What I would like you to do for this assignment is to choose a topic related to psychology and law that YOU are really interested in. This could be something you've always wondered about or been interested in, or something you've discovered in this class that has spurred your interest. I want you to find out what you can about this topic. Once you have completed your search and explorations (which may include a fair amount of browsing time, and reading websites, links, news pieces, or articles), I would like you to say what your topic is, why you are interested in it, and what you learned about that topic from 3 of the sources you viewed/read on the internet (please at the end of your comment include the 3 URLs).
Assignment Due 9/21 @ 10pm
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://www.psychologicalscience.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/1895
I decided to choose the topic of first resonponders. I really didn't know what their work entitled and what specific responsiblities these men and women have. Before I started really learning about what first responders do, I did know that that they were usually the first people who are called to a crime scene. They are the first ones that arrive and have to deal with the situations that are there. First responders consist not just certain people, they can be firefighters, emergency medical personnel, or trained for law enforcement purposes (http://www.tffd.org/tffd%20ems%205.htm). First responders must be ready and trained for anything. That is why they are trained for many situations that may arise. They are prepared for huge emergencies, criminal acts, and such things as natural diasters. They are trained in CPR, AED, and first aid medical attention, that way these men and women are prepared to help any victims of a crime or natural disater with some medical care. ( http://www.tffd.org/tffd%20ems%205.htm). First responders main job is to make sure people are safe and secure the area and get information about the situation.
The responsibilites of the first responders are as follows; once they arrive on the scene they are to survey the area and see if other personnel are needed, such like CSI detectives or technicians, they are then to rope off the are and make sure that people who are not involved with the investigation are kept back and out of the way, then the last main respondibility is to get the names and keep a log of the names of the people entering and exiting the scene. They are also to keep track of when they exit and enter as well as the reasons to why they are entering and exiting the scene. This is just a quick overview of the main responsibilities of first responders; however, they have many task that they do to help crime scene investigators.
I accidently forgot to add my urls before I submitted my comment. There are as follows;
http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/Crime_Scene_1st_Responder.html
http://www.tffd.org/tffd%20ems%205.htm
http://www.fletc.gov/state-and-local/tuition-free-training-programs/first-responder-training-program-frtp
I chose to research what makes someone a criminal, why do some people commit crimes while others don't. I have always wondered why in a single family one child will be a perfect angel while their brother or sister is off committing crimes and is in and out of jail. I figure there has to be more going on than just genetics or their environment because in these cases they have similar genes and grew up with the same parents (sometimes). I guess it is just something that has always intrigued me.
From much of the research I read I discovered that there really is no simple answer to this question, it is very complicated and everyone has a different answer. Many studies have been done on this topic and there is no decisive conclusion. Through twin, family and adoption studies there has been evidence found that genetics play a role to some extent and environment plays a role as well.
Genetics come into play largely in ones personality characteristics and disorders. People who are high in the traits of impulsivity and aggression are more likely to commit criminal acts. Those who have certain disorders as children such as ADD, ADHD, ODD or CD are more likely to develop criminal behaviors as adults. This does not mean that every child with one of these disorders will become criminal but it leaves the predisposed.
Aside from just wanting to know what makes the average criminal I wanted to look into what makes children violent. I found some research that showed that children who were exposed to violence regularly in their life were much more likely to be violent themselves. In 1999 president Clinton launched a program called Children Exposed to Violence initiative which was supposed to increase the publics awareness of how crime and violence affects children. I though it was good to hear that at least there is some effort to try and prevent people from becoming criminals.
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/cevcjr.htm
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/39/11/1233
For me, one of the most appealing aspects of psychology is understanding why people behave a particular way. So, looking more specifically at psychology and law, I am interested in understanding criminal behavior. Why do some commit a crime knowing full well the consequences involved? What leads a person into a life (or just one act) of crime? I understand that each individual’s motives are unique, but I also understand that (most of the time) there are general similarities among criminals. Obviously, the motives of a crime are also dependent on the crime. For instance, the reason a murderer acts in the way he/she does is most likely different from a person who shoplifts a necklace.
As we have read about, criminal behavior is caused by both genetics and environment. We have discussed Anti-Social Personality disorder in class. In this article, the author brings up other personality disorders that can lead to criminality and also Anti-Social Personality Disorder. These include: Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Conduct Disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Individual personalities may also contribute to their criminal tendencies. The PEN model, developed by a personality psychiatrist, identifies three potentially criminal producing personalities: psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism. The one that caught my eye was extraversion. According to Eysenck, a person who is extraverted (sensation-seeking, dominant, assertive, carefree, etc.) has lower levels of arousal and need to find stimulation elsewhere. I never would have pegged an extravert as a criminal (obviously not that they all are). Just as genetics influences a person, so does their environment. The household in which an individual is raised influences them a lot. Weak family bonds and a lack of stimulation can lead a child towards a not so bright future. A person’s childhood has a major impact on their life later on.
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html
I found an interesting article from The Washington Post regarding people who commit crimes. This article focused on the physical appearance of a criminal. According to this article, less attractive individuals are more likely to commit a crime than attractive ones. Now, I find this a very broad statement. I don’t like the way the article is phrased (making it seem that “ugly” people are all criminals) but it brings up an interesting point. I don’t think it depends solely on the individual’s appearance, but rather on the reactions that person gets from his or her environment and that person’s self-esteem/confidence. However, I’m sure that whenever an attractive person is shown as a criminal on t.v. we are completely taken aback. Good looking people appear trustworthy and innocent. I don’t think that it is right to say that criminals are ugly (which is sort of what they say). I think it has a lot to do with environmental factors. If a person is less attractive, they may be judged as not fun or mean which could cause them to have less friends and have a more negative outlook on the world. The environment, although influenced by a person’s attractiveness, is the point to focus on. The way the world responds to a less attractive face molds that person’s behavior. The face influences the environment and in turn the environment influences the person.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602039.html
This last article that I found (actually I think it’s more of a blog), brings up new research being done on the criminal mind. A PET scan shows that murderers have a less active pre-frontal cortex. This area of the brain gives us our logic and rationality. So, if a person has a “normal” pre-frontal cortex, they would rationally work out a disagreement whereas someone who may be lacking some activity in that area may lash out and deal with the situation in a less logical manner. Less activity in that area can lead to less self control and more impulsivity. The next and last area of the brain discussed here is the amygdala. An individual with a normal amygdala will respond “normally” to a disturbing image of a person being tortured (their amygdala will increase in activity). However, a person with a less active amygdala will feel no empathy for what is happening in the image. This obviously isn’t the case for all criminals but it sheds some light on how a person could even imagine torturing someone to death. It has not effect on them. These two areas of the brain seem to strongly impact criminal behavior (specifically murder).
Here's the link to the last article
http://hubpages.com/hub/Changing-understanding-of-criminal-behaviour
As someone who is greatly against the death penalty I am also frustrated by all the incorrect arrests made. Unfortunately I am not one to really speak with authority on this issue. It probably happens a lot less than I imagine, but at the same time is just a couple out of a hundred too much? When we were talking about the actual perp. vs. the suspect this really got me thinking and so I decided to see what kind of stats and facts I could find on the issue. Why does it happen? Where does it happen most? What is done to apologize for the mistakes? These were just a few things I was hoping to find.
