Read Chapter 1 of your textbook.
Summarize the chapter. What information was most surpising or interesting to you? What do you know now that you did not know prior to reading this chapter? How could the words IN, AND, or OF change the meaning of the relationship between 'psychology' and 'law'.
Provide a list of psychological and legal terms you used at the bottom of your post
Chapter one described how psychology and law first came about (Munsterberg and Brandeis Brief 1908). It talks about how psychology is used within the legal system. For example, psychology would help explain why people commit crimes and how to help prevent them in the future. Psychology and law are two very different things. Psychology focuses on the group while the legal system would focus more on the individual. Psychology is in the law and the legal system to help determine what rules need to be in place to help the society. Psychology can help determine what is ‘fair’ or what the majority of people would see as ‘fair.’ Psychology of law, saying psychology is a part of the whole; a part of the legal system (i.e. forensic psychology). There are trial consultants who are psychologists that help with jury selection. Psychology is found in, out, and around the law. Psychology is attached to human behaviors and the law is making sure those behaviors do not harm the rest of society.
Terms: Forensic Psychology - knowledge in psychology and research methods to help advise, evaluate, or reform the legal system.
Trial Consultants: Psychologists who help determine who would benefit their side in a jury, help with the cases strategy how to make the jury see their side/feel sorry for their clients, etc.
I found that Chapter 1 was a great introduction to the topic of psychology and law. It covered a variety of topics in the field. First, the authors provided a short look at the past relationship between psychology and law. Though it is difficult to say when the relationship formed, the authors pointed out that we came to have the system we have now over time and through many different situations. The authors went on to discuss the differences between the fields of psych and law, as well as drawing parallels between the “cultures,” as they referred to them. Psychology, as we all have learned, is descriptive, objective, relies on data and research, and searches to find the truth behind the behavior of people. Law, on the other hand, is prescriptive, searches for justice and fairness, based on authority and precedents, and uses an adversarial system. To wrap up the chapter, the authors described ways for psychologists to have a role in the legal system and ways to influence the system with psychology.
I found two different parts of this chapter to be very interesting. First, the authors discuss how psychologists often evaluate different legal practices to determine whether they meet the intended goals. An interesting point they made about this is that the use of prison sentences generally has the goals of removing the criminal from society, punish the criminal for his/her acts, and to provide rehabilitation for the criminal. However, these goals are not always met. The other aspect of the legal system that I found eye-opening describes the use of “experts” and expert testimony in the courtroom. This seems like a very non-trivial aspect of court, but the section pointed out that experts are often motivate by the money they will earn by their appearance and do not present the material as objectively as they should. The previous owner of my book made note in the margin about the how ethical this practice is in court. As if the authors anticipated his/her doubt, they went on to say that it is almost impossible to prosecute expert witnesses for perjury or misconduct. I had never really taken the time to consider this possibility.
Overall, I spent a lot of time focusing on the words “in,” “and,” and “of” as descriptors of the relationship between the fields of psych and law. At the end of the chapter, I thought about how I think each of words changes how the fields relate. By my own definition, psychology in law refers to human behavior and condition (spanning from events prior to the crime and during the crime, arrest, trial, and sentence), truth behind the justice found by the law, the use of forensic psychology, and the idea that knowledge of psychology makes lawyers more receptive and judges more conscious of what is being presented. Psychology and law describes the partnership between the two, while maintaining that they are still separate realms of thought. I define psychology of law as way to capture how people interact with the law and legal system, why people commit crimes, and how the behavior of criminals can be changed.
Key term: psychology, law, culture, prison, criminal, society, sentence, courtroom, perjury, behavior, justice, perception, forensic psychology, crime.
Chapter 1 started off by describing a brief history of psych and law. The merging of the two disciplines started to emerge in the early 1900s. A few of the important historic happenings include Munsterberg’s On the Witness Stand, the case of Muller vs. Oregon, and the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education. Next in the chapter, the two disciplines were described as cultures and compared and contrasted in terms of their goals (truth vs. justice), methods (rulings vs. data), and styles of inquiry (advocacy vs. objectivity). The next section focused on roles psychologists usually play within law. The book listed psychologists as advisors, evaluators, and reformers. In addition to the roles psychologists can play, the book also discussed the ways that psychologists can influence law. Some of these were through expert testimony, through cross-disciplinary training, by the amicus curiae briefs, through broad dissemination of research findings, and, lastly, through influencing public policy. The chapter wrapped up with a brief discussion of how psychology has influenced the legal system.
What was most surprising to me was how easily any aspect of psychology can be used in the legal system. At the beginning of the chapter a few examples are listed (developmental, social clinical, cognitive, etc) and it just shocked me to learn that all of these disciplines can be used to influence law. This was one thing I did not know prior to reading this chapter. Something else in the chapter that interested me was the section in the chapter where psych and law were contrasted. It was interesting to see how different they are (i.e. in their goals, methods, and styles of inquiry) yet how well they seem to complement each other.
This leads me into answering the next question. I do not believe that psychology “in” law would be a very good way to describe these two. When we say these terms this way it makes law seem like the bigger umbrella with psychology being a very small, unimportant aspect of the legal system. However, from reading chapter 1 we can see that this is clearly not the case. Psychology is a very important discipline and can be used in the legal system in a way that promotes positive changes. Psychology “of” law seems to do almost the same thing as psychology “in” law in my mind. The best of these words is obviously psychology “and” law because while these two are being combined for this class, they are also very different fields with very different goals, methods, and styles of inquiry.
TERMS: psychology, law, advisors, evaluators, reformers, legal system, methods, styles of inquiry, goals, developmental, social, clinical, cognitive, expert testimony, cross-disciplinary training, amicus curiae, public policy
Overall the first chapter represented a generalized explanation, and interpretation of psychological processes, such as the scientific method when researching a research question in terms of Validity, reliability, bias, generalizability, peer review and so on. This general explanation of psychology in general is nothing new from what I already knew in terms of research methods and intro to psychology. Following, the book continued to explain the legal process in its own right in terms of the Hierarchy of the court system, the media’s role, and further generalized public views or “heartless” prosecuting attorneys. The book in its own right explained this concept further with the coined term “Approximate truth, vs. Approximate Justice.” On the one hand psychologists in general seek to follow their own interests in terms of finding support, but not proving something in terms of a final result, whereas justice is less definite and is ambiguous case to case, person to person, and is nearly impossible to generalize. This in turn lead me to address the ambiguous terminology of “psychology AND law,” “psychology, IN law,” and finally “psychology OR law.” In general through the use of pop culture and misrepresentation most people see psychology on the outskirts of the justice system. In short they visualize the “OR.” Most individuals including myself indulge in an occasionally episode of CSI or something along that lines. However, most psychological aspects of these portrayals are entirely null or inaccurate. That is to say often times we see law, along with psychology two separate fields which hardly interact. Secondly, the meaning of “psychology” and the meaning of “law” can be changed if its interpreted in terms of embodying each other, such as in terms of “psychology IN law.” When we use the term “in” the first thing that sparks in my mind is that law is somehow ranked in front of the field of psychology. However, this is not the case. When the term “in” is added I think people, myself included only look at it in terms of mental health or the famous “insanity plea.” That is to say, I only thought psychology influenced the law system when defendants claimed they were insane hence psychology is a subdivision which embodies the law system when convenient. Consequently, the book made me think of the role of psychology or this ideal of “psychology AND law.” Specifically in terms of the role of judges, through the justice system. The book explained that judges often play gatekeeper deciding whether or not expert testimony is valid, even if they don’t fully understand the psychological aspects, which I thought would be fairly important in mental health court cases. With the rise of gun crimes and mental health cases, specifically within Iowa in just the last few years, the idea of a system not influenced by psychology really interested me, as that I myself never really thought of psychology in terms of law on such a broad spectrum before.
Terms: gatekeeper, expert testimony, scientific method, approximate truth/justice.
Chapter one of the Psychology and law book starts off with explaining the goal of our legal system. The goal of our legal system is to reach a verdict. After a verdict has been reached, the legal system must decide the appropriate punishment for the individuals. According to the book, the trial is the most visible part of the legal process. However, the book goes on to explain that there is much more to the process than what we see in the courtroom. The book goes on to explain that when people look past the trial process, the legal system is “saturated” with psychological concerns. The area’s that the book is talking about is Developmental, Social, Clinical, and Cognitive Psychology. How are these areas shown in the legal process? For example, developmental psychology is shown in the legal process when deciding who will have custody of the children after a divorce case. Social psychology is shown in the legal system with different methods the police use to get a confession. Clinical psychology is shown in the legal process when deciding whether or not someone is criminally insane. Finally, Cognitive Psychology is shown in the legal system when explaining how accurate a person’s testimony is. After explaining all of this, the book goes on to talk about the history of psychology and law. It starts with the first person to see the possible applications of psychology and law Sigmund Freud. The book goes on to explain how Hugo Munsterberg, now considered to be the father of psychology and law, advanced psychology and law with his book “On the Witness stand.” Another important event in the history of psychology and law is the realist movement. The realist movement was the first example of psychology influencing law. The book goes on to explain the advanced of psychology and law through different court cases such as Muller v. Oregon, and the creation of organizations such as the American Psychology Law Society (APLS). The first chapter continues by talking about how psychology and law can sometimes work against each other, and how they can work together. The first chapter goes on to explain the difference between lawyers and psychological scientist in that lawyers are bound by precedents and psychological scientists are bound by data. The chapter continues to talk about how it is important that lawyers and psychological scientist work together, and the use of expert testimony. It then talks about the use of Amicus Curiae Briefs in the legal system and then finishes up with the discussion on how the legal system has been influenced by psychological psychology.
