Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
An Uneasy Alliance
law and the mental health professions
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Describe what incremental validity means and how it applies to the job of the psychologist in the court room. | Overall the goal of the psychologist is to assist in the work of incremental validity. Incremental validity can be seen as the steps at work in the process of fact finding- this is different than the view that the law demands absolute truth. |
| What are the three "state of the art" problems? | 1. There is uncertainty within the behavioral sciences (clinical vs. scientific opinions) 2. There are gaps between current knowledge and the questions of the law 3. Questions posed by the law are sometimes inherently unanswerable |
| Who wrote Psychological Evaluations for The Courts? | Gary Melton John Petrila Norman Poythress Christopher Slobogin Phillip Lyons Jr. Randy Otto |
| Melton et. al. point to one main responsibility that the law and mental health professions have when interacting. What was it? | Main Point: Mutual Competencies (especially of language) |
| Speak to the distance between the law and the behavioral sciences when it comes to culpability | Many relevant statements can be made but Melton et. al point to: Law- ultimately individuals have free will unless irrational mind overbears will Beh. Sci- Ultimately deterministic with emphasis placed on explaining or predicting behaviors |
| What does behaviorism, of the 4 different theoretical orientations mentioned, have to offer to the discourse on how psychological evaluation is incompatible with legal decision making? | Hierarchical discussion: a. behaviorism- most incompatible due to the conceptualization of individual behavior as the product of historical rewards/punishments- no basis then for voluntary behavior. |
| What does psychoanalytic, of the 4 different theoretical orientations mentioned, have to offer to the discourse on how psychological evaluation is incompatible with legal decision making? | b. psychoanalytic- superficially more compatible because of attempt to explain why underlying motivation for behavior existed. Thus, partially based on decision or conscious choice (they give example "embezzled money to pay the bills"). |
| What does humanism/existentialism, of the 4 different theoretical orientations mentioned, have to offer to the discourse on how psychological evaluation is incompatible with legal decision making? | c. humanistic/existential- fundamentally human behaviors seen as product of free choice, but, it is too undeterministic to match the assumptions of the law. ("Even in most dire circumstances people still have free choice") |
| What does a true (or organic) medical model, of the 4 different theoretical orientations mentioned, have to offer to the discourse on how psychological evaluation is incompatible with legal decision making? | d. most closely matches legal assumptions but it is rare that a true condition results directly in a behavior. (A good example being that genetic basis for mental illness only indicates a predisposition. Textbook example is of man falling off cliff...) |
| What solution is there for the paradigm conflict existing between psychologists and legal professions? | Fact finding! (the process of) |
| Speak to the process of fact-finding and how it can cause problems or gaps between the professions. | It is an inherently adversarial process. The behavioral sciences generally seek to facilitate positive interpersonal relations. Legal professions seek to resolve disputes by sharpening the conflict to expose all aspect of conflict fairly (pursue justice). |
| What is the Durham Rule? | aka "The Product Test" from 1950 Asks "Is the criminal act a product of mental illness?" |
| In 2005 Tribe concluded...? | "...for the most part, the law should bar evidence expressed in mathematical probabilities." |
| What is one of the main issues in using probabilistic data in the court room.? | We are applying knowledge about a group to an individual (also seen as an issue of knowledge accepted in the behavioral sciences applied to the court room.) |
| When is probabilistic information least prejudicial? | This points us to the difference between investigation vs. trial -when profiling a suspect during an investigation probabilistic data is not responsible for assigning blame- only for aiding with hypotheticals Not so in a court room! |
| You need to know The Federal Rules of Evidence Article 7:Opinions and Expert Testimony (p.16). What are rules 701, 702, 703, 704? | 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses 702. Testimony by Experts 703. Bases of Opinion Testimony by Experts 704. Opinion on Ultimate Issue |
| What are the 7 levels of inference and which should be avoided? | 1. Application of meaning to behavior 2. Perception general mental state 3. Formulation of general mental state into theoretical constructs 4. Diagnosis 5. Relating 3 or 4 to legally relevant behavior 6. Elements of ultimate legal issue (ULI) 7. ULI |
| When deciding if the opinion you are about to offer is useful ask yourself...? | Is this what I think as an expert clinician, or, a moral citizen? |
| What is the Frye rule? | In 1923 the case of Frye v. United States (when deciding is a polygraph was admissible) ruled that in order for evidence to be entered as such it must be "established to have gained general acceptance in the field in which it belongs" |
| What was the Daubert case and ruling? | 1993 court case Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals extensive dicta specialized knowledge rules of evidence "an opinion must be based on scientific validity" |
| What (and when) was the Kumho Tire Co. case? | 1999 Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael applies the rules of Daubert to all three types of knowledge; scientific, technical and specialized |
| What was the case United States vs. Scheffer about? | (1998) polygraph test results high degree of validity necessary before article entered into evidence |
Created by:
suesgotit
Popular Psychology sets