For starters I want to use an example, a case I found involving Alton Logan and Andrew Wilson. Alton had been wrongly convicted and imprisoned for the murder of Lloyd Wickliffe. Andrew Wilson was the many who actually committed the crime and later confessed. The problem with this is that although he confessed they already "had their man". Logan had been arrested based on the testimony of witnesses. This ties in well with my ealier discussion of reliance on witness testimonly. For different reasons Logan was not realeased immediately, in fact it took years after Wilson's confession for him to be freed. This case is just one of what could be hundreds and yet alone it represents so many things that are wrong with the criminal justice system. You can read more about this case at:http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR209750/sitesofinterest_files/joyv23n2.pdf
Next I want to look at compensation. This varies greatly by state and by individual. An example I found was the case of John Scott. He was a contruction worker and was wrongly convicted of being involved in a robbery and was sentenced to 25 years. He served a good 4 years before this charge was dropped. He was given 25,000 dollars a year for each year he spent in prison. Some may say this sounds like a pretty good deal, but is it really? How do you put a price on life? On time? According to the site there are many others who actually recieved much less compensation than he. One of these people was a women who actually spent 25 years in prison and did not qualify for compensation. The amount you recieve, if you recieve any at all, is also dependent on the type of evidence that clears your name. (DNA vs. testimony/confession etc.) I do not understand how an agency can make a mistake like this and not give them a tiny glimmer of what they lost. You can read more about his case or other kinds and classes of compensation at: http://219mag.com/2009/07/15/wrongful-conviction-unfair-compensation/
So why does this happen? I found the prime casues are eyewitness mididentification, improper forensic science, false confessions, misconduct by officials(government), snitches, and bad lawyering. This last example could be stressed by those who cannot afford a lawyer and have one provided that may not honestly be concered with the future of the individual. This is also why the job each person plays in the c.j. is so important. These are real people they are dealing with. The last site I used was http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/
It wasn't included in this list but I think another problem might be with personal biases the police or other members involved in the case may have. I am taking criminology this semster and am learning about the problems society has with creating a stereotypical criminal. They must have done it becasue they are poor or because the color of their skin.
I also can't help but wonder what kind of consequences this could have for the arresting offiers, jury members, and even the lawyers. You could be arresting and innocent man or even condemning a perfectly good person to death. It is a lot to deal with and takes someone with mental and emotional stability. Not to mention the what it affects the one that is wrongly convicted. They had to go through things that can change you forever, they lost time, and may have even lost their families.Psychologists have plenty to study in association with wrongful convictions.
In Chapter Four we read about first responders to a crime scene such as police officers, detectives, and CSI's. A few days ago I was watching an old episode of CSI. During part of the episode, the crime scene cleaning crew people were pissed off at the CSIs because they thought the CSIs left a dead body at the crime scene to play a joke on them because no matter how much they cleaned there was still an odor of a decomposing body in the building. I’ve never really thought about the work that goes into cleaning up a crime scene or the things that happen once the police leave the scene, so I thought I’d do a little researching on crime scene cleaners.
My first source discusses pretty much anything and everything related to crime scene cleanup. The industry is technically called CTS Decon (crime and trauma scene decontamination). Clean up by a CTS Decon business can include cleaning violent death (homicide, suicide, or accident) scenes or chemically contaminated scenes (e.g. meth lab). The main goal for crime scene cleaners is to restore the scene to its original state. According to this sight, crime scene cleanup businesses charge up to $600 an hour for their services. CTS Decon workers typically come from a medical background that helps prepare them for the gory job (e.g. EMT, ER nurse); however, people with non-medical background are still employed. For example, it might be useful to know a thing or two about construction because some jobs require built-in structures to be removed in order to do a complete clean up (e.g. meth labs).
According to this site, the gear a CTS Decon worker typically carries is personal protective gear, biohazard waste containers, regular cleaning supplies (e.g. mop, sponge, brush), more intense cleaning supplies (e.g. foggers, ozone machine, hospital-grade disinfectants, razor blades), carpentry tools (saw, paint brush, hammer), ladders, camera, and a van or truck to carry all their equipment around. Clean up crew workers also go through extensive training including bloodborne pathogen training, proper use of protective gear, learning how to properly transport and dispose of dangerous waste.
Something that I thought was interesting was that people who work in this field have to get a Hepatitis B vaccine every five years and the average time someone spends in this field is about 8 months. Salaries typically start around $35,000 and can go up to around $50,000 with experience. Some workers can make more in bigger cities were more violent deaths occur or more meth labs are found.
My second and third sources are a couple of example website of companies that are in this field. Source 2 is the Iowa CTS Cleaners who are based out of Urbandale, IA and service the entire state. Source 3 is a website for the Crime Scene Cleaners Inc. who operates nation-wide. Both these sites discuss the nature of their jobs and what is expected of crime scene cleaners. They also list specifically what kinds of services they offer.
One thing that I never really thought about when it comes to crime scene clean up people is that they have to deal with the grieving family that still lives in the house. Family members might even be in the house when the cleaning crew is scrubbing blood off the walls. It definitely takes a sympathetic person with a tough stomach to do a job like this.
I also found a few YouTube videos that talk about this job and some of the experiences a crime scene cleaner has to deal with on a regular basis.
Source 1: http://science.howstuffworks.com/crime-scene-clean-up3.htm
Source 2: http://www.iowactscleaners.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=47&Itemid=54
Source 3: http://www.crimescenecleaners.com/about.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1scfEbrKE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZfD7Y47fdg
I decided to look into the art of persuasion. Persuasion is vitally important in our world today. Many of the world's leaders are masters of persuasion, every word and action is carefully planned. There are many articles littering the internet claiming to have "10 foolproof steps to mastering persuasion", for obvious reasons, every person is persuaded in their own unique way, but there a few tips and tricks one could try in order to help persuade. One article I came across said that before you should try to persuade anyone of anything, you should claim to have already begun the task, thus they would not feel that they are beginning a task all alone. It also talks about using the magic word, and they do not mean please. Instead this article says use the word "imagine". Another tip is to "stress their losses" rather than any gains. Rather then tell them what they could be gaining, tell them what they could lose. I sell shoes for Younkers, and I employ this tactic regularly. I often say to customers, when they are wavering over whether or not they want the shoes, "Well those have been really popular, I get lots of calls about them, and we only have {X Amount} of your size left" 9 out of 10 times, the customer walks out the door with those shoes, fearful of losing the shoes to another customer because they waited to long to decide. The article goes on to say that people are more likely to return a favor if you offer them something first. This is another tactic I use at my job in order to sell shoes. If a customer is thinking about buying a pair of shoes, but aren't sure if they really want it, I offer them a discount on their shoes. Giving up five dollars on a pair of shoes is better than not selling them at all. Finally, another foolproof technique I utilize to sell shoes is the concept of popular majority. I typically tell people that the choice they have made is "very popular", and that we have had lots of interest in them. This always encourages them to buy the shoes because they feel like since the are "so popular" they might not be there anymore. The art of persuasion is necessary in every walk of life, I use persuasion to make my sales goals. The Presidential candidates use persuasion to win an election. We experience the force of persuasion everyday in advertising and the news. Persuasion is a factor of life, on that every person must be experienced in. This is important to psych and law because it is not important that a prosecutor give the right facts, and make the right statements, rather that the jury is persuaded that the prosecutor is correct. That is all that is really needed for a conviction.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/mastering-the-art-of-persuasion-2389776/
http://www.zeromillion.com/financial-services/the-art-of-persuasion-7-tips-to-successfully-persuade-anyone-by-priya-shah.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHJlVRFJb6A
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpposted/archive/2010/03/12/why-leaders-need-to-master-the-art-of-persuasion.aspx
http://www.sap-basis-abap.com/homebusiness/5-powerful-tips-to-persuasion.htm
The CSI effect is basically the perception of the near-infallibility of forensic science in response to the TV show," said Max Houck, who runs a forensic science graduate course at West Virginia University, US. (BBC)
I chose to write more in depth about the CSI Effect. The CSI Effect is the subconscious affect that fictitious crime dramas have on popular opinion of the criminal justice system. DNA evidence, fingerprints, forensic pathology, video enhancements and interrogation are all fictionalized in these television dramas to not only make for a great story, but to fit into the one-hour time slot as well. Anymore, jurors expect DNA evidence to always be available and one-hundred percent conclusive, toxicology reports are to be quick and plentiful, fingerprints can be traced to anyone in the US and the team can hop on a jet and be anywhere in the continental US overnight
In reality, science and technology are slower, less accurate and require a lot more resources than depicted on screen. Real life DNA samples can take several weeks to MONTHS to match when Horatio’s team does it in Miami in a seemingly brief couple minutes.