There was a lot of information that I found interesting. The one thing that stuck out the most to me was the discussion about how psychology is actually involved in the legal process. When the book goes over the four different types of psychology, developmental, social, clinical, and cognitive, I would have never guessed that each one of these could be found in the law. It is also interesting to see how each of these were used in the legal system itself. Another thing that I found interesting was when the book talked about expert testimony. I knew that expert testimony was used in the legal system, but I didn’t know that the expert testimony can have some really negative effects on the jury. For example, in the book, it talks about how an expert can “confuse” the jury sometimes with his/her expert testimony. Also, that sometimes the “expert can make the jury forget that they are looking for facts through evidence and just except the experts testimony as their own facts. So experts can really have an interesting effect on cases. All of these things were stuff that I learned that I didn’t know before reading this chapter.
The words IN, AND, and OF can drastically change the meaning of the relationship between psychology and law. IN gives off the vibe that psychology is involved in the law process. After reading chapter on, Psychology and Law are definitely a part of each other. AND explains that psychology and law work together. Also, and, makes it seem that they are two separate things. Examples of how they work together are with the use of expert testimony to help solve a criminal case. Finally, OF, basically explains that Psychology of law is useful in explaining how lawyers go after different criminal defendants. It is also useful when explaining police interrogation tactics and how their tactics affect individuals. It also explains that maybe psychology is a branch “of” law rather than something separate.
TERMS: Developmental Psychology, Social Psychology, Clinical Psychology, psychological, Cognitive Psychology, Sigmund Freud, Hugo Munsterberg, realist movement, Muller v. Oregon, American Psychology Law Society (APLS), precedents, expert testimony, Amicus Curiae Briefs
In this chapter an overview and a brief history of the legal system and psychology as they relate to each other was given. I thought it was really interesting that psychology hasn’t always been a subpart of the legal system as I always just assumed that it was. To the contrary the two have quite a long history in which psychology professionals did their best to integrate themselves and their practices into the legal system slowly. For a while the legal system was completely against the idea, as made obvious by the reception of Munsterberg’s book On the Witness Stand. However as time went on, the two began to understand how they could relate, and now today we live in a world where every major case has at least one expert witness. I was surprised to learn that judges as gatekeepers are responsible for deciding whether or not the jury will benefit from an experts testimony, and ultimately whether or not that professional is allowed to testify. The relationship of psychology and law is difficult to define, and can be looked at in three basic ways: Psychology AND law, psychology IN law, and psychology OF law. The first implies that the two work together attempting to use the best each has to offer to aid the other in achieving an ultimate goal of justice. The second on the other hand seems to say that law simply uses psychology where it naturally fits within the legal system to aid only the courts in achieving justice. Finally, the third would suggest that psychology is naturally embedded into the law, and is therefore an unavoidable aspect of trying a case.
Terms: Expert witness, judges, gatekeepers, testimony
Chapter one starts off with relating a court room and justice system to psychology. It talked about how developmental, social, clinical and cognitive psychologies are all associated with the justice system. The two disciplines of psychology and law started to become emerged in the early 1900’s when some historical court cases occurred. Some of these historical events including the publication of On a Witness Stand written by Munsterberg, which did not win over the legal community, and Mueller vs. Oregon in which a Brandeis Brief was used. The brandeis brief caused more scientific and social sciences research to be used rather than the typical legal citations. Twenty years later, legal realism started to arise, which caused judgments in court to be based on natural law, or principles in nature. In May of 1954 in the court case of Brown vs. Board of Education brought up psychological and social issues up such as racism, equality, and how children were being affected by segregation. Since then, the relationship between psychology and law has boomed and deepened for the last forty years. Next, the book talked about how culture causes different beliefs and behaviors, and were compared and contrasted by goals (truth vs. justice), methods (rulings vs. data) and styles of inquiry (advocacy vs. objectivity).
Psychologists were listed as advisors or trial consultants, evaluators who do evaluation research, reformers who strive to improve the system and experts who use experience and specialized knowledge to testify in courts. They also help juries or triers of fact with their specialized knowledge and insight. The book talked about the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) where the Supreme Court held that judges must serve as gatekeepers for scientific testimony and determine the validity of evidence and testimony before allowing any in court. Along with the Daubert case, two more cases which were General Electric Co. vs. Joiner and Kumho Tire Ltd. v. Carmichael made up the Daubert trilogy, which expanded the gatekeeping roles. Psychologist can impact the judicial system by gatekeeping, cross disciplinary training, and amicus curiae briefs which is a “friend of the court”. Psychologists also contribute through research findings, and influence legislatures and public policy.
I never realized until reading this chapter how many different roles psychologist can have in the legal system. They can be anywhere from a researcher to an advisor. I also did not realize how much history was behind psychology and law, and all of the court cases and discoveries that were made in order to create our legal system today. I also learned and was able to see how many different types of psychology are related to law. It was also interesting to see how different and similar psychology and law are to one another such as truth vs. justice, rulings vs. data, and advocacy vs. objectivity.
This has led me to see how psychology IN law would be an incorrect statement. Psychology AND law is a more appropriate statement, because psychology IS important when dealing with the law. By saying psychology is IN law, it makes psychology not seem like it plays an important role in the legal system. Psychology plays a major role in the legal system, and is almost crucial in creating equality and perspective in the legal system. Even though they are two different subjects, chapter one showed me how even though they contrast in many different ways, they can be compared as equal and important disciplines.
Terms Used: Brandeis Brief, developmental, social, clinical, cognitive, legal realism, culture, methods, goals, styles of inquiry, advisors, trial consultants, expert testimony, gatekeepers, amicus curiae briefs, cross disciplinary training, psychology, legal system
In this chapter the book starts off by introducing how psychology and law intertwine with each other and how they are a perfect fit, because they relate on so many levels. The chapter talks about how at first the introduction to psychology and law was not a legitimate combination. However later on people began to understand how the two subjects are correlated with each other. I thought it was really interesting how almost every category of psychology is in law. Some examples the book gave were developmental, social, clinical, and cognitive psychology. One of the things that sparked the idea of psychology and law was the legal realism movement which brought about the resurgence of social sciences and law. Before reading this chapter I had no idea that psychology and law were related on so many levels. I just assumed that they were only related by finding mentally ill that cannot stand trial. I found it very interesting that psychology plays a role in choosing the jury members, and it is used to decide the verdict. Another thing I found to be interesting was how the judges are supposed to be gatekeepers of the scientific validity of what is being presented in the case.
The judges need to be able to understand any research that is being presented.
I think the words in/and/of play a huge role in the way psychology and law relate to each other. For instance, if it said psychology in law, it would appear to be based solely on how psychology is used within the legal system. It would probably only use some of the psychological traits in law. Psychology would not be as heavily relied on if it was psychology in law. The next one I would like to talk about is if it were psychology of law. To me this seems more like it would be a separate branch of psychology that would solely focus on the legal system. This would still produce a good relationship between psychology and law and would benefit the legal system, and psychology. Psychology and law is an equal balance of the two. It shows partnership between psychological principles and the ideas of law.
Terms: developmental, social, clinical, cognitive, legal realism, and gatekeepers.
Chapter one is a real eye-opener, it grabs our attention to what we will be digging deeper into during the semester. All sorts of new key terms are introduced to us as well as different professions that we could get into with psychology and law. Chapter one brings about the idea of how developmental, social, clinical, and cognitive psychology is greatly involved with the justice system in some way or another. Within about twenty years psychology and law would have gone from a more legal citation standpoint to a more scientific and social science standpoint; this then gave the justice system the upper hand.
The chapter then beings to talk about how psychology is descriptive and law is prescriptive, what this means is that psychology tells us how a person behaves and gives us an explanation where law being prescriptive gives us the idea of how a person ought to behave in a certain circumstance and they law tries to regulate the behavior of people. As well as being descriptive, psychology focuses on characteristics of groups rather than one person by themselves. Law on the other hand focuses on one case examination.
Chapter one also gives us a deeper look into some of the “roles” played by psychologists that are in the field. Some of these roles would be: Forensic psychology, trial consultants, evaluators, and reformers. When a psychologist looks into being a trial consultant they are often hired by attorneys that are working on a particular case and they help them persuade the jury a certain way.
The book then describes five different “pathways” of influencing the legal system. What this means is that these are ways that social scientists use to come in contact with the system so they aren’t separated. Some of these pathways include: Experts, gatekeepers, and amicus curiae briefs. In one way or another they help the jury or they give insight to what is going on.
One of the most surprising things I gathered from this chapter would have to be how much we actually use psychology in the legal system. Whether it is someone who is more in tune with developmental psych or social psych all areas of psychology are being use at one point or another. We just cannot get around the psychology aspect to things when we deal with the justice system. After reading this chapter I now know that so many things have changed over time within the justice system. It went from a citation standpoint growing to a social science standpoint.
When looking at the title psychology AND law I feel as if it fits just right. It ties together two separate ideas rather than saying psychology IN law even though that statement is right as well. Not everything that is in law has to derive from psychology. So I believe that with the word AND in there it plays a more important role than if we put IN in the middle of those two.
