Psychology: Summary of chapter 5 and 6 (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

Summary of chapter 5 and 6
Insert name:
Institution Affiliation:
Due date:
Chapter 5
Eyewitness information continues to be the main source of evidence both in civil and criminal case laws. Nevertheless, eyewitness information received through traditional procedures of testimony and questioning is filled with potential misconceptions and inaccuracies. Even though, a witness may be certain of what she observed, such surety may not be accurate. Human memory and perception are similar to unexplored labyrinths whereby original input becomes transformed, partially lost and changed into a setup that fits human experience, expectations and also "disguised needs" of others. The criminal justice system has to involve in serious research on human memory and perception so that to avoid mistaken identification of people who are innocent. Trial attorneys have understood that visual identification is one of the most effective kinds of evidence which can be presented to judges. They know that quality of eyewitness influence the result of a case regardless of how logical and persuasive an argument is presented to the judges.
Eyewitnesses are expected to remember events and describe physical appearance of people and to determine how confident they are in the accurateness of their memories. Remembrance of accidents, crime scenes and other events depend on human memory and perception, which may be accurate or distorted. Sophisticated technology can recall crime scenarios and offer forensic evidence to specific details, though accuracy of human memory and perception remain more important than such sophisticated technology.
Eyewitness evidence is also important in civil cases such as in a wrongful death suit, a harassment suit, or a custody suit. However, this psychological research is more focused on criminal cases. Experimental psychology is a rich discipline that studies topics related to eyewitness testimony. Legal psychologists have adopted this discipline and have involved in eyewitness research studies in more related to their study in children’s testimony, efficient interviewing and pretrial identification techniques and other various topics. This research is mostly conducted under two related aspects (system and estimator variables). Estimator variables are particular to the individual witnesses, and are, therefore, beyond control and manipulation of the legal system. They include factors such as stress level, importance of the incident to the witness, age, racial bias, the time factor like duration of the incident and others. System variables present themselves after an incident has happened. They can be manipulated or triggered by officials of the legal system. They include interviewing methods, misinformation effects and pretrial identification procedures which can influence information offered by witnesses.
The growing research evidence recommends that the legal system should cautiously study certain assumptions concerning witnesses and develop crucial changes in the procedures. Regardless of certain issues concerning child testimony, rapidly developing research evidence accepts its accuracy especially on direct examinations and ensuring that leading questions do not influence the process. Whereas research shows that children normally remember less details of an incident than adults, what they do recall is reliable. Nevertheless, the age of the child is a significant variable. For instance, children under three years offer less accurate information than older children, though it is not essentially inaccurate. This same also applies to the eyewitness testimony presented by older adults is normally considered with suspicion, although the testimony of the older adults differs in accuracy. It should, therefore, not be assumed that adults are incapable to offer valid information. Researchers have provided many suggestions for enhancing accurate information of eyewitnesses and minimize the possibilities that erroneous identification will happen.
Pretrial identification procedures such as lineups, show-ups and photospreads have been subjected to elaborate research. Early findings developed important recommendations for law enforcement that were implemented in different levels in both states and federal jurisdictions. Some disproved these recommendations as unrealistic. However, research reveals that sequential lineups are more efficient than simultaneous lineups in appropriately identifying an offender. Nevertheless, when simultaneous lineup is utilized, it is advisable that the lineup overseer be blind to the identity (characteristics) of the suspect. This is due to the chances of lineup procedures producing false identification. This is the focus of legal psychology which needs continuous study and attention.
Chapter 6
The trial jury has been praised as a distinguished institution but has been criticized for delivering controversial rulings. Behavioral and social scientists have carried out elaborate studies analyzing the structures of the trial jury and its deliberate processes. Moreover, the researchers have examined jury procedures and regulations as well as how jurors are appointed and how judges offer them with instructions for accomplishing their tasks. Studies which examine jury decision making are mostly simulation studies whereby participants are offered with tasks or materials which imitate the situations through which the actual jurors are situated.
Though, trial by jury is supported by the American constitution for criminal cases including most civil cases, most cases filed do not proceed for trial, determined early by a judge or jury, and juries appeared to be preferred to judges especially in criminal cases. Nevertheless, some civil cases, especially, those concerning complex cases are mostly settled by judges alone. Trials settled before judges are normal known as bench trials.
Scholarly research and also case laws have worked on the issue of jury selection. Potential jurors (jury pool or venire) are assigned services and are subjected to a selection procedure (the voir dire) for every case. The "voir dire" refers to a questioning procedure which determines whether a juror will take part in settling a given case. Furthermore, jurors fulfill the statutory expectations like age and citizenship. Judges and lawyers may disapprove jurors for several reasons. Challenges facing a juror can be categorized into two classes such as challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are much controversial than the challenges for cause. Peremptory challenges are controversial in such a way because they do not expect a lawyer to present a reason for disproving a potential juror. However, peremptory challenges cannot be executed in a discriminatory way like based on the consideration of gender or race. Claiming that a peremptory challenge was utilized in a discriminatory manner is something difficult to be done. Nevertheless, it is evident that some individuals have demanded eradication for all preemptory challenges. On the other hand, challenges for cause have to be given supported by a particular reason like possibility of juror’s bias or he or she associates with one of the parties in the civil or criminal action.
Some social scientists have participated in litigation or trial consulting that may entail SJS (scientific jury selection). SJS assists a lawyer to select jurors who have greater potential to be preferably assigned duties to her or his client. SJS can be an extensive procedure consisting of a community survey and in certain ca...