In reality, all 300million US citizens are not compiled into an easy-to-search database, only 5-10% of all cases even involve usable biological evidence, 30% of DNA cases have evidence that can be tied to another crime, it can take anywhere from 2-10 people to work on a DNA sample (compared to just one on screen) and a still frame of a video may be enhanced to show shape but pulling a license plate number off of a grainy CCTV feed in a parking garage will have to be left to primetime
These results (on jurors especially) can be especially troublesome to the criminal justice system and a general impediment to justice itself. A 2008 study conducted by Monica Robbers, an American criminologist, found that 62 percent of defense lawyers and 69 percent of judges believe jurors have unrealistic expectations about the reliability of forensic evidence. (ForensicScience.net) In a 2005 study documented by the Yale Law Journal, 38 percent of prosecuting attorneys surveyed in Arizona's Maricopa County believed they had cases dismissed because of insufficient forensic evidence.” Simply put, jurors sit through a trial expecting and demanding inconclusive biological evidence.
Human error, contaminated samples/facilities, unskilled technicians and flawed tests can and do all happen in the real world. Expectations from jurors and the general public can create enormous pressure on prosecuting attorneys and defendants alike.
“In State v. Everett Black, the defendant was caught carrying drugs in a cigarette pack. The defendant admitted that it was his pack, but he denied owning the drugs. At trial, the jury's foreman said that, based on what he had seen on “CSI”, the investigators should have done extensive fingerprinting, DNA testing, and other forensic procedures. This foreman convinced the entire panel that the police had not done their job well enough.”
An overwhelming majority of jurors are becoming dissatisfied and frustrated with real life elements of the judicial system. Police officers, detectives, lawyers and CSI teams have enormous pressures on them to not only solve a case, but do it quickly, accurately, and conclusively.
http://www.theagitator.com/2008/12/05/csi-nebraska/
http://www.forensicscience.net/the-csi-effect
http://www.forensicscience.net/csi-effect-infographic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4284335.stm
I decided to do research on the topic of memory. Memory is a complicated brain process that allows us to learn, retain, and retrieve information. We use memory 24/7, without even realizing it. As I sit here and type, I’m using memory to know where to put my finger to type. When we drive to and from work, making grocery lists, brushing our teeth, tying shoelaces, using a planner, and so on.
Memory has many different forms. The main forms are short term memory and long term memory. STM is working memory- STM is either dismissed from our brains or transferred into LTM. STM is remembering a phone number for a short amount of time, remembering the beginning and end of lists; if a memory lasts longer than a few minutes, it’s already turned into LTM. LTM memory usually, lasts forever. It is always available for retrieval, stronger memories we can recall easier while weaker, less important memories will need reminding to be remembered, but nonetheless, are always still there. This would be like remembering where you were on 9/11 vs. what you did on your birthday last year (you can remember both, but 9/11 probably stands out to you more so than your birthday last year….unless you were celebrating your 21st birthday and can’t remember anything from that night ) There are two types of memory, explicit and implicit. Explicit is consciously thinking about a memory-example is thinking of a phone number and restating it or naming all of your pet’s names. Implicit memory is unconsciously remembering something. Have you ever a heard a commercial and find yourself humming or singing the song from it a few minutes later? You did not consciously try to remember that or consciously recall it, it just happens.
The study of the brain and memory has always been an interests of mine. There is so much information available for those of you who are interested. I could go on and on typing about what memory is, how the brain works, what part’s of the brain are “our” memory centers, why memory is important in criminal investigations, and so on. I’ve posted a few links below and also the book that I have used for Memory and Language (a class taught by Professor Yates). The book is a great resource if you want to learn more. In the book, it discusses different types of research done on memory. A big controversy is with individuals with amnesia and if there is actually a distinction between STM and LTM. I've got a ling from ScienceDaily that tell your about amnesia and what it is, how STM and LTM is affected. Enjoy!
Memory from a Broader Perspective by Alan Searleman and Douglas Herrman
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070427105641.htm
http://www.positscience.com/about-the-brain/brain-facts/types-of-memory
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091109173724.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/a/amnesia.htm
One topic that has peaked my interest so far in class was criminal profiling. I have to admit I am big fan of Criminal Minds, and I know we have already went over in class that most of things that go on in these types of shows are most BS. Therefore, I thought I would do a little research and see what actually occurs in a criminal profile.
According to this website criminal profiling can be defined: Perhaps more art than strict science, profiling is based on careful observation of physical evidence, the deduction of specific evidentiary patterns, and the extrapolation of those patterns into a relatively detailed description of the behavioral and psychological characteristics of a possible perpetrator.
http://www.suite101.com/content/a-brief-history-of-criminal-profiling-a243246
The history of profiling can be traced as early as the Middle Ages. People use profiling techniques to analyze accused heretics. However, these techniques were quite primitive.
What we think of as modern profiling first showed up in the famous Jack the Ripper case in. This profile was actually quite detailed and modern in tone, but as we all know failed to catch the perpetrator.
Since then profiling has been used in several cases. It has been successful in many cases: Babes of Inglewood Murders,the Mad Bomber,Railway Rapist,Red Ripper. In these case the profile was surprising accurate. In fact, almost eerie accurate....
The profile was quite specific, stating that the bomber would be an unmarried, clinically paranoid Roman Catholic of Eastern European descent, who lived with siblings or parents in Connecticut and would probably be wearing a tightly buttoned, double-breasted suit when arrested. George Metesky, captured and eventually convicted of the attacks, fitted this description right down to his severely tailored, “neat as a pin” attire.
http://www.suite101.com/content/a-brief-history-of-criminal-profiling-a243246
Currently there are two schools of thought in criminal profiling:
FBI Model: This model was created by a number of FBI special agents through the application of their investigative experiences and a number of case studies created during prison interviews. The FBI's own validity research into the assistance of criminal profiles on investigations is fairly promising regarding its accuracy. However, the question of the FBI's non- biased judgment in this research has to be at least considered.
The school of Investigate Psychology: United Kingdom and Europe a new school of profiling has begun to emerge. The school of Investigative Psychology allows the direct scientific application of psychological and statistical knowledge to criminal investigations. The profiling process of this style does not take the questionable case study approach that the FBI model is based upon. Through a gigantic statistical evaluation of criminal behavior a very accurate predictor of criminal behavior was created. While this approach is more scientifically valid, it does still require some of the 'opinion' and 'experience' calls that the FBI model does.
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/forensic_psychology/26583
Criminal Profiling has stirred up some debate on how accurate/valid they are. Many experts disagree on the idea that we can profile personal characteristics off a particular crime that is commited.
Andreas Mokros and Laurence J. Alison wrote adminstered a research project where they looked at this concept. The research project was quite interesting.
http://www.liverpool.ac.uk/psychology/staff/LAlison/lalison20.pdf
Their findings:
There is no positive linear relationship for any of the comparisons, i.e.
rapists who offend in a similar fashion are not more similar with respect to age,
socio-demographic features (such as employment situation and ethnicity) or their
criminal records.