Key Terms: developmental, social, clinical, cognitive, advisors, trial consultants, experts, gatekeepers, amicus curiae briefs, psychology, justice system, forensic psychology
Chapter one was a great introduction on exactly what effect psychology has on law and the areas that it is used in. This chapter starts out with the history of psychology and law. Psychology has only recently been used in law. The first emergence of it was around 1906 and 1908 which was only a little over a hundred years ago. This history portion goes on to say that in only the past 40 years has the relationship between psychology and law really become prominent. Psychology focuses on the truth while law focuses on justice. This can cause tension between these two disciplines. In the end, however, both must settle for an approximation of truth and justice. Psychologists can play many roles in the legal system. This is the portion of the chapter that I found the most interesting because on day I hope to work in the legal system as a psychologist. Psychologists can take the form of an advisor, trial consultants, evaluators and reformers. I didn’t know anything about trail consultants and I found their role in shaping the trail very interesting, especially how they identify jurors who will be sympathetic to the case they are hired to work for. The next part of sections talks about the different routes that are used by psychologists working in the legal system. This section goes on to talk about education and training that psychologists may need, such as getting a law degree vs. a Ph.D. in psychology. One fact that I enjoyed reading about was that judges act as gatekeepers in expert testimonies. This means that a judge assess the scientific validity to an experts testimony and can decide that to allow the evidence to be heard in court or not. But, this system can be inconsistent in the fact that some judges may let an expert testimony in the court while another judge may throw that same testimony out. Chapter one end with a section about how legal psychology as influenced the legal system and that the use of psychology in the legal system is still making a name for itself.
Personally I think the term to describe this practice should be psychology and law. This means that the two are separate but are working together. If IN was used it would sound more like law was the main thing and psychology was being used to accompany it, instead of the two terms being equally important. Psychology of law makes it sound like psychology is specifically being used to study the legal system and not the people surrounding it.
Terms: Advisors, reformers, trial consultants, gatekeepers, evaluators
Chapter 1 starts out by introducing the topics of psychology and law. The authors note a fine line is tough to draw when discussing both subjects, rather they should be looked at as compliments of each other that enhances the way we look at one term or the other. In other words, knowledge in one subjects can help you with the other. Brandeis Brief was discussed shortly about his involvement in merging the legal system with social sciences. His efforts in reducing women's labor hours helped past researchers with understanding the importance of legal realism, or reenergizing social science and law. Legal realists emerged as the advocates of this sort of practice, that social context and effects of laws are just as important as the law itself. This is further exemplified in the Brown v. Board of Education case which claimed "segregating blacks from whites in the schooling system gave blacks a feeling of inferiority as to their status that may affect their hearts and minds"
Many cases have brought about an argument between the relationship of psychology and law. Both are distinctive terms that describe their own studied phenomenon. Some claim that by combining the two underscores the importance of the other. In my opinion we should be using the term Psychology in Law. I say this because every case no matter how big or small has some element of psychology in it. Furthermore it is essential to recognize the psychological elements that may have contributed to the crime. On the other hand if we delve to deep in the psychological aspects of law , we are getting away from the main point of the legal system. For example, regardless of any form psychological tendencies of a potential suspect we must focus on bringing the guilty to justice and acquitting the innocent. I am not advocating that both aspects cannot exist together in a courtroom, because they certainly do.
Terms: legal realism, culture, Brown v. Board of Education, Brandeis Brief
In the course of Psychology history in law, there were two significant events in 1908 that prompted Psychologists to believe they could make a change in the legal system. These two events were the publication of On the Witness Stand and the ruling of the Supreme Court in Muller vs. Oregon. The book written by Hugo Munsterberg, tried to bring attention to a field of science that the public desperately deserved to hear about. In the Muller vs. Oregon case, Louis Brandeis, published a brief that integrated medical and scientific reports. This set a precedent for courts and judges to deliberate using Psychological knowledge in their decisions. Another case that helped confirm the need of social science in law was Brown vs. the Board of Education. Several sources that were referred to in this case, showed the effect illiteracy had on African American children.
Cultural differences can also be seen between law and psychology studies. These two cultures have different goals, methods, and styles of investigation. The goal of psychology is to inform us on how people behave. It is also interested in finding the truth, while law is interested in serving justice and telling us how people should behave. The methods used in these 2 professions are very different as well. Psychologists believe that our world is ever changing and our understanding of human behavior will always be revised. Law is based on a hierarchy. If a court of appeals states differently than a lower court, the lower court must acknowledge the decision of the higher court. Once a case has reached the Supreme Court, the matter is settled. Styles of inquiry are the third difference in cultures. Law believes justice and truth will surface during a debate from opposing sides while psychologists strive for objectivity. There are 3 roles in which psychologists participate in law: advisors, also known as trial consultants, who help with jury selection, witness organization, and also scientific help (briefs); evaluators, who study if a specific social program is effective or not; and reformers, who are using research to improve current practices in the legal system. Psychologists try to make an impact on the legal system in several different ways. These may include being an expert and testifying in court (advising), trying to educate people from the legal system on more psychology related topics, supplying briefs for cases, and trying to influence legislature with scientific findings.
I did not know that psychology had such an impact in the legal system. Before coming to UNI, I though psychology was only useful in therapy/counseling. All of the information presented in this chapter was very informative. I did not know that psychology helped to decide the fate of the Brown vs. the Board of Education ruling. I did not know psychology was very persistent in trying to inform the public. When it is said “psychology AND law” it makes me believe that the two disciplines are working together, while “psychology IN law” just means that psychology has a part in law. If it were “psychology OF law” it would make me assume that I am not studying law as well as psych. I feel that if you are in a forensic psychology position, then the more background you have in both, then the better.
Terms: Precedent, Brandeis Brief, Brown vs. Board of Education, goals, methods, styles of investigation, human behavior, court, Supreme Court, advisors, trial consultants, evaluators, reformers, forensic psychology
The first chapter of the Costanzo and Krauss book goes over the emergence of psychology and law intertwining and playing a role in each profession. The chapter acknowledges two key events that triggered psychologists to believe they had an effect on the legal system and for many legal minds and other psychologists to take interest. It also discusses the term legal realism and how that changed the way the law was looked at by many scholars, the major aspects of the movement, and its effects on the law. The first chapter also discusses five things that influence the legal system and judicial outcomes. This includes expert testimony, which are used when information that lawyers and legal experts do not have are needed and can be given by a professional in said field. Cross-disciplinary training is another way to influence the legal field; it gives students information in both the legal field and the field of psychology at a post-collegiate level. Amicus Curiae briefs; these can be given by special interest groups or by psychologist or experts that want to give somewhat neutral attention to one side of a case by educating the judges. And a broad dissemination of research findings, which states that lawyers and members of the jury are subject to broad types of information from many different sources, such as the media. And the last way is through the influencing of legislative bodies since the house and senate continuously create laws at the federal and state levels. The first chapter is a broad summation and introduction to what will be learned through the rest of the textbook and in the class.
Something that I did not know before I read this chapter was the effect of the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). I had not heard of this case before and did not know that the Supreme Court found that judges must be gatekeepers for scientific evidence and testimonies. In relation to expert testimony it is interesting to think about how the judge has the final say in the validity and the effectiveness of those testimonies.
All three of the words in, and, or of effect and can change the meaning of the relationship between psych and law. The word of changes what the entire psychological stand-point is and how psychological factors might be ingrained into the practice of law. The word and changes the relationship by creating a type of on-binding relationship, and studies both the law and psychology as different aspects and entities. The word in effects the relationship of the two words by focusing on what part psychology plays in the law and legal society.
terms: legal realism, amicus curiae, gatekeepers, expert testimony
Chapter one of the textbook gives an introduction to the background of psychology and law together and separately. Psych and law didn’t always used to be combined, until complicated events needed the two to work together, as the book lists off some examples of Muller vs. Oregon, and Brown vs. the Board of Education. The book talks about the role that psychologist play in the courtroom. They can be references, advisors and evaluators.
I thought that the part that psychologist played in the law side of things was very interesting. My clinical psych professor is a forensic psychologist and has a lot to do with the process in court. I find it fascinating that judges and lawyers can request for a psychologist to give their opinion on whether or not someone should be able to get custody of their kids or for a person to be competent to stand trial in cases where mental illnesses are involved. Forensic psychologists have to deal with a lot of different things pertaining to their expertise, my clinical psychology professor told us that as a forensic psychologist he did not say whether the person was to be guilty or innocent, psychologists are not the decider they just provide information.
As mentioned in the chapter social, clinical, cognitive and behavioral psychology is involved in the legal system that has given the legal system better chances in some cases. I find it crazy how much the legal system has actually changed over the years and in my opinion it worked out for the better for them to combine.
Terms: Clinical, behavioral, social, and cognitive psychology. Forensic psychology.
The first chapter is mainly about the history between psychology and law and how they both affect each other. The authors note how only recently psychology has been used in the field of law. The relationship between the two fields hasn't always been totally successful even though they both focus on human behavior and solve human problems. This chapter also presents a time line that starts with the progressive movement, which included the Muller decision that had used the Brandeis Brief (incorporated medical, scientific, and government reports that favored a certain party). Next, the legal realism movement entered. This movement was geared towards acting against the set order of natural law. The chapter then turns towards how psychology and law are two totally different fields of work. Psychology tells us how people behave and law tells us how people ought to behave. One is to understand and the other is to regulate.
This chapter also gives us a look at some of the roles played by psychologists in law. As advisors, psychologists can act as a trial consultant, and can be hired by attorneys to help with jury selection or trial strategy. Psychologists can also be evaluators in which they collect and analyze data concerning whether or not a program has worked. Psychologist can also be reformers, in which they use their research to decide what part of the legal system needs to change in order to make the whole system stronger.
