey
Therefore, the expert's testimony supported the defendant. An expert's testimony caused more doubt and discussion about the defendant's guilt, while the absence of an expert's testimony resulted in more guilty verdicts being given.
Courtroom Procedures, pixabay.com
Social psychologists point out that people often try to construct a story of an event so it makes sense. This includes jurors. Therefore, the prosecution and defence try to 'tell a story' with their arguments because Pennington and Hastie (1988) suggest that the jurors are more likely to return the verdict that best fits the story they've constructed.
Witness order - When lawyers present one witness after the other, but their testimonies don't form the order of the event.
Story order - when lawyers show evidence in the order of the events, meaning it's easier to understand.
Pennington and Hastie (1988) aimed to see whether jurors were more persuaded by story order than witness order. They found that when the prosecution presented evidence in story order and defence in witness order, the jury gave guilty verdicts 78% of the time. But when the defence gave evidence in story order and the prosecution in witness order, the jury gave guilty verdicts 31% of the time.
This shows that whichever side of the argument makes the most sense to them is the side the jury is most likely to support, and this is best achieved by presenting evidence in story order.
Let's consider the strengths and weaknesses of using mock trials.
Psychologists have different roles in the courtroom. Forensic psychologists have the responsibilities in the civil and criminal court systems such as doing mental health checks, giving legal opinions regarding things like child custody, and providing expert testimonies on the stand, e.g. about the fallibility of human memory, particularly pertaining to the inaccuracy of eye witness testimony. Also, that witness confidence has an effect on jury decisions.
Social psychologists can inform the court that there are other factors that effect jury decision making too, e.g. appearance (halo effect), race, accent and crime type of the defendant.
The research conducted regarding these factors can be applied to courtroom procedures to improve them and make them fairer.
Forensic psychologists have the responsibilities in the civil and criminal court systems such as doing mental health checks, giving legal opinions regarding things like child custody, and providing expert testimonies on the stand, e.g. about the fallibility of human memory, particularly pertaining to the inaccuracy of eye witness testimony. Also, that witness confidence has an effect on jury decisions.
Yes, psychology can be used in the court to identify which factors effect the courtroom procedures and in what way. So far, psychological research has shown that there are several things that influence the decisions of the jury (whether or not the give a guilty verdict), such as appearance (halo effect), race, accent and crime type of the defendant. Witness confidence also has an effect on jury decisions.
Psychology can also be used in court in the form of forensic psychologists providing their expert opinions on matters, as to provide insights into cases so that the jury can make an informed decision.
Court psychology, or psychology in the courtroom, involves forensic psychologists providing their expert opinions on matters, as to provide insights into cases so that the jury can make an informed decision.
It also involves using psychological research that has been conducted to show which factors affect jury decisions, so that they can be mindful of them when making their decision, e.g. appearance (halo effect), race, accent and crime type of the defendant. Witness confidence also has an effect on jury decisions.
The relationship between psychology and the law is that in the courtroom, some things that come up during the trial need to be explained by an expert, e.g. a forensic psychologist, so that the jury have insight and can make an informed decision about the defendant's verdict. This is a forensic psychologists job, as well as giving legal opinions and doing mental health checks.
60%
of the users don't pass the Psychology in the Courtroom quiz! Will you pass the quiz?
Start Quiz
Be perfectly prepared on time with an individual plan.
Test your knowledge with gamified quizzes.
Create and find flashcards in record time.
Create beautiful notes faster than ever before.
Have all your study materials in one place.
Upload unlimited documents and save them online.
Identify your study strength and weaknesses.
Set individual study goals and earn points reaching them.
Stop procrastinating with our study reminders.
Earn points, unlock badges and level up while studying.
Create flashcards in notes completely automatically.
Create the most beautiful study materials using our templates.
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