These findings indicate no evidence for the assumption of a homology
between crime scene actions and background characteristics for the rapists in
the sample. We argue that this result suggests that the homology assumption is too
simplistic to provide a basis for offender pro ling. Implications for future research
include the search for a suitable framework for offender pro ling that is grounded in
personality psychology. Further, methodological considerations are discussed, such
as the potential application of probabilistic scales
It appears to me there still needs to be more research done on this area. There seems to be some accuracy to criminal profiling, but to what extent is the real question.
One thing involved in psychology and law that has interested me is the psychology behind murderers. I have trouble understanding why someone would kill another person for any other reason than self-defense. I can’t even fathom committing such a crime; this is why I am curious about the psychology behind killers. I researched three types of killers, someone who kills another individual, a mass murderer and serial killers.
The first type of killer is someone who only kills a few people, for example a husband might kill his wife. One article I looked at discussed the reason some people murder is because of their lack of acceptance or unsuccessfulness of their life in a society that is very focused on personal achievements. Another source I looked at was a video done by a psychiatrist named Dr. Lewis, who has done research on many different violent people and says that violent behavior is often a trio of problems. The first being damage to the frontal lobe which controls higher order thinking and decision making, abuse as a child, and mental illness. Through her research she has discovered that this is a correlation. However, that is a very hard thing to generalize and correlation does not mean causation. Therefore, an individual who murders may or may not have any sort of these problems.
The second type is a mass murderer. This is an individual like the one at Virginia Tech or NIU, who kills a large amount of people at one time. An individual who kills in this situation is not looking for a high of any sort but they are often very sad and depressed individuals. As the article in Washington Post says, they are often loners and the thing that sets them off to kill is often not that big, but it what causes the individual to explode and commit a terrible crime. These individuals are often not psychotic as most individuals would assume. Often times these individuals will end up committing suicide at the scene of their crime.
The third type is a serial killer. They commit a large number of separate crimes and try not to be caught by police and create fear amongst the citizens of the area. An article in the Washington Post discussed serial killers as finding pleasure from their crime, and sometimes even for sexual pleasure. The pleasure they receive is because of dopamine in their brain which is giving them a natural high when they kill. The individual also typically finds pleasure in taunting the police and scarring citizens of the area.
Killers come in all shapes and sizes. Some really have psychological problems that lead them to kill. Others have noting mentally wrong with them, but they still lash out and become killers. There isn’t one particular profile that makes someone a killer, which makes understanding killers quite difficult, and also makes catching killer sometimes difficult as well. I don’t think the true psychology of a killer will ever be found, but it is very interesting to try and figure out why someone would take the life of another.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601831_2.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/200911/homicide-and-envy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqDdfqIYlw&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5NKsuXmkDM
I decided to do research on Stockholm Syndrome. This is a term used to describe when hostages express feeling whether they be emotional or sexual for their captors. Stockholm Syndrome got its name from the bank robberies at Norrmalmstrog in Stockholm, Sweden. The bank robbers held the victims for six days. All of the victims became so attached to their captors that they even tried to defend them when they were fired upon by police. Some people suggest that in the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, Stockholm Syndrome was involved. The most famous account of this syndrome involved the kidnapping of Patty Hearst in 1974. She was captured by a radical political group called the Symbionese Liberation Army and even became an accomplice to the group. She took on an alias and assisted the group in several bank robberies.
Stockholm Syndrome is believed to be a defense mechanism that the victims use out of fear to avoid violence. When the captor does small acts of kindness for or to the victim, these acts are magnified by the victim. Rescue attempts eventually are seen as threats considering that injury could be probable to the victim. It is important to note that these symptoms occur under tremendous physical and emotional stress. This behavior is considered to be a common survival strategy for victims of abuse. Furthermore it is important to notice that brainwashing and S.S. are two completely different things. Brainwashing is a tactic used by captors to control their hostages whereas S.S. develops when the victims starts to feel empathetic towards their captor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030324.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/stockholm-syndrome-a144552
So I have always had a bit of a fascination with the polygraph test. As I was searching around the internet I found a large amount of information claiming that either the polygraph was a bunch of bunk or that it could somehow be easily beaten.
The polygraph or as it is more commonly know the lie detector is a machine that measures the various biological outputs of your body such as heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate and electro-dermal activity. The goal of the machine is to use these readings to measure the change in a persons outputs from normal to that of being under stress. This difference is what is used to determine whether or not an individual is lying.
There are however records of the polygraph failing and putting people in the defendants chair under a false statement. This however has not been an overly common occurrence and have not been able to consistently disprove the reliability of the polygraph machine.
Whether the polygraph is a reliable way of detecting lies or not there are a number of ways that can supposedly outsmart the polygraph by sending specific bodily reactions on command instead of at the choosing of the body. These range from things such as stepping on a tack to thinking unhappy thoughts all in the goal of producing a stressed reaction similar to that of the stress of telling a lie. Most are ineffective and not to mention simply painful but some mostly those based on the idea of mental control actually do work.
The Polygraph is in a sense the pinnacle of mankind's efforts to take the human condition and break it down into something that can be measured and weighed. Whether it really works as advertised it certainly is a device that could easily fill one with a sense of certainty that may be intoxicating to the point of blindness.
http://antipolygraph.org/articles/article-034.shtml
http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector.htm
http://www.horowitz-ginton.com/sites/horowitz-ginton/files/role%20of%20prior%20expect%2098%20scan0002.pdf
Well lately I’ve actually been thinking about possibly pursuing a career in psychology and law. I’ve always been interested in psychology and I’ve always been interested in different aspects of the law, so why not do both? It’s just a thought, so I figured I’d look into a few careers that I’m not too familiar with and research them. The ones I decided on were: prison psychologist, profiler, and a lab technician.
Prison psychology is a clinical mental health practice within correctional settings and the study of psychological aspects of imprisonment and maladaptive behavior. There are many different places that one can work. They can work in jails, state and federal prisons, juvenile or adult detention centers, halfway houses (where inmates may live for a period of time after leaving prison). Things that they may do include: mental health screening, emergency duty (responding to mental health crises), psychological intakes, therapy (individual and group therapy), court-ordered assessments (judge seeks a psychologist’s opinion as to a defendant’s sentence or conditions of parole
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3045302053.html
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/take-all-prisoners/200904/my-work-psychologist-in-prison
Profilers help law enforcement solve crimes by giving them an idea of how criminals think and why/how they commit certain crimes. They go through a process to get to the “profile”. This process includes: Evidence Review-they obtain all the evidence that’s available for their review…Determining Processes- looking at the evidence for patterns and try to develop a motive or whether its similar to other crimes…Assessing the Crime- use the evidence collected to re-create how the crime occurred from both the criminal and victims perspective…Profiling the Criminal-by using all of the information collected, they come up with possible characteristics that can help the police identify possible suspects…Writing Reports-they write detailed reports that are given to the police to help them narrow down suspects based on the possible characteristics of the person who committed the crime…and lastly, Testifying in Court-when the criminal is caught, they can be called to testify in court about their analysis of the crime, how their profile was formed and why the defendant fits the characteristics of the profile.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5370494_criminal-profiler-job-description.html
Lab technicians use scientific lab methods to analyze evidence found at crime scenes or accidents. What they find often determines whether is guilty or not. Sometimes the lab technicians collect the evidence themselves and sometimes detectives and other police officers collect it and then deliver it to the lab. Lab technicians usually have different specializations. Ballistics technicians: examine bullets and match them to guns. Chemical and physical analysis technicians: examine chip of paint from a car or piece of glass found in clothing, hair, soil, blood, narcotics, biological tissues and fluids, and poisons; also DNA analysis. Documents technicians: analyze handwriting and the paper that the handwriting is on. Instruments technicians: match marks found on victims to the tools thought to have been used by the suspects. Fingerprint technicians: analyze fingerprints, footprints, and tire treads.
http://careers.stateuniversity.com/pages/698/Crime-Laboratory-Technician.html
All of these sound like pretty interesting jobs. The profiler is probably the least interesting to me though.