There are also five pathways for influencing the legal system. The pathways include expert testimony, amicus curiae briefs (knowledgeable parties with no direct involvement in the case) , and gatekeepers (judges must test the validity of a testimony before its heard in court). The pathways are intended to keep the legal side, or court, running smoothly by giving more avenues to gain information and knowledge through.
While reading the part about expert testimonies, it kept making me think about law and order tv shows where a scientist of some sort gives his testimony about the some research he has done or what he has found and how it concerns the case. The authors stated, “Lawyers often shop around to find an expert who will support their side.” They do this by picking prior experts the lawyers have used. Once I read that, I got the notion that expert testimonies could be false. If you were offered a large sum of money just to take your information and sway it to one side of an argument, how hard could it be when you’re seen as the “expert.” I then found that it is rare for an expert witness who misrepresents findings to be prosecuted for perjury. On a side note, I had never though about how we basically let judges become premature scientist on some decisions, just had never crossed my mind.
To me, psychology and law refers to how the two fields are very much alike and different at the same time. Both come together by sharing the same objectives and process of finding answers. Psychology in law sounds like psychology would take a back seat to law, as if psychology were just a subgroup of an entire law field when in fact psychology is the basis for setting laws and enforcing them. Finally, psychology of law sounds like it is a psychological study of law and how it works. This is totally different from the other two phrases because they both involve the study of the people involved in the fields and this would be the specific study of law itself.
terms: legal realism, Brandeis Brief, trial consultant, perjury, amicus curiae briefs, gatekeeper
Chapter one focused on explaining and giving a more vivid view of the differences of psychology and law, and how they sometimes work well together and sometimes clash in ideas. Psychology was not always linked to law, but with the help of many psychologists, including Huge Munsterberg, psychology became a useful tool to use in assessing and understanding law. There are a few big differences in law and psychology, and truth and justice is one of the big differences. Psychologists are focused on finding out the truth to the best of their ability, while judges and lawyers are more focused on achieving justice to society. The reason that it is important to bridge between psychology and law is because many of the issues that come up in law cases, such as behavior of criminals, is a basic idea of psychology, therefore it is useful to use people that are knowledgeable in that area.
Something I found interesting in the chapter, which was also something I did not know much about before reading chapter one was the idea of expert witnesses and how they are used in the legal system. I found it very interesting that many expert witnesses may be biased when giving their testimony and can even misinterpret research findings to show more support for one side. I also found it surprising that in most cases, expert witnesses who do lie at the stand are not prosecuted for misconduct, because their testimony is all based on opinion, therefore they can lead the testimony in whichever direction they want.
If one uses the phrase psychology in law, it seems to represent the idea that psychology is used within the legal system, and it is a fundamental aspect of the legal system. This phrase doesn’t necessarily say that psychology is always used in the legal system, just that it naturally appears in many cases. The phrase psychology and law separates the two aspects giving them their own separate fields, while saying that at the same time they can be used together. The phrase psychology of law gives seems to explain how the legal system is set up and how it works (for example how lawyers work). I believe that psychology and law is the best descriptor because it keeps the two fields separate, but at the same time there is the opportunity for the two to merge.
Terms: psychology, law, legal system, testimony, criminals, witnesses, society
Chapter 1 summary- To me it talked about the beginning of the Psychology and Law. It goes into some earlier cases of the 20th century which were the founding points for psychology to be included in Law. Also it goes into some early works that psychologists tried to incorporate law into psychology such as On the Witness Stand by Munsterberg. Some of those works were not received favorably at first, and it wasn’t until the 1940’s -1960’s that psychology became an actual part of law. The first case using social research being Brown v Education Board. There are so many frustrations that come up in psychology v law because they focus on two entirely different things. Psychology focuses on what statistics and probabilities. Law focuses on what the outcome of a certain trial WILL be. It also goes into what role psychologists have in law, and why psychologists should even bother with law in the first place. Psychologists can be used as expert witnesses, advisors, counselors, etc. to help with a case.
I truly didn’t know that psychology wasn’t a part of law (for the most part) until the 1950s onward. I did know that psychology isn’t that old of a focal point for people starting in the late 1800s but I had imagined it being put to use in law a lot sooner than it did. I was very surprised as well that to this day there is a struggle between law and psychology in terms of how they interact in a courtroom together.
The words IN, AN, OF, can change the relationship between psychology and law a lot. Psychology IN Law would refer to the use of psychology in the profession or application of law. Such as using an expert to testify in court that may make a big difference to the outcome of a trial. Psychology AND law would imply that they were working together equally in some area. Like getting a Doctorate in Psychology AND Law would help further your knowledge in either field. Psychology OF Law would be a study of law and the psychology surrounding certain aspects of it. Like a study of how effective our court system is in the society that we live in now. When you change those words they can mean a lot of different things that involve both psychology and law.
Key-Psychology, Law, courts, expert, testimony, trial, evidence, study, witness, advisor, counselor, case, statistics, probabilities, social research, research
Chapter one starts with introducing how psychology started to be used in law with authors like Munsterberg and Wundt. The Brandeis Brief is when lawmakers first started to consider psychology as evidence in courts. Thanks to the Brandeis Brief “social science” was recognized, but not many believed it was very important. Then around the 1930s legal realism started to push psychology to be used in American law and the American Bar Association said that psychology should be used even if it causes problems among institutions. Law and psychology are very different, because both serve a different purpose in society. Law wants to set rules and punishments for violating those rules. It wants things to be simple for example a person is either guilty or not guilty. Laws will become more advanced through what the courts put into it. Psychology wants to explain why people would violate those rules and they like to focus on a certain group of people. Psychology advances through more research and science. Psychology can be used in law through forensic psychology and using experts like psychologist to explain an individual’s behavior. Judges have the responsibility to be gatekeepers in the courts and use scientific research to in cases. Yet in some courts judges tend to ignore the psychology behind certain cases because they lack the knowledge of research and don’t want to listen to researchers. The thing that surprised me the most in this chapter was how the legal system will make ruling without considering the psychology behind the case. Researchers study society to help the legal system make better laws, but still get ignored.
Key terms: Brandeis Brief, social Science, legal realism, American Bar Association, law, psychology, expert, forensic psychology, gatekeepers.
The first chapter begins by examining the history of psychology and law in separate entities as well as together. I find it important to understand each concept separately so it is easier to understand them when they are working together. A movement called legal realism basically reenergized the field of science and law. The case of Brown v. the Board of Education is an important part of our history for two main reasons. The first being that it was wrong to separate black and white children in the school systems. And the second being that the case was an example of social sciences and law working together to understand what is right. There is one topic that seems to be extremely important in all aspect of our world, which is culture. There are several definitions of culture that express the multiple contexts it can be placed in. According to the text many scholars have found it useful to think of psychology and law as fundamentally different cultures. I find this to be interesting because they are completely different concepts; however they obviously work together in the court system so the final outcome is accurate.
There are individuals that have doubts about the relationship between psychology and law because psychology is descriptive while law is prescriptive. Basically psychology tells us how people actually behave and law tells us how people should behave. This is the concept that I found to be extremely interesting because it shows how different they are, yet they work well together when it comes to making a final decision on a case. It expresses the relationship of scientists and the court system. This section showed how influential incorporating psychology into law. As when this began to occur in our history we began to see the benefits as we were able to look at all aspect of a case. In relation law is based on authority while psychology is based on empiricism. Also the legal system has a hierarchical system of attaining correct and respectable information. While in psychology anyone can contribute their work as long as it shows it is accurate, reliable, and influential.
There are two main reasons as to why bringing psychology and law together are important. The first is that law shapes our lives and it has a large amount of authority. The second being that there are many issues confronted by the legal system that are psychological, thus needed psychological input. The term forensic psychology is the use of psychological knowledge or research methods to advise, evaluate, or reform the legal system. This term incorporates psychology as well as law. Today lawyers hire psychologist to testify for cases, psychologists can also act as trial consultants. They are basically hired by attorneys to help with jury selection, witness preparation, or trail strategy. Basically the integration of psychology and law has greatly impacted the way we handle court cases.
Previously to reading the text I did not know very much about how psychology and law work together. Now I understand the relationship between the two as well as how they began working together. When thinking about how in, and, or of can change the meaning of psychology and law I examine the way they would work together. For example if it was called psychology in law, I would assume that psychology would be the primary science used. If it was psychology and law, I would assume that they both work together equally. And lastly if it was psychology of law, I think of the psychological factors of our legal system. It is interesting to look at the way the two terms can be used and how such a simple word could change the meaning.
Terms: Brown v. Board of Education, Culture, Forensic Psychology, Trial consultants, Ruling vs. Data, Experts, Legal Realism.
Chapter One briefly talked about the history of the connection between psychology and law, including the history of the two and how they are used in court. What surprised me about this chapter was that it wasn’t until the early 20th century that legal professionals and psychologists began to really appreciate the connection between psychology and law. I always assumed that the two went hand-in-hand since the beginning of crude law enforcement, but this chapter showed how their connection took many years to become established. I was also surprised while reading about the fundamental differences between psychology and law and issues that arise when the two interact.
Something I found entertaining about the chapter was information about the specific books published and court rulings that shaped the relationship between psychology and law. Documents like the Brandeis brief showed the court the importance of including research in their trials, while the famous case of Brown vs. Board of Education introduced the field of social science to the court system. Many of these cases I had never heard of/learned about before reading this chapter, so reading about them helped me better understand the history of psychology and law.