I am a very musically driven individual, (not in terms of playing an instrument, moreso in terms of pushing the play button often) so I chose to write about the notion that rap music causes people to lead more violent and criminal lives. I have heard this viewpoint for years, ever since I was able to form an opinion on the Tupac and Biggie beef, so I am very familiar with this notion. With that said, I feel that there is no way that I am the exception to the rule, so I decided to check it out.
I didn't have to look very hard to find some information (apparently it's a hot topic). Various studies have shown that young test subjects only show increased acceptance of violent actions towards women, among other crimes, through the watching of rap videos that incorporate these elements within them. Other similar studies have shown that, by having subjects listen to rap music with lyrics, read rap lyrics, listen to rap music without lyrics, and others that would neither read nor listen, no negative views toward women were to be found from any group. This study did show that these individuals that either read or heard the lyrics were more likely to have more sexual thinking occur.
In other studies, it was shown that there is some relation between music preference and behavioral issues, such as drug and alcohol use or arrest. This data has shown that those engaging in this type of behavior tend to prefer either rap or heavy metal music. However, through further research, the individuals that were engaging in this behavior had displayed behavioral issues prior to their listening to these type of music. This leads me to believe that those with behavioral issues tend to prefer these types of music, not that the music caused the behavioral issues.
In my opinion, I feel that this is a shining example of the use of the availability heuristic in music. Many of those condemning rap music have heard or seen a small portion of lyrics and/or seen the way these artists act or dress and associate this with all rap music. "I heard a song about killing cops so this must mean all rap music is bad." These people seem to ignore those songs with a positive message or those with a politically conscious viewpoint.
On the same note, these studies are continually ongoing, as there is always someone committing a violent crime that just so happens to enjoy pleasuring their ears with the bombardment of swearing and "psychotic" imagery. Until these studies become conclusive, we can not tell for sure.
http://www.suite101.com/content/rap-musics-psychological-effects-a53370
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm
http://www.middletownjournal.com/news/crime/horrorcore-music-fans-linked-to-violence-378737.html
When we were asked to write about anything we are interested in I drew a complete blank. What do I really find interesting in Psychology and Law? And then I was reading "Anatomy of Motive" by John Douglas for my book report and he talked about Albert DeSalvo also known as the "Boston Strangler" and I realized right then I wanted to learn more about Mr. DeSalvo. In order to find out a little bit about Albert I watched a couple of youtube videos. The first being The Worst Crimes of the 20th Century part 1. This video gave a very brief overview of what Albert DeSalvo did and how he was discovered to be the Boston Strangler. (More on that in a little bit). The second youtube video was part one of an A&E special called The Boston Strangler part 1. In this first part of the special you learn about DeSalvo's life. How he grew up in an abusive household. His friends say in the intro that DeSalvo "would wake up every morning look in the mirror and say who can I lie to today?" The Boston Strangler is one of the most feared and elusive serial killers in US history. Of all of the murders committed by the strangler nothing was as horrifying as what was done to the 11th victim Mary Sullivan. She was 19 when she was found raped and strangled in her apartment. But the most disturbing part of all was that she was found with a broom handle shoved up into her vagina. But the Boston Strangler still puzzles many police officers to this day. This is due to the fact that his first 5 victims ranged from ages 55-75 were white females who were strangled with their own clothing so hard blood came out of their ears and they were all sexually assaulted with an object. But for some reason the strangler changed its victim type in 1962. Victim 6 was a 20 year old black women which is a dramatic shift in victims. It makes one stop and think why would the strangler change whom he targeted all of the sudden? The other weird thing about this serial killer was there were no signs of robbery or forced entry at any of the scenes.
SO how was Albert DeSalvo caught? Well ironically he was caught for a series of rapes called the "Green Man" rapes in 1967. During the Green Man spree over 300 women were assaulted in a 4 state area by a man in green pants. DeSalvo was found guilty of these crimes and sentenced to life in prison. The police never actually arrested the Boston Strangler however because DeSalvo turned himself in saying he was the strangler and giving detailed recants of all the murders especially that of Mary Sullivan. However, he was never put on trial for these murders because there was not enough evidence to convict him. He was killed in 1973 where he was stabbed to death in the prison infirmary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyYtAwPoTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSX9R99edBI
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00803/DeSalvo_fs.htm
Something that I have always been interested in is the insanity Plea. I have always wanted to know how they can decide if someone was insane enough at the time that they should not be held accountable.
While researching I found that the insanity plea is used in less than 1% of criminal cases and only one fourth of those cases are successful.In order to be found not guilty by reason of insanity the defendant has to prove that they did not have the mental capacity to realize that what they were doing wrong, and some states also allow defendants to argue that while they knew what they were doing was wrong they were unable to control it.
The insanity plea has brought a lot of controversy. Many people think that it is just a way for smart or rich criminals to get away with a crime, however as it turns out so few people plead insanity because it is a very risky and hard to win that is why only about 1% do. It also has caused a lot of controversy because people think that those who are found not guilty by reason of insanity just get off after committing crime, when in reality most people who get off on the insanity plea often spend more time in a mental hospital than they would in jail.
Another thing that I found out about the insanity plea that I found interesting was that most of the criminals that use the insanity plea are being charged with non violent crimes. And the ones that are charged with violent crimes and get found not guilty by reason of inanity are usually abused wives who killed their husbands after years of abuse and someone who is depressed who kills someone close to them.
I find the insanity plea very interesting and after researching it I feel that it may not be a bad thing, especially sense it is difficult to fake, so that violent criminals are not running around free.
http://www.speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1229b-1.html
http://karisable.com/crmh.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hinckley/myth.htm
Earlier in the year I have mentioned clinical psychology, well truth is I plan to make this my first career and my second career as a lawyer of immigration.
I found clinical psychology to be very interesting and hitting home. I know various people who are clearing of need of some counseling and diagnosis for their abnormal, frequent behavior but yet are in denial or don't have any available resources to go to.
Clinical psychology is related to research but mores so towards treating those with mental disorders that you can find on the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In order for a person to become a clinical psychologist, that person needs to receive their Doctorates in Psychology, in some states it is not necessary but the more training you get in that area the better your career as a clinical psychologist you will be. I always thought that you have to have your Psy.D. in order to practice it, but it just depends on the state that you would like to practice in. Some states need you to get a license not just your Psy.D. if you would like to conduct private practice.
http://www.guidetopsychology.com/cln_cns.htm
This clip found on youtube is an hour long discussion about drug addiction actually being a type of disorder that is reffered to as Co-Occuring disorder.
The Panelists consists of two Doctors in the field of counseling that are experts in drug addiction and the psychological connections to it. On thing that did not surprise but made me more aware of the issue is that drug abuse is first started by mental illness. Watch the clip and see what captures your attention on this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ilnaC2vEc
This particular website that I had visited is about how are disorders diagnosed or catergorized by clinical psychologist. The way they diagnose disorders is by using the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. The manual consists of fice dimensions and axes that have categories and subcategories to help diagnosis symptoms of disorders correctly, even though every now and then words have different meanings or some new words replace old words or some mental illnesses are no longer considered mental illnesses so they are removed from the manual.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Diagnosis-of-Psychological-Disorders.topicArticleId-25438,articleId-25395.html
I decided to write about the psychology of serial killers-- as well as antisocial personality disorder. More often than not, serial killers end up being diagnosed with this disorder. I'm highly interested in clinical psychology, and am pretty fascinated by abnormal psych and mental disorders so getting to find out what's inside a criminal's mind is very interesting to me.
https://health.google.com/health/ref/Antisocial+personality+disorder
The basic definition of antisocial personality disorder is where a person violates and manipulates another person-- which often happens to be of criminal nature. These people are often in trouble, because they feel no guilt or remorse for others. They often fight, lie, and steal and have complete disregard for themselves or for the rights or well being of others. Although the cause of this disorder isn't one hundred percent known, researchers believe that things like child abuse, or other sorts of maltreatment during childhood is usually to blame, as well as some genetic factors. Males are often diagnosed with the disorder more than women.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/psych_6.html
A line in this article sums up exactly what antisocial personality disorder is "the inability to see others as worthy of compassion" or in other words, serial killers dehumanize their victims, and solely see them as mere objects, no different than a chair or a lamp. The article refers to serial killers, or sociopaths, as literally fearless human beings. Fear of punishment has no effect on their conscience, because they really don't HAVE much of a conscience. Interestingly enough, antisocial personality disorder appears to have two poles of people. Usually, we see sociopaths as killers, or hardened criminals who know no right from wrong with what seems to be no human emotions, and no remorse. HOWEVER, not all sociopaths are inclined to kill. Often these people can be found as highly successful businessmen or world leaders. This is because of their lack of concern for others. Those who end up successful do whatever they can to get to the top, and that normally means stepping on whoever they need to to get there. When it comes down to it, the criminals and the businessmen who are considered sociopaths are the same-- they hurt and manipulate people with no remorse to obtain a thrill for their own gain.
Also in this article it speaks of the biological causes or findings in one with antisocial personality disorder. They feel less anxiety and fear than an average person and have significantly low arousal levels which can often lead a person to behave impulsively.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-20-2002-28542.asp
This last article I found very interesting, it went a bit deeper into some of the ritualistic instincts of a serial killer. The first ritual it elaborated on was one of capturing their victim on film before the murder-- essentially "freezing" time and the moment to look back on as a trophy, or to feel some of the same thrill after the murder has happened. It also suggests a level of "object permanence," giving the serial killer something it can keep and hold on to when it doesn't have anything else, which may have resulted from abandonment (perhaps from a parent) earlier in life. This may also be why killers often save "trophies" from their kills, such as body parts.
Another behaviour of a killer is the belief that they have a higher morality and knowledge than that of a normal person. They often believe that they are saving their victim from a fate worse than death because the kill is by their OWN hand. The killer often feels that the victim should be grateful to have been the "chosen" one of their crime and becomes confused or irritated by the victims ingratitude.
One topic I thought might be interesting to research is serial killers. The psychology behind them and other aspects. I have never seen the t.v. show Dexter but I think I understand the concept. He's a serial killer working for the cops who kills other killers. In a sense, he's doing the world a justice. But, does that really make murder alright? Serial killers are a very media happy subject and I wanted to look into it deeper.
My first source talks about how there is a common myth that serial killers cannot stop themselves. It documents cases in which they do exactly that. With the help of the police, of course. They turn themselves in and show remorse for their crimes in some cases, something previously believed to be incapable for such "monsters". One serial killer named William Heirens wrote a message to police at a crime scene begging them to catch him because he couldn't stop himself. He obviously wanted to stop and felt remorse in some sense for what he'd been doing. Others who openly and fully turned themselves in to police believed that they would be dangers to society if ever released from prison. There are many other such cases listed in the article.
Another site I visited talked about the connection between serial killers and the media. It was a very interesting read. It brings up the points that the media uses serial killers in a sensationalized way. The real ones are given names that make them infamous and renowned in ways that only assist the killer in their spread of fear. Shows that use stretches of truth in this field don't help the issue any either. The public has become fascinated with the gore and the coverage of cases goes up with the abnormality and cringe factor. Our culture has celebritized horror. That made me think of the Saw movies, which I have also never seen past the first one. People go crazy over these movies that make money off of showing people being sadistically tortured. I find that odd and problematic.
Along the lines of the media association with serial killers goes a few specific cases I studied. One such case is that of Ed Gein. He was the basis for the movie Psycho and it's more modern update, American Psycho as well as Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. Something as sick and perverse as killing people and preserving their body parts to build furniture has been pictured in Hollywood as something to make money and fawn and thrill over. The article goes on to talk about how his over protective, religious mother tried to shelter her boys from the world and that it may have been the cause of his beginning in murder. He was socially inept and very morbid and did some very creepy things that quickly became popular conversation the world over during his investigation and trial. People seem to have a sick obsession with the sickness of killers that has been around for a long time. I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg. If people started doing this and it became popularized as gossip or if the obsession with murder sparked gossip and some people to fulfill such things.
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/killers_wh_surrender/1_index.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/16264/serial_killer_vs_media_a_symbiotic.html?cat=7
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/gein/frenzy_6.html
I decided to look more into eyewitness errors. I’m kind of intrigued by this because I would like to know a little more about how the human mind works. I don’t think people would lie about seeing something wrong, but from what I heard today it sounds to me like our brains tell us something different than what we might have seen. The first website that I looked up talked about eyewitness error and stated that the eyewitness error was a factor in more than 75% of convictions that have been overturned by DNA testing. The website talks about how the human mind is not like a tape recorder and the memory of the witness’s memory needs to be preserved so the facts will be straight. The memory of a witness can be easily contaminated. Social science researchers have concluded that estimator variables and system variables are the reasons for eyewitness error. The estimator variables are the ones that the criminal justice system can not control. The system variables are the ones that the system can control. I was surprised to find out that experts have known of eyewitness error as far back as the late 1800’s. I have heard of eyewitness error, but I did not know that it was the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the United States.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
I found another website about mistaken eyewitnesses. The intriguing thing about this website is that it talks about eyewitnesses identifying the wrong person when they were given positive feedback. Many psychologists think that one of the biggest factors in wrongful convictions when there are eyewitness testimonies is suggestibility. There is evidence that has allowed psychologists to learn that eyewitnesses can be easily swayed. In the experiment that psychologists used there were participants that watched a security video of a man walking into a store. The psychologists told the participants that the man was a murderer and he was one. After the video the participants had to pick the murderer out of a line up. There were three different groups where, first group had no feed back, second group was told they made the wrong choice and to pick again, and third group received positive feed back. The murderer was not really in the line up and the group that received positive feed back had a much higher rate of confidence then those who did not receive positive feed back. When it comes to wrongful convictions, 50% of mistaken eyewitnesses are certain after positive feedback. The bad thing is that in the United States it is still a routine practice to give positive feedback. This could be bad because all it will do is increase wrongful convictions.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/wrongful-conviction-feedback-increases.php
The third article that I looked up talked about all of the things that can influence the memory and make error in eyewitness accounts. The article talked about how eyewitness identifications are wrong about 50% of the time. This is not because the people are lying, it’s usually because they are just mistaken and what to help the police. I really interested on finding out more on how the memory works. The article talked about how the memory takes fragments of a major event and applies it to stored memory in the brain and future information and that’s pretty much how we get our event that we remember. I also did not know of the photo biased identification. It is when witnesses get to look at photos before they have identified anyone and this can taint the mind and lead to false identification. Another thing that it talked about is when eyewitnesses give testimony in court and how it influences the jury. Even though the eyewitnesses may actually be wrong most of the time they are still usually pretty confident in themselves which helps to sway the jury. There are studies that show that jury’s tend to over believe eyewitnesses. I’m glad I researched this because if something big ever happens to me like a crime I will make sure to record everything I can while I can.