The relationship between these two can be changed drastically when comparing psychology and law, psychology in law, and psychology of law. From what I learned while reading this chapter, I feel like there is a big difference in the three. Psychology and law is the process of the two working hand-in-hand, whether it be in a research setting, court case, or classroom. Psychology in law, to my understanding, is the use of psychology in a courtroom, to argue your case (in the form of testimonies or briefs, etc.). Lastly, psychology of law is more like the study of how psychology affects the law in general, and vice versa.
Chapter One helped show the positives and negatives of psychology interacting with law, but it also showed how important their relationship is, and how it has drastically helped define our current legal system.
Terms:
Brandeis brief - A 1908 legal document involved in the Muller vs. Oregon case that incorporated scientific research into the party’s argument
Brown vs. Board of Education - The 1954 Supreme Court case that made it illegal to segregate schools
Brief - Document used in a court case interprets arguments or facts in favor of the party and helps juries or judges in their ruling
Chapter one started out by giving us a brief history of psychology and law. This section gave us two main events in 1908 that started to allow psychologists to think that their work may be useful to the legal system. The first event was the publication of a book by Hugo Munsterberg entitled On the Witness Stand. This book was of significance because he started the trend of getting psychologists to start looking at the legal field, even if the attention he got for the book was not the attention he wanted. The second event was the Muller vs. Oregon case in which it was determined that a woman’s work hours could be limited to 10 hours a day if they worked in a factory of some sort. The lawyer in this case filed his Brandeis Brief and this brief opened the door for using social scientific evidence in court. The next section of the chapter focused on the differences between psychology and law. There were three different areas that this section decided to focus on. First was the idea that the goals for the two cultures are different in that psychology tells us how people are behaving and the law tells us how people are supposed to behave. The second area focused on describing how the methods of the two differ in that the law is based on authority and psychology is based on empiricism. Lastly was the how the two differ in their styles of inquiry. The law side of things searches for advocacy by using the adversarial system and psychologists/scientists are constantly striving for objectivity. The section of the chapter also talked about the importance of trying to bridge the two cultures for the betterment of our own society. In order to answer many questions that arise in the legal system, psychology must be implemented. The chapter also briefly covers the different roles that psychologists can play who are interested in law. First there is partaking in trials as advisors (or trial consultants) who simply testify for the side they have been hired to testify for. There is also the role of an evaluator. Evaluators come on and argue that evaluation research should be used to evaluate any social program’s effectiveness. The final role mentioned in the chapter is that of a reformer. Many scientists are uncomfortable with this role because they are used to a basic science model and don’t always feel comfortable going outside of that realm. The chapter then goes on to discuss five different pathways that influence the legal system. Briefly, those are expert testimony, cross-discipline training, amicus curiae briefs, and broad dissemination of research findings. The main question that this chapter asks is “has psychology influenced the legal system?” The answer the book gives for this question is yes and no. In some cases, the presence of social sciences evidence does catch the attention of the judge and causes them to take the evidence seriously. In other cases, a judge will only use the social science evidence if it supports the ruling they were planning on making anyways.
The thing that surprised me the most had to of been the fact that these two cultures have so many characteristics that clash, yet they work so well together most of the time. It is definitely my opinion that the use of psychology in the legal system does nothing but good things for the betterment of our society and the accreditation of the legal system itself.
The things that I did not know before reading this chapter are associated with the history of both psychology and law. The two main events that brought attention to the combination of psychology and law had never entered my mind before, but they definitely make sense. The idea that the legal realism movement breathed live back into the previously dead field of law and social science combined was also interesting to me. Once again, I did not know about this specifically but it does make sense after reading it.
When looking at using different words to describe the relationship between psychology and law, it’s clear that the word “and” is already the word of choice and I think it is the most fitting between the three choices given. I believe that using the word “and” allows for equal importance for the two. Saying psychology “in” law almost makes it seem like the psychology part is less important because you are trying to find it inside the seemingly bigger picture of the law. Using the word “of” by saying psychology “of” law does the opposite of using “in”. It makes it seem as if you are breaking down the law side of things and analyzing the psychological side of it. This makes the law side seem less important. These things are why I think using “and” is the most appropriate way to word this. Both areas are of equal importance and deserve the same amount of attention in approaching this complex subject of combining psychology and law.
Terms: Brandeis Brief, adversarial system, trial consultants, evaluation research, amicus curiae briefs, legal realism
This chapter was a little more than just the normal introductory chapter in most textbooks. Yes, it went through a small section of the history but instead of dragging it on it went right to the good stuff. There were some interesting topics within the history of psychology and law, though. I was very surprised when I read that Brown vs Board of Education was the first case that used scientific journals to base and finalize their decision to integrate the school systems. Why did this take so long?! I feel like in order to make a judgment/decision in a court case, that ultimately could affect the rest of that person's life, one has to take into account, and/or understand, the human mind and the motivations of people to make a correct unbiased decision.
There are several differences between the areas of psychology and law, but the following two are the most prominent. Law tends to deal with individual cases in a matter of fact way while psychology speaks in terms of probability in a group. For example, speaking in psychological terms a person, with certain factors playing in, has an increased likely hood to be violent, manipulative, or become a repeat offender. Law wants the black and white version, people are guilty or not guilty, they are or are not going to commit another crime or become violent again. Secondly, psychology simple wants to explain human behavior while law wants to act on certain behaviors to either to promote or discourage those behaviors without the knowledge of why a person acted in such a way.
Needless to say, there are numerous differences between psychology and law. Even depending on the usage of the words 'and', 'of', or 'in', the relationship between the two drastically change.
Psychology 'in' Law, in my understanding/interpretation, is the actual affects of psychology in the legal system. How the different psychological states of the defendant, jury, outsiders and even the judge influence the final decision. Also, how do prosecutors/defenders find or defend the motives of the criminal? Psychology 'in' Law provides a deeper meaning when discussing the relationship between the two.
Psychology 'and' Law seems to be more of an analytical field that uses the barebones of statistics, research methods, and other methodical approaches to explain the relationship of psychology and law as two separate fields that overlap in certain cases. For example, the main goal of this course, Psychology and Law, is to provide the students with "the theoretical and research tools necessary for the understanding and analysis of the discipline of psychology and law."
Psychology 'of' Law seems to be more from a prosecutor or defense attorney's point of view. It is a breakdown of how the legal system works, not just through policies but, through people. For example, there is a psychological reason that prosecutors and DAs present information in a certain fashion. Using non-verbal cues, including body language and tone of voice, are all deliberately chosen in a way to, in a lack of better words, manipulate the people of the court's actions and decisions. We all hear the terms, 'play the insanity card', again this is another way of presenting information in the defendant's favor, along with, in domestic abuse cases, playing the victim or using self-defense, even if that isn't the case. DAs and prosecutors are all using their knowledge of Psychology to affect the jurors and judges. Also, the set of up of the courtroom and even what the defendant is wearing are all psychological aspects of the law. To solidify their reasoning, DAs and prosecutors may use clinical psychologists and their expert opinion/testimony to sway the jurors and judge. Overall, when used correctly psychology is a great tool in the field of law.
Terms: Prosecutor, Defense attorney, research methods, motivation/motives, non-verbal cues, expert opinion/testimony and clinical psychologists.
Chapter 1 provided a brief history of how psychology and law have developed into a joint discipline. This began in the early 1900’s with Munsterberg’s book: On the Witness Stand. The case of Muller vs. Oregon, dealing with work labor, gave psychology some well-deserved credit and opened the door for psychological evidence to be used in courtrooms. Next, the chapter described the two disciplines as cultures. The goals, methods, and styles of inquiry of psychology and of law were compared and contrasted. The primary goal of psychology is to explain actual behavior, whereas the primary goal of law is to regulate behavior. The legal system is hierarchical and higher court systems have authority over lower courts. In psychology, any researcher can conduct a study to challenge any theory. The legal system’s style of inquiry relies on advocacy, as lawyers must promote a one-sided view of the facts. Psychology aims for objectivity as the style of inquiry. Though scientists and the scientific method are not perfect, the scientific community does it’s best to correct all research they may have been biased. The chapter described some different roles that psychologists can have within the legal system, such as advisors, evaluators, and reformers. The chapter also listed ways that psychology can influence the legal system, such as expert testimonies, cross-disciplinary training, amicus curiae briefs, broad dissemination of research findings, and through influencing public policy. In conclusion, the chapter talked about the overall influence of psychology on the legal system. It seems that the presentation of social science evidence at least raises the consciousness of judges, and forces them to take research evidence seriously.
The information on the case of Brown v. Board of Education was both surprising and interesting to me. I have obviously heard of the case before, and even remember studying it in my high school government class. However, I had no idea that psychology had any part in the case. It was highly impacting for society that black and white children should not be segregated in schools, but I did not know that “A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn,” was part of the ruling. It’s cool to know that psychology is involved with the history of our country so deeply.
I was not aware that psychologists could do more than just serve as an expert witness. I know now that psychologists can also serve as evaluators, researching the legal system’s effectiveness. They can also serve as reformers, trying to improve the parts of the legal system can have proven to be ineffective. It seems obvious now that a psychologist would fit nicely into these roles, but until I read this chapter, I had no idea that they could have that place within the legal system.
Psychology can easily fit “in” law. Psychology can be put into the legal system to improve it’s fairness and effectiveness. When saying psychology “and” law, I think of how the two disciplines compare and contrast. Both focus on human behavior. Psychology tries to explain it, and law tries to regulate it. But in order for law to be fair and effective, it is essential to understand the behavior. Psychology “of” law simply narrows things down. An example would be studying eyewitness testimonies. These are a central part of the legal system, and psychology “of” that part of law would be to explain that behavior (and cognitions).
Terms: advocacy, objectivity, scientific method, testimony, amicus curiae brief, broad dissemination, goals, methods, styles of inquiry, expert witness
Chapter 1 spends most of its time talking about the history of the interaction of psychology and law and lists various cases that had an important impact, such as Brown v. Board of Education, The chapter also spends time explaining how various psychologists influenced the interaction between the two fields, such as Hugo Munsterberg and his book “On the Witness Stand”. It also explains how the two fields are different and how law benefits from the perspectives that psychology brings. The chapter also explains that law is prescriptive and psychology is descriptive. This means that law tells how people should behave and psychology tell us how people actually behave in real life. The chapter also lists five pathways for psychologists to influence the legal system, those being expert testimony, cross-disciplinary training, amicus curiae briefs (“friend of the court”, similar to expert testimony), broad dissemination of research findings, and influencing legislatures and public policy.
Something I didn’t know and was also the most surprising to me is how recent it was that psychology started to truly interact with the legal system. I also didn’t know that there is still some tension and work to be done on the interaction of the fields of psychology and law. I always assumed that the two worked perfectly fine together. I also didn’t know as much about how psychology and law interact compared to the information in this chapter. I already knew some of the information but the chapter definitely helped to expand my understanding.
I think that psychology AND law is the best way to phrase how they interact. Psychology IN law makes it seem like it’s just the legal system’s understanding of how they use psychology to benefit themselves, pushing the field of psychology itself off to the side. Psychology OF law seems to do the opposite, giving preference to psychology’s interpretation of the legal system. Psychology AND law, however, draws a distinct line between the two fields while also showing that they can interact with each other on an even field. “AND” seems to be the best way to eliminate preference to one side and express that the two work together.
Terms: psychology, law, legal system, Brown v. Board of Education, Hugo Munsterberg, On the Witness Stand, prescriptive, descriptive, expert testimony, cross-disciplinary training, amicus curiae briefs, broad dissemination of research findings, influencing legislatures and public policy
After reading Chapter of I which was basically an very board and interesting overview of the history of Psychology and Law, the culture aspect of Psychology, the many roles Psychologists can play who are interested in law, the five founding venues Psychology influenced the legal system, a very board announcement of the findings in research and how influencing legislatures and how psychology has influenced the legal system.
I found many things that were unexpected and appealing to me as I read Chapter one. First of all the two most influential events in the history of Psychology and Law which were: the book publication On the Witness Stand written by Munsterberg and the other was the Brandeis Brief. Until this past weekend I did not know that it was the Brandeis Brief was the first legal, argumentative document submitted to the Supreme Court in 1908. Because of this one document which will now set a precedent for the courts to consider research in their decisions, psychology and law were intertwined forever. And this was of grand importance for the progressive movement.
There were a number of things I learned after reading Chapter One. I definitely am aware now of the legal realism movement and how it brought back to life the field of social science and law. On a more personal level I have found out I am very interested in how Psychology and Law will play a role in my future life. I have always known that I wanted to incorporate the two fields and since reading learned about how Psychologists can become trial consultants which sounds very appealing. Now I can also consider forensic psychology and/or criminal psychology. I also discovered that my interest for forensic psychology is rather large compared to the other fields. I am now strongly considering on becoming a forensic psychologist.
Concluding this blog with how the terms IN, AND or OF change the meaning of the link between “psychology” and “law”, first redefining what I already know about Psychology; which is Psychology, the scientific study of behavior and the mind. When you say ‘Psychology IN Law’ as a phase you are in my opinion stating that the Psychology aspect must be within what is appropriate in the eyes of the law. When you state Psychology AND Law you are blending the two together and using both aspects to form a decision or concept. When ‘Psychology OR Law’ is being said then it leans in the direction of the psychological research into why people conform to obey or not obeying the law.
Terms: Psychology and Law, culture, Psychologists, legal system, Brandeis Brief, precedent, progressive movement, legal realism, social science, trial consultants, forensic psychology, criminal psychology, forensic psychologist, scientific study, psychological and experts.
In this chapter, the relationship between psychology and law was explained. I found that there was about an even amount of information that I knew, versus information that I had learned while reading. The most interesting fact that I learned was in the realist movement they proposed three principles: the first saying that because psychology progresses faster than laws are able to, the laws must always be modified to fit the changing times, the second stated that “law is ‘a means to social ends and not an end in itself,’” and the third was that the effects of each new law should be monitored within the society. Some new knowledge that I acquired had to do with the Supreme Court. The term “gatekeepers” refers to judges who research the validity of claims made before they are presented in courts. I guess it only makes sense that they would have their facts checked, but I never realized that they had judges do it. Finally, the three connections, psychology in law refers to the psychological connections that are made within the legal system, for example: when there is a custody battle between two parents, developmental psychology would come into play. Psychology and law refers to the relationship between the field of psychology and the law field. Finally psychology of law explains why certain laws are made, and the way that they are executed in society.
This first chapter in our textbook was basically showing us the big picture of forensic and legal psychology. It talked about some ways psychology can be used in the legal system. It also talks about how many people now believe that in some way, psychology degrees should be included in forensics. It also filled us in on some legal terms that are important in understanding different aspects of the legal system. This chapter opened my eyes in many ways. Before reading this, I didn’t know there were so many ways that psychology can benefit the legal system.
One of the most interesting parts of the reading for me was when they talked about the idea that “psychology is descriptive and law is prescriptive, this meaning the psychology tells us how people actually behave and law is how people ought to behave (Costanzo and Krauss p.7).” I never really thought about it in these terms, but it makes perfect sense. Laws are meant to make us behave in ways that are “legal”. While psychology is researching and viewing people’s behavior, laws are regulating them.
Last semester I took a clinical psych class, in the class we talked briefly about forensic psychology and how the psychology can many times be involved in the legal system. However, one of the things I found surprising right away while reading this first chapter was how each different areas of psychology can somehow be related or used in the legal system. Developmental psych can be looked at in court cases involving divorce, social psychology in court cases involving coercion and persuasion in interrogations, clinical psych in court cases involving whether a mentally ill person is competent enough to be able to stand trial, and also cognitive psych in court cases involving eye witnesses and how accurate one can remember what they saw.
Using the word AND, to me, separates Psychology and Law. With this we can look at the differences in the two. Like I mentioned earlier, psychology is descriptive and law is prescriptive. Another difference between the two is that psychology looks at the characteristics of groups and law only looks at one case at a time. Also, many times Judges aren’t aware of the scientific method, and psychologists use the scientific method in almost everything they work with while studying.
Using the words IN and Of, to me, almost have the same meanings. Saying “Psychology IN Law” and “Psychology OF Law” seem to relate to how psychology is used inside the legal system. Different ways psychologists are used in the court room that I didn’t know about before are in using psychologists as experts in testimonies along with advisors as well such as trial consultants and evaluators.
Something that I also didn’t know before this reading was amicus curiae “friend of the court”. I thought it was good that judges are being educated about relevant psychological research. If judges don’t know what different aspects of psychology mean, or the different steps or processes in research, there is no way that the judge is going to use that information to make a decision about the case that is accurate. I believe that people who go to school for psychology and want to work in law should have a good background in schooling and vice versa. I think it is really good that there are many schools throughout the United States that offer degrees with also an emphasis in one or the other.
Key terms: forensics, psychology, law, developmental psych, clinical psych, social psych, cognitive psych, scientific method, experts, advisors, trial consultants, evaluators, amicus curiae
Chapter 1 starts out with background knowledge and history of both Psychology and law. I learned that Munsterberg played a big role in the start of Psychology and law as a single idea, but his book was not received well. I also learned of a famous case, in which a lawyer explained the social affects on children and families of women working long hours known as the Brandeis Brief. In the years to follow this case, there was a movement of legal realism, in which social science was becoming a more accepted idea in the court room and then became continuosly accepted and use in the 1970s. The chapter then goes on to explain the differences between psychology and law as different cultures. I learned the phrase from the text, which I found very helpful, that "Psychology is descriptive and law is prescriptive" (Haney, 1981). Law is based on the idea that once a decision is made by the courts, the decision is final, where as psychological theories are always changing and experimented on by different psychologists. Another difference that really stuck out to me between the two was how one-sided lawyers must be in presenting their cases and how objective psychologists must be when experimenting and pondering on theories. These ideas have all been examples of psychology AND law and how different these two are in terms of culture.
The chapter then bridges these two cultures together to explain why it is a good idea to have Psychology and law working together. This brings out the familiar term "Forensic Psychology". Psychologists are called upon for different duties in the legal system. They act as advisors, they evaluate information presented, and they help imrpove the legal system as a whole. Psychologists are also used as experts in the court during trials, and the judge is a gatekeeper, deciding what can and cannot be used as valid information in a trial. I learned that judges must be trained to be able to figure out what kind of information is relevant and what is not relevant through amicus curiae. These ideas and roles of psychologists are all examples of how psychology is IN law. To better support this argument, there are many graduate programs today where law and psychology are studied simultaneously.
In conclusion, I also learned that the phrase psychology OF law is deemed valid as well. There are so many aspects of the court room that we can look at psychologically. A few examples are the jury- will their backgrounds and past experiences make them sympathize with the defendent? The lawyers- how is their demeanor affecting the witnesses in giving their testimony? The judge -will their own opinions persuade the information they find relevant? These only brush the surface of the psychology found in the legal system.