http://truthinjustice.org/lawstory.htm
I chose to do witness questioning because in my job there are times where I am required to appear in court and testify and I think that it is important to understand how questioning could affect my answers. The first important thing I found was suggestibility which is defined as the “tendency of individuals to accept uncritical information during questioning, or merely complying with what they believe the interviewer wants to hear”. Some interviewers also use a self fulfilling prophecy on witnesses in an attempt to get flawed testimonies. The wording in a question to a witness is very important. This is because if the question that you ask is very confusing then the witness can become confused and base their answer on the context of the questions rather than what the actual answer may have been. It is also important that the question not be asked in a hostile or accusatory manner because this could cause the witness to become unstable and therefore unreliable in their testimony. Usually what happens is that leading questions and pressure are not put on a witness during a direct examination but rather during the cross-examination because the opposing council often wants the witness to trip over their words and mix up their story to make them less reliable. Leading questions are also something that can make the eyewitness testimony faulty because they often cause the brain to fill in parts of the memory that are not there. This is another reason why it is so easy for a witness to become confused when being questioned by leading questions and in an accusatory manner.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100615093240.htm
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc51.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question
One topic I am very much interested in is teenagers and children who are tried as adults for crimes such as first-degree murder. It seems to me like the rate of teens (under age 18) who are being tried as adults has increased, at least in the media reports. I think this is a very difficult and controversial topic, and I honestly don’t know what side I’m on. I decided to research this topic because I wanted to get more background information about the topic.
The first article I found discusses the findings of a study that was recently published. This study, by the MacArthur Foundation, found that many children under 16 had as much difficulty grasping the complex legal proceedings as adults who had been ruled incompetent to go to court. In other words, those children who are being tried as adults don’t fully understand the legal process and aren’t competent to stand trial. Yet despite this fact, 23 states have no minimum age for children to be tried as adults. According to the article, Kansas and Vermont can try 10 year olds as adults. In my opinion this is a practice that should be ended. Children at age 10 simply don’t have the mental capacities to be tried as adults. They don’t understand the legal process and what is on the line if they are convicted. Even at ages 14 and 15 I don’t think teenagers should be held fully responsible. As the study finds, these children and teens simply aren’t competent.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0303-04.htm
The next article/website I found compares the juvenile justice system to the criminal justice system. I found this article to be extremely informative, because although I knew some of the basics of the juvenile court system and process, I honestly had very limited knowledge, especially when compared to the criminal justice system. I liked having the two systems compared right next to each other in a clear, simple chart. One fact I didn’t previously know is that a juvenile offender is “delinquent” rather than “guilty.” I knew of course of the term juvenile delinquent, but I hadn’t known that this is the official title they are given, as opposed to guilty. This is in comparison to the criminal justice system where the defendant is found either “innocent” or “guilty.” I think it is very important that the juvenile is not labeled as guilty, for that can create a stigma and stay with the person the rest of his or her life.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/stats/juvvsadult.html
The final webpage I found is the site of the Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP), a program in San Francisco that “targets the highest risk youth in the juvenile justice system and offers them intensive case management and a comprehensive range of community services.” The DDAP staff uses a wide variety of tools and strategies to help the juvenile delinquents recently released get involved in the community and not relapse or commit crimes and land back in the juvenile justice system. I think this is very impressive program that could be extremely helpful in integrating delinquents back into their communities and keeping them from being stuck in the system the rest of their lives. While I think it’s a very important program, I can’t help but think that a similar program should be in place for adults who are getting out of the criminal justice system. This could be a very effective tool if put in place in cities all over the country, not just San Francisco.
http://www.cjcj.org/detention_diversion_advocacy_program
I have this fascination with serial killers; mainly with how they could murder people. I don't know if I'll ever be able to answer that question to my satisfaction, because I could never see myself killing people. I mean, besides self-defense. If someone wants to hurt me, they can die and that's ok. I think I would feel bad afterwards, though, and would probably have to see a shrink. Serial killers don't kill in self-denfense, but they think it's ok to kill anyway, and they don't feel guilty enough, or, feel enough at all to think they need a shrink. I don't get it. I was looking for the why, then I looked at two of the best known serial killers.
Serial killers are produced from a bad mixture of genes and environment. Most of them have some degree of Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and this disorder is excerbated by their childhood. APD is a disorder that is partly genetic and partly environmental as well. I personally think that the environment has more to do with it than any kind of genetic material we may have. They also decide that they like to kill and damn if anyone thinks they shouldn't. Most of the serial killers either have abusive parents or parents that don't want them at all (actually, it could be argued that that's a form of abuse as well). Mothers are typically blamed, but fathers aren't exactly off scot-free. Even if the father's absent, he still contributed to the genes of the serial killer, and since it's a combination of both things, he gets at least some of the blame. Ultimtely, though, the blame lies with the killer. He knew he shouldn't do it and he did it anyway because he thought he was more important than others, and if that's what it took to make him happy, he was going to do it.
Two of the most famous serial killers are Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy. Ted Bundy I picked because of several reasons. One, I always hear about him but didn't really know much about him. Two, I really like reading Ann Rule's books and she personally knew him. Three, I think he was the cutest serial killer I've ever seen a picture of. (Which is actually really creepy and faintly disgusting, but it's true.) Ted Bundy never knew his father, although there was (and still is) speculation that his grandfather was his father. He was legally adopted but never bonded with his adoptive father, though from all accounts, his adoptive father tried. He has said many things about his victim count, from saying that it could possibly be in the hundreds to agreeing with those who put it in the thirties. His first known victims were in 1974. There is no doubt that he would have continued killing; in fact, he was arrested and convicted of murder once but managed to escape and went to Florida, where he was finally captured for good in 1978. Florida convicted him of 3 counts of murder. It was the murder of a 12 year old girl, though, that got him the death penalty. He appealed for many years but was finally executed on 2/24/89 by eletrocution.
John Wayne Gacy I researched because he used to live in Waterloo and managed a KFC (that actually closed just within the last few months). I wish Waterloo was known for a better reason than home to a serial killer, but whatever. John Gacy had an abusive father and there is some evidence that he was gay. However, because of his father (I think), he grew up hating gay people and very probably hating himself. It's my belief that he killed who he did because he didn't have the guts to kill himself. (Usually I say that the cowards are the ones who kill themselves, but in this case, it was more cowardly to kill others than to face your own problems and either get help or end it.) After he married his first wife, he moved here and worked at KFC. However, his first marriage ended when he was convicted of child molestation. He moved back to Illnois, where he was originally from, and married again. His second didn't work either (surprise, surprise) and he lived a quiet double life until he was questioned and later arrested for the murder of his last victim. He had 33 victims total, all boys between the ages of 9 and 20. Most were buried under his house and around his yard, but the last few were thrown into the river because he ran out of room. He was executed on 5/10/94. He died by lethal injection, but the chemicals used weren't the right ones (or in the right amount) and it took him 27 minutes to die.
I'm slightly conflicted about the death penalty, but not when it comes to people like these guys, who took so many innocent lives and don't deserve the taxpaper charity of 3 hots and a cot for the rest of their miserable lives.
here's my sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/tick/6b.html
http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=John_Wayne_Gacey
Today in class, we talked a lot about memory and how it is a key element in any crime scene investigation. Memory hasn’t been something that has always sparked my interest, but when Dr. MacLin started to give us statistics and even testing our memory, it really fascinated me.
I found a website that discussed how and why eyewitnesses and their memory is quite unreliable in criminal cases. Initially reading that, I was kind of shocked. I mean, I feel as if our court systems and just the public in general rely heavily on their information or recollection of the crime. The website explained to me how our memory can be undependable. First off, they say that our vision is blurred. Obviously we cannot possibly remember every exact detail of a crime. And even in our every day lives, there are so many things that go unnoticed – just like the penny example Dr. MacLin provided for our class today. However, it was easy for me to detect which penny had to correct image because there was a physical picture of it; I could actually see the two options. But if someone were to ask me (without a picture) which way Lincoln is flipped on the penny, I honestly would have no idea. Which leads me to the next point they make: people are much better at discriminating two objects when they are physically present than when one is present and the other is in memory.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html
In this article, it discusses how we can distort our own memories. Just by retelling stories, we twist them to adapt to our audience and our bias takes over which leads to distorting the very formation of the memory. Even without the presence of a third party giving misinformation, an eyewitness can think they remember things that did not actually happen. We conjure up false memories merely by identifying someone in a lineup who is actually not the perpetrator, but every time he is seen in a lineup, we still believe he is the perpetrator. The authorities could even tell us that the person we identify is not the perpetrator, but we are unable to go back to our original memory.
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
One of the neat things that I found online was a site that talked about ways to decrease misidentifications from eyewitnesses. This website lists several ways in which they believe will make an eyewitness more likely to identify the correct person. One way is through “blind administration”. This is when the cop directing the lineup doesn’t know who the suspect really is. Therefore, the eyewitness will have no bias or sway toward on person or another. Another tip would be “lineup composition”. This means that, in the lineup, the suspect does not stick out. The fillers, or the non-suspects, should somewhat bear a resemblance to the actual suspect. An additional way for reform would be a change in instructions. The cop administering the lineup should inform the eyewitness that the perpetrator may or may not be in the lineup, but the investigation will continue regardless. The eyewitness also should not look to the cop for help or guidance. One more change would be confidence statements. This means that the eyewitness would be required to give a statement that says how confident he or she is in their decision. Finally, there is recording. By recording the lineup, it ensures that the procedure was lawful. It would also confirm the safety of innocent suspects, because if there were any misbehavior on the administrator’s part.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/Eyewitness-Identification.php?gclid=CLfGofTAmaQCFcEz5wodxX3gFQ
The reason I am studying psychology and criminology is because I am very interested in criminals behaviors. Why do they feel the necessity to commit a crime, and how and why did they chose their method to their act? I'm very interested as well as to their reasons behind the act. Some people are certifiably insane and say that the voices told them to or else the world would stop, but most people aren't insane. Most criminals have sound mind to think and plan out the act they committed. One of the overall questions that I have is, what makes a criminal? How does one become a criminal and not have remorse for human life? As research continues there have been many theories that have formed over the years. Nature vs. Nurture is still the big debate all over in psychology and it is huge when it comes to how someone becomes a criminal. Often times it is a combination of enviroment and genes. A hot research topic concerning criminals and their actions, is the predisposed genetic makeup plus the right (or wrong however you interpret that) enviroment can create a dangerous criminal. On the side of genetics, researchers have been studying twin, adoption and families. There has been lots of debate based on the validity of these studies due to their lack of evidence, but its a start on trying to see the genetic side of criminal behavior. Family studies are the least accepted because it studies the way the person was raised but they also share the same genes as their parents, so it is difficult to measure which side of the debate, genetics or enviroment, influenced criminal actions. A new study was just performed studying twins who were both adopted and raised by two different families. The results showed that the children had the same aggression rates as their adopted families. This is just one study that shows that enviorment could influence genetic chemicals to make a person act more criminal.
Another website said socialization is when a child is taught an act. This time is very crucial for children and when most of the development takes place. The way these children grow up will influence and shap their morals. If they live up around stealing and drugs, than there is a good chance they will act in that same way when they get older. Another point that can be significant in the development of violent behavior is education. Kids with learning disorders usually are more violent because students with a lower gpa or IQ usually have lower achievments and less success in other aspects of life.
A study in Ohio researched associations with lead exposure in fetuses and young children showed that there is a direct link between lead exposure and criminal behavior. This is the first study about lead exposure ever done, so this is not widely known or accepted. Even the studies researchers were surprised to see the relation between early exposure to lead and criminal behavior in adulthood. Researchers found that higher levels of lead in early childhood had higher rates of arrests due to violent actions than the rest of the population studied. The strongest association between early lead exposure was involved in violence. This study goes along with enviroment because most children who are raised in low income, poverty areas do not have the cleanest air and are exposed more to lead than other middle-class children.
There is another factor that could be a reason to criminal behavior. Its the nature side of the debate, genetics. Personality disorders are always another reasearched possibility for criminal actions. Most criminals have some type of personality disorder, but not all people with personality disorders are criminals. There are three main disorders that are linked with adult behaviors which are ADHD, Conduct Disorder (violation of social rules and norms), and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (very argumentative, irritable, and noncompliant). These three disorders are usually diagnosed at a young age and can lead to antisocial personality disorder. Genetics only go so far, the way a child is raised deeply effects the development in the brain and the criminal qualities.
The Nature vs. Nurture debate will never end, nor will one side be set for the reasons of criminal behavior. I think there is definately an interaction between both traits for a person to become more violent, leading to criminal acts. Criminal behavior I feel is going to be very hard to try and pin point exactly what is going on in the brian and try to peice together their lives to see what could trigger these criminal instincts. But I feel that research is getting further information and gaining knowledge on how genetics and enviroment work together to create either an upstanding citizen or a criminal.
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html
http://www.udel.edu/chem/C465/senior/fall00/GeneticTesting/enviro.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527201839.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/Religion/intelligent-man.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/18/canadian-guilty-perjury-terrorism-case/
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
Everyone has seen the part of the movie where the witness is told to raise their right hand. They proceed to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is assumed from this moment on that every word coming out of their mouth is just that. However, what happens when it’s something besides the truth? This is called perjury, and it is essentially what happens when someone takes a public oath, in a court of law, to tell the truth, and does not do so.
Perjury is a very serious offense, and one could be taken to court because of it. It is not something taken lightly, and in order to be found guilty of perjury there needs to be two testimonies and/or other evidence that proves that the individual has lied. There also need to be specific statements in the witness’ testimony which are brought as the lie.
In one case, Inderjit Singh Reyat was found guilty of perjury, actually last Saturday, however it was in Canada. There was a bombing on Air India in 1985 in which a bomb went off and killed 329 people. In the trial that followed, Reyat was accused of trying to minimize his involvement, and committed perjury. He was accused in 2006 and found guilty just last week, which I think shows how serious the trial was.
In researching for this assignment I found an interesting article entitled The Intelligent Man’s Guide to Lying Under Oath. Which pointed out that in the late 16th century, when Catholicism was banned in favor of the Anglican religion in England, many were allowed to lie under oath. Catholic masses and the Catholic religion still carried on, and followers were told that lies of omission were acceptable. Also, saying something that could be a double entendre, such as “The priest does not lie in my house” could mean he doesn’t tell falsities, when the English government would take it to mean he was not hiding in their house. I found this article very interesting as it tried to tie these sort of logistics into the current time. It claimed that it was morally ok to lie under oath if it was an act of conscious. The example they gave is a woman who acquitted a man of drug dealing because she had a past record with drugs that had been exonerated. While I am unsure of how I feel about this method of justice, I thought it was a very interesting take.