Terms used: Brandeis Brief, legal realism, cultures, forensic psychology, gatekeeper, amicus curiae
After reading chapter one I feel as though I have a decent understanding of the foundations for psychology and law. Chapter one was an introduction on how psychology and law came about. It spoke of key psychologist, such as Hugo Munsterberg, and key court rulings, such as Brown vs. Board of Eduction, that got things moving in this direction. It also looked at many parallels between the fields of psychology and law, or cultures. It described how psychology is descriptive, meaning that is tells us how people actually behave, where as law is prescriptive, telling us how people should behave. Psychology is used inside the legal system in many ways. It is used to try and help explain why people commit some of the crimes and actions that they do and helps to prevent them from occurring again. To do this, many laws are put into effect that are first looked at from a psychological standpoint. Forensic psychology is the use of knowledge in psychology and research methods to help advise, evaluate, or reform the legal system. It is important to make sure the laws and regulations in place are doing what they are designed and purposed to do.
One thing that was interesting to me that I did not know prior to reading this chapter was how large a role psychology and psychologist play in court proceedings. Psychologists can be called in to testify as expert witnesses, advisers, and trial consultants. Trial consultants are usually social scientists that aid attorneys in the presentation of a criminal trial or civil lawsuit. I also found it interesting that expert witnesses can often present their information with a bias towards whomever they have been hired by, whether its the defense or prosecution. However, to counter this judges will play the role of gatekeeper in determining whether or not an expert opinion is valid and can be used as evidence.
The last thing I looked at in chapter one is the relationship between in, and, and of when referring to psychology and law. I think that based on how the two fields interact with each other, psychology and law is the best way to describe it. Psychology of law seems to me as if it is looking at the cognitive ways in which laws are thought up and enacted. Psychology in law seems that there is a separate group in law that psychology is specifically for. Psychology and law sounds more proper in how the two fields compliment one another to provide a better legal system of its citizens.
Terms: Psychology, Law, Cultures, Expert Witness, Expert opinion, trial advisors, gatekeeper, forensic psychology, cognitive, legal system, Brown vs. Board of Education, Hugo Munsterberg, prescriptive, descriptive
Chapter one depicts how both law and human psychology is socially created. We as a society have developed laws and an understanding for the psychology that effects these laws. these topics play a part in developing our culture as well. Chapter one attempts to explain the history of psychology and law; as well as explaining terms and psychology that has developed over time. All of these, history, psychology, laws, and culture influence the legal system. The chapter ends with discussing those influences.
The most interesting thing I found in this chapter was how much of an impact ones psychology can impact the proceedings of a criminal case. From trail consultants to case briefs; certain elements of psychology and mental process can be found in every stage. This topic of psychology in the court proceedings is also something that I didn't understand prior to reading chapter one. I suppose its not really a matter of not knowing psychology influenced the criminal case process, that’s basic common scenes. For me, it was simply looking at the criminal and court process in a psychological light. I just need to ask myself, what about this can change or effect someones mental state. That's something I didn't know prior to reading this chapter.
In, and, of. These three terms describe the state of “being”. Depending on the context, these words can change meanings entirely. Psychology in law refers to the mental process that takes place in courts, policing, trial, case briefs, etc. Psychology and law refers to the two and how the interlace to work together, or even how they conflict often at times. Psychology and Law together. Psychology of law is very similar to psychology in law. Both I think are looking at how psychology takes a roll in the legal system. How the mental state of an individual can effect any sub topic of law.
Key Terms: Psychology, law, mental process, police, courts, legal process, legal system, mental state, case, briefs, criminal, society, culture, consultants, conflict.
Chapter one starts with introducing how psychology started to be used in law with authors like Munsterberg and Wundt. The Brandeis Brief is when lawmakers first started to consider psychology as evidence in courts. Thanks to the Brandeis Brief “social science” was recognized, but not many believed it was very important. Then around the 1930s legal realism started to push psychology to be used in American law and the American Bar Association said that psychology should be used even if it causes problems among institutions. Law and psychology are very different, because both serve a different purpose in society. Law wants to set rules and punishments for violating those rules. It wants things to be simple for example a person is either guilty or not guilty. Laws will become more advanced through what the courts put into it. Psychology wants to explain why people would violate those rules and they like to focus on a certain group of people. Psychology advances through more research and science. Psychology can be used in law through forensic psychology and using experts like psychologist to explain an individual’s behavior. Judges have the responsibility to be gatekeepers in the courts and use scientific research to in cases. Yet in some courts judges tend to ignore the psychology behind certain cases because they lack the knowledge of research and don’t want to listen to researchers. The thing that surprised me the most in this chapter was how the legal system will make ruling without considering the psychology behind the case. Researchers study society to help the legal system make better laws, but still get ignored.
Key terms: Brandeis Brief, social Science, legal realism, American Bar Association, law, psychology, expert, forensic psychology, gatekeepers.
Chapter 1 starts off by talking about the history of Psychology and Law and how it pretty much started up and how it works. There were many things that I learned in this chapter that I would have ever thought about like how much psychology does have to deal with the law and legal realism. I mean after realizing that, it makes it seem so relevant to each other. Lawyer's always try and get in the mind of the people they are up against and that is psychology. Hugo Munsterberg was acknowledged as the founding father of psychology and law and wrote a book called "On the Witness Stand". The purpose of him writing that book was "turning the attention of serious men to an absurdly neglected field which demands the full attention of the social community." The chapter talks about how different the culture is of psych and law and how they clash.
Something that I thought was interesting was the role of psychologists acting as trial consultants and how they serve as advisers to the legal system. Psychologists are hired by attorneys to help with the jury, witness preparation, or trial strategy. The psychologists try and figure the best ways to shape the trial for the paying client. They are pretty much the mastermind behind the trial, but the lawyer is the one that reads contracts and speaks. I never knew that psychology played that huge of a part behind law.
When thinking about psychology AND law, I just think about how the two work together. But then when you change that to OR, I think about how they go up against each other. And then IN, I think about what psychology is in law, which is a lot. The course could honestly be either since, the cultures of the two (psychology and law) clash. They work together, but they also can go against each other.
Key Terms: trial consultant, culture, legal realism
Chapter one started out with a breif history on how the legal system began. I never knew that the legal system took off in the 2oth century in 1906. I found that little fact shocking, for I would have expected that we would have thought of this system long before that. The chapter then proceeds on about the different trials that came into play with the legal system, such as Muller vs. Oregon case. This case involving women in the work place brought a victory and the next step for the progressive movement-reduce work hours, improve wages, restrict child labor. Legal system began to take off, in the 1930s social sciences became an interest. This was the beginning of the legal realism-(introducing social science and law).
Something that I did not know after reading this chapter was that a Psychologist can serve as an expert witness. I knew that Psychologist can be forced by court order to present information on the defendant, and to break the code of confidentiality when the client may cause harm to themselves or others.
When talking about Psychology and Law, Psychology of Law and Psychology in law we have to rememeber the specifics of each. Psych and law focuses on the aspect of psychology as a field and the law field. Psychology of law focuses on discusses why cetain laws are made out, and how to execute these laws to our society. And lastly, Psych. in law refers to the psychological connections of laws made out.
Chapter one started off my talking about the history of Psychology and Law. The legal system begain to take off in the early years of the twentieth century. the book talks about the two big events in 1908 that transformed the legal system, which was the book called On the Witness Stand, and the case of Muller v. Oregon. The introduction of this chapter also talked about the leagal realism movement, which brought the social science field to life.
I personally thought that the cases defined in the book were quite interesting such as the one listed above, Muller v. Oregon that involved women in the work force. Muller sought to reduce work hours, improve wages, and forbid child labor. Also, the case of Brown v. Board of Education which dealt with children of different races in the same school.
There are many roles played by psychologists interested in law that I did not know about. They can act as evaluators, advisors, and reformers. There are many positions that psychologists can take part in.
Psychology AND Law is the two working together, it's like team work. The work hand in hand in order to live up to its full potiental.
Psychology IN Law seems like the the psychology aspect of the law. I feel like it is simular to Psycholgy and Law because they both have a correlation. Psychology OF Law refers to the law, and the psychology of items in the legal system and not specifically about people.
Legal Terms- Psychology, Law, Brown v. Board of Education, Muller v. Oregon, legal realism
Chapter one began with a brief history into the relation ship between psychology and law. The chapter references Freud and his thoughts on how his theory on how the unconscious thought influenced Austrian judgeds and how a student of Wilhem Wundt, Hugo Munsterberg and his book On the Witness Stand pointed out the need for psychology to be used to re-examine how the legal process is done. Even though the book itself was panned by most legal experts its what would pave the way for an idea that would change how psychology and law would interact. That idea of course being Legal realism, the idea that judges should construct decisions through precedence and their own interpretation of the evidence. This is the movement that brought about the popular idea of having the social science involved in the legal field. Then landmark cases like Brown v. Board of education and Muller v. Oregon.
The latter of those two cases is something I didn't know about prior to reading this chapter. I found it really interesting that such a case wasn't really talked about more in my previous classes. Not only was the case a landmark in womens right, but a sign as the study of how even the tiniest of things can have a large and lasting effect on our culture. The most interesting thing about the chapter to me was the roles a psychologist can have. I've know about the idea of an expert witness from being involved in Mock Trial and of course from the media. Yet I didn't really know about the evaluation research or how they can be reformers of the system really impressed me!
Psychology IN Law to me refers to the idea that was touched on in class and in the book that you can relate most situations to some facet in psychology (ex. developmental in a child custody etc). Psychology OF Law would be along the lines of why there are certain laws and how they should be interpreted or changed to fit the changing circumstances. Finally Psychology AND Law would be the idea of how psychology and Law as separate fields mesh together.
Terms: Psychology and Law, Brown v. Board of Education, Miller v. Oregon, Legal Realism, Culture.
Chapter one of the text was explaining the differences between psychology and law. This gave me an idea of the difficulties involved in putting the two fields together. I didn’t realize prior to reading chapter one that it took so long to get the two fields to be combined. When the text was talking about the differences between psychology and law the one part that was mentioned that stood out to me the most was the idea that law tends to focus on the past and making rulings fair while psychology looks towards the future. An example of this was that lawyers cite precedents while arguing in front of the judges. This means that they bring up past decisions in cases that are similar to the current case. There are five pathways in which psychology influences the legal system. Lawyers often use psychologists as an expert witness if they believe that it will strengthen their case. To me psychology in law implies that there is psychology in law. Meaning that whatever the case is there is some psychological background, which is true because crimes are involving people, and people are psychological beings. Psychology and law comes across as they are side by side, that they are being studied as two separate things but are being compared to each other. Psychology of law seems as though it would be the psychology behind law itself.
Key Terms: expert witness, precedents
Chapter one was a great introduction to psychology and law. I liked how it discussed psychology by itself and law by itself and then proceeded to combine them together. The book described events where psychology and law needed to be combined in order to make sense of the issue. I think that the most known one was Brown vs. the Board of education. I am mostly interested in psychology but I love reading and learning about how it intertwines with the law aspect. The book discussed how psychologists are an important role in the courtroom. They can be used as advisors, used as references and consultants for jury picking, and most obviously they can evaluate somebody on the stand; whether it be the defendant, plaintiff, or merely a witness.
The legal process in its own right in terms of the Hierarchy of the court system is something that I was unaware of. The book describes how psychologists follow their personal interests when trying to find supporting evidence. This makes me question the ethical views that psychologists are held to. Are there certain “taboo” acts or something that are frowned upon that can be punished by the head boss in state to state or institutions? They also talked about how there are corrupt attorneys in the legal system. I know TV conveys a majority of attorneys to be “bought” and paid off. I believe that there are many attorneys that can be bought or bribed. TV may have started this judgment in my head but you see it in real life as well.
The difference in psychology and law, psychology in law, and psychology or law was somewhat confusing. (So if I’m describing it wrong please comment and let me know.) When first seeing this question I thought it would be easy. Psychology and law is when they both work together in the legal system and the psychology aspect of the case and intertwine. Psychology in law is thought to be when psychology plays a role in the legal system. I see it as if a defendant pleas insanity they bring psychology into the courtroom and use styles of inquiry to determine whether or not they are in fact insane. Psychology or law, I see as using either in observing what the crime has to do with most.
Terms: psychology, law, psychology and law, advisors, consultants, jury, evaluate, defendant, plaintiff, witness, court systems, insanity plea, styles of inquiry, crime.
If you look at the world, we all have history; individually, culturally, and universally. Psychology and law, like everything else, had its beginning. Today, we can look at both aspects of each individual culture of psychology and law and say they both focus on human behaviors, strive to reveal the truth, attempt to solve human problems, and improve the human condition. The road leading up to the relationship between psychology and law wasn’t easy however.
It started in 1906 when Freud gave a speech to Austrian judges about how their decisions were influenced by their unconscious thoughts. Then in 1908 two things influenced Psychology in and of Law as a practice. First there was the publication of On the Witness stand by Hugo Munsterburg. Second, in the Case of Muller vs. Oregon, lawyer Louis Brandeis filed his brief which later became famously known as the Brandeis Brief. His brief became so famous because he incorporated the use of social scientific evidence that for the first time was accepted by U.S Courts which increased wages, improved work hours and restricted child labor. Throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s the legal realism movement began. Legal realists formed and rebelled against natural law. Natural Law enabled judges to make subjective decisions in a particular case that reflected principles found in nature. Legal Realists wanted to redefine the purpose of law, saying that social policy goals and research evidence should play an important role in judicial decisions instead. Karl Llewellyn, a leader of the realist movement put together three core principles of the law. One, laws must be examined and redefined often in order to keep up with societal changes. Two, the law is not an end in and of itself, yet a means to social ends. And Three, law must be evaluated in terms of its effects it has on society. 1954 was a very important year not only for our society but for the growth of Social Science. Brown vs. Board of education ruled against segregation in schools and was the first ruling to make use of research that Social Scientists were developing. From that point in time on, people’s enthusiasm for psychology and Social science in law increased and in 1969 Psychologists started the American Psychology Law Society which has produced several journals since.
The goals and methods of Psychology and law defined as two separate cultures differ. Psychological Science is designed to explain human behavior and finding the truth whereas the law is designed to regulate human behavior and render justice; though neither truth nor justice are fully attainable. Psychology emphasizes characteristics of groups and is based on experimentation and research whereas Law emphasizes individual cases and is based on the hierarchal system and democracy. Psychology strives for objectivity in which human processes are shaped by human choices but the Law bases itself on a adversarial system in which opposing parties compete to win a favorable judgment. These two cultures work together today because of the power the legal system holds. It is a psychologist’s ethical obligation to help prevent any harmful, consequential decisions in the courtroom.
Surprising and knowledgeable information that I found within the chapter are the various roles psychologists have in law. I didn’t realize there were so many and I certainly didn’t realize the magnitude of their roles. Psychologists at times serve as advisors to attorneys or to the legal system. They help with jury selection, trial strategy, and witness preparation. I knew, through a previous class, the evaluation role that clinical psychologists play but I was surprised to see psychologists’ evaluation of legal practice and policy. Psychologists through this type of evaluation look at any social program that needs to be looked at for its effectiveness. Also, psychologists who work as reformers was interesting to me. They use theory and research to look at different areas of the law to potentially improve them.
Interjecting “Of”, “In”, and “And” in-between the two words “psychology” and “law” when explaining their relationship changes the meaning ever so slightly. When saying psychology OF law, I think of the how aspect; how does psychology play a role in law? Things such as jury selection, evaluations, and witness preparation would all be good example of this. The AND factor of the phrase would indicate the separate aspects of psychology and law. I imagine a Venn diagram here; underneath psychology listed would be human factors, human choices, behavior, experimentation, objectivity and truth. Listed underneath Law there would be justice, adversarial system, trial, court, and democracy. And included in the middle there would be conflict resolution, motivation, persuasion, and decision-making. The IN factor establishes the fact that Psychology is included in Law. This would be everything in the middle of the Venn diagram which Psychology and Law both have in common.
TERMS: Brandeis Brief, Legal Realists, Natural Law, Subjective Decisions, Evidence, Judicial Decisions, Society, Experimentation, Research, Hierarchal System, Democracy, Objectivity, Adversarial System
In Chapter one, we are introduced to psychology and law. We are given a brief history of psychology and law. The chapter talks about what roles psychology plays with and in law. We are given the conflict with psychology and law, for example psychology is descriptive and law is prescriptive. In other words, psychology tells us how people actually behave, and the law tells us how people ought to behave. Another conflict is psychology is based on empiricism, while law is based on authority. Law advances through the accumulation of rulings by the courts and psychology advances through the accumulation of dada by scientist. As the chapter goes on it also introduces the roles played by psychologist like advisors and evaluators. I thought this section was what I did not know that psychologist were seen in the legal system as advisors. I thought they were just called to trial because the research that they have done pertains to the trial. When reading this section I can see that psychologist do a lot more than just answer questions for a trial, some are there to analyze the ones on trial, they can also help by picking the jury and many other things. The most interesting to me was to learn and read about the cross-disciplinary training, I have always been into law, especially criminal law shows like Law and Order: SVU that is my favorite show. While watching this show they had a psychologist help them out and solve the case, well sometimes I felt like that is what I wanted to do but did not know that was possible, but looking at this chapter, and being in this course it made me realize that it is possible, but now I just feel like it’s too late for me since I spent a lot of my time focused on other psychologies. Meanings of words can be powerful, when someone says psychology and law, I think of how psychology and law work together. How they become a partnership. If someone were to say psychology of law, I would automatically think the psychological thinking behind the law. What is the law about, and why do people break it. Psychology in law, I would think of the psychology that is involved with the law process. Just changing those three words can give different examples of how psychology and law interact with each other.
Terms: Psychology, Law, Psychologist Advisors, Psychologist Evaluators, Cross-Disciplinary Training
I think chapter 1 in our textbook is a great way to introduce us to psychology and law. It really gives great points on how psychology and law can work together and yet explain their differences and how they might not always work together too. Differences between psychology and law being that psychology is more descriptive and law is more prescriptive. It gets into the method of ruling versus data. Law is based on authority and advances through accumulation of rulings made by the court. Psychology is based on empiricism and advances through accumulation of data produced by scientists. Psychology is key to a situation with law. Many issues arise in the legal system that a psychological. For example, it is wondered why people commit crime and how can the behavior of a criminal be changed?
Psychologist are of value to the legal system when it comes to a trial. The legal system needs a psychologist to act as an advisor, evaluator, and reformer. As an advisor a psychologist testifies about whether a defendant is competent to stand trial or if that defendant is likely to be dangerous in the future. They are pretty much a consultant. A consultant that assists with the jury selection, witness preparation, and trial strategy. As an evaluator, a psychologist figures if any social program ought to be evaluated as to its effectiveness. As a reformer, a psychologist does their part and tries to make change in the legal system. So overall psychology and law can tie in together to determine the chance someone mat have in court and they give a behavioral point